• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flat taxation - I don't get it

Strelok

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
58
Reaction score
20
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Inducing more taxation on larger figure income provides more than taxing the same amount on a lower figure income. The person with the higher figure income will still beable to utilize a great deal of their received income from their occupation for both luxury and survival. They still reserve the great deal of their received money to be able to spend and therefore the economy still benefits from the amount of spending they perform. Taxation, in my opinion, is a necessary system for the state to use the collected money for spending on essential services (unfortunately sometimes unnecessary ones). The higher tax rate hardly effects the richer individual in accordance to the poorer individual. They still the "fruits of their labors" with survival based spending being a non-issue and luxury based spending still being loose. Taxation should be lower on poorer incomes simply because a greater deal of their amount is spent on base survival and with less to spend on luxurious items, thereby contributing less to the economic system. The deal to have lower taxation than the rich person is not only for their well-being on survival spending, but also the amount they can contribute to the economy via spending. This is much less of a relative problem for high figure incomes and ultimately "harms" them much less financially. A flat tax, I think, would have to have a relatively low tax rate unless lower-wage incomes are to be essentially extorted of their money. As the figure goes up, so can the relative taxation in accordance to the figure. Some problems in some tax systems such as the $40k can occur but those are more based on relative circumstance than dynamic taxation in abstract.

If it was at a low rate, I think the economy would take a severe wrong turn and minimum wages and welfare would have to be increased as a result. If it was high, the poor incomes would suffer exponentially. From that there would be less of their spending and the motive to work their current job for an overall crappy income. Since hard work does not always equate to your ultimate earning and more of context and circumstance, I think a flat tax would be problematic no matter what the scale of taxation level is.

I find a flat tax to be inappropriate and disturbing. For example, if the flat tax is necessary to be of a higher scale: 25% of someone's income at 25000 is enough to put them on the street given some bad luck. Their children will have nothing but the hardest circumstances to come out of. However people in the 100k plus bracket will feel it, but only in the sense that that second car they wanted may not be affordable. One has people living in close to homeless conditions, the other has them upset over petty bullcrap. A flat tax, I think, would just cause social unrest and massive income disparity. We don't need it and it wouldn't benefit the government or the social climate of the country.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Inducing more taxation on larger figure income provides more than taxing the same amount on a lower figure income. The person with the higher figure income will still beable to utilize a great deal of their received income from their occupation for both luxury and survival. They still reserve the great deal of their received money to be able to spend and therefore the economy still benefits from the amount of spending they perform. Taxation, in my opinion, is a necessary system for the state to use the collected money for spending on essential services (unfortunately sometimes unnecessary ones). The higher tax rate hardly effects the richer individual in accordance to the poorer individual. They still the "fruits of their labors" with survival based spending being a non-issue and luxury based spending still being loose. Taxation should be lower on poorer incomes simply because a greater deal of their amount is spent on base survival and with less to spend on luxurious items, thereby contributing less to the economic system. The deal to have lower taxation than the rich person is not only for their well-being on survival spending, but also the amount they can contribute to the economy via spending. This is much less of a relative problem for high figure incomes and ultimately "harms" them much less financially. A flat tax, I think, would have to have a relatively low tax rate unless lower-wage incomes are to be essentially extorted of their money. As the figure goes up, so can the relative taxation in accordance to the figure. Some problems in some tax systems such as the $40k can occur but those are more based on relative circumstance than dynamic taxation in abstract.

If it was at a low rate, I think the economy would take a severe wrong turn and minimum wages and welfare would have to be increased as a result. If it was high, the poor incomes would suffer exponentially. From that there would be less of their spending and the motive to work their current job for an overall crappy income. Since hard work does not always equate to your ultimate earning and more of context and circumstance, I think a flat tax would be problematic no matter what the scale of taxation level is.

I find a flat tax to be inappropriate and disturbing. For example, if the flat tax is necessary to be of a higher scale: 25% of someone's income at 25000 is enough to put them on the street given some bad luck. Their children will have nothing but the hardest circumstances to come out of. However people in the 100k plus bracket will feel it, but only in the sense that that second car they wanted may not be affordable. One has people living in close to homeless conditions, the other has them upset over petty bullcrap. A flat tax, I think, would just cause social unrest and massive income disparity. We don't need it and it wouldn't benefit the government or the social climate of the country.

Graduated progressive tax is most appropriate.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,155
Reaction score
82,642
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
NO it isn't

the propblem with a graduated progressive tax is the power it gives politicians

it also creates massive spending that ultimately will destroy the system

when the votes of 50-60-70-80-percent of the population can be bought by politicians who promise more government handouts that only the rich will suffer tax increases to pay for, there becomes no limit on how much spending will be promised to maintain power. Then one day the rich stop producing or their move their assets away and a generation of dependent parasites have no source of food.

The only way to stop this sure to happen disaster is to either ban voting by those who don't pay the type of taxes that are at stake or to give those who pay more taxes more votes
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A flat tax has its points, but it isn't feasible given our current political and economic circumstances.

To support our current budget the flat tax would have to be around 25%. Someone making 100k would be glad to pay it, its less than they probably pay now, and they'd have 75k left.

Someone making 25k would be paying 6,250, leaving them 18,750. 25k is barely enough to live decently on in the US, you're taxing a working man back into poverty.

The only way to institute such a flat tax would be to cut the budget in half in order to drastically lower the rate (HAH! Like thats going to happen), or to provide exemptions for "survival level income"... say $10k per household plus $5k per dependent, at LEAST, being exempt from the tax. Even then, what about SocSec/Medicare tax? Seperate or not? Many people in the $25k income bracket pay more in SS/MC tax than in income tax. Also if you do this it becomes another sort of progressive tax, in a way.

I think a progressive tax is going to remain necessary for the foreseeable future. I just think the "progression" should be modest, the top-end should be reasonable, and everyone with an income should be paying a little something, so they have a stake in the system.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
53,900
Reaction score
35,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NO it isn't

the propblem with a graduated progressive tax is the power it gives politicians

it also creates massive spending that ultimately will destroy the system

when the votes of 50-60-70-80-percent of the population can be bought by politicians who promise more government handouts that only the rich will suffer tax increases to pay for, there becomes no limit on how much spending will be promised to maintain power. Then one day the rich stop producing or their move their assets away and a generation of dependent parasites have no source of food.

The only way to stop this sure to happen disaster is to either ban voting by those who don't pay the type of taxes that are at stake or to give those who pay more taxes more votes

wrong
the problem we have with our existing "progressive" tax system is the addition of loopholes for the wealthy ... those who can afford to lobby because the benefits they realize by the loopholes exceeds the cost of their loophle advocacy

the benefit of a flat tax is that it would be equally collected for every dollar of revenues realized ... it would be loophole free (at least initially)

what the OP does not anticipate is that the government would normally need to also have a stipend available to low income earners, to provide a safety net of a minimum after tax income. then, instead of the corruption being located in the tax loopholes, the corruption would be found with the issue of stipends, determining eligibility

the flat tax might also exacerbate the underground economy. cash transfers would be very difficult to monitor then just as they are now. to eliminate that untraceable cash economy we would have to move to an entirely electronic monetary system and away from the use of cash
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,155
Reaction score
82,642
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
wrong
the problem we have with our existing "progressive" tax system is the addition of loopholes for the wealthy ... those who can afford to lobby because the benefits they realize by the loopholes exceeds the cost of their loophle advocacy

the benefit of a flat tax is that it would be equally collected for every dollar of revenues realized ... it would be loophole free (at least initially)

what the OP does not anticipate is that the government would normally need to also have a stipend available to low income earners, to provide a safety net of a minimum after tax income. then, instead of the corruption being located in the tax loopholes, the corruption would be found with the issue of stipends, determining eligibility

the flat tax might also exacerbate the underground economy. cash transfers would be very difficult to monitor then just as they are now. to eliminate that untraceable cash economy we would have to move to an entirely electronic monetary system and away from the use of cash

your rant has nothing to do with my point

even with the loopholes (is there a bigger loophole than not paying any federal income tax but still getting an equal say in how taxes are raised-a loophole that 47% currently get) the top 1%-a group that makes 22% of the income yet pays almost 40% of the federal income taxes and almost all the death confiscation tax.

And if you want to deny that dems pander to net tax consumers with promises that only the "rich" will pay more taxes be my guest. We all heard the Marxist in Chief spewing that crap all last election
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,155
Reaction score
82,642
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A flat tax has its points, but it isn't feasible given our current political and economic circumstances.

To support our current budget the flat tax would have to be around 25%. Someone making 100k would be glad to pay it, its less than they probably pay now, and they'd have 75k left.

Someone making 25k would be paying 6,250, leaving them 18,750. 25k is barely enough to live decently on in the US, you're taxing a working man back into poverty.

The only way to institute such a flat tax would be to cut the budget in half in order to drastically lower the rate (HAH! Like thats going to happen), or to provide exemptions for "survival level income"... say $10k per household plus $5k per dependent, at LEAST, being exempt from the tax. Even then, what about SocSec/Medicare tax? Seperate or not? Many people in the $25k income bracket pay more in SS/MC tax than in income tax. Also if you do this it becomes another sort of progressive tax, in a way.

I think a progressive tax is going to remain necessary for the foreseeable future. I just think the "progression" should be modest, the top-end should be reasonable, and everyone with an income should be paying a little something, so they have a stake in the system.

SS and MC were not supposed to be taxes-neither would have passed if they had been premised on that. I agree with the fact you stated but its the income tax rates that are the main subject of political pandering to the non-tax payers
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
53,900
Reaction score
35,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
your rant has nothing to do with my point
counsel, again you are wrong. but it is obvious from your posts that you do know about ranting
my rebuttal of your argument addressed your (very weak, very wrong) point that the wealthy are being unfairly taxed

even with the loopholes (is there a bigger loophole than not paying any federal income tax but still getting an equal say in how taxes are raised-a loophole that 47% currently get) the top 1%-a group that makes 22% of the income yet pays almost 40% of the federal income taxes and almost all the death confiscation tax.
if your premise were actually valid, we would find that the gap between the rich and the poor is closing. but in fact, that gap between the wealthy and the impoverished is widening

under the present "progressive" system, more people are moving from the middle class into poverty while those with wealth accrue more wealth

And if you want to deny that dems pander to net tax consumers with promises that only the "rich" will pay more taxes be my guest. We all heard the Marxist in Chief spewing that crap all last election
i recently heard Obama indicate that the tax system is presently inequitable. and since the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, my speculation is he does not think the tax system now favors the poor. we have the best government money can buy. our tax system is evidence of it
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,155
Reaction score
82,642
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
counsel, again you are wrong. but it is obvious from your posts that you do know about ranting
my rebuttal of your argument addressed your (very weak, very wrong) point that the wealthy are being unfairly taxed


if your premise were actually valid, we would find that the gap between the rich and the poor is closing. but in fact, that gap between the wealthy and the impoverished is widening

under the present "progressive" system, more people are moving from the middle class into poverty while those with wealth accrue more wealth


i recently heard Obama indicate that the tax system is presently inequitable. and since the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, my speculation is he does not think the tax system now favors the poor. we have the best government money can buy. our tax system is evidence of it

the rich get richer because they are more skilled and educated than the poor

the best tennis players continue to win more prize money becaue they win more tournaments

I want you to actually try thinking for a minute and tell me what it would mean if the most productive and industrious people were not getting richer
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SS and MC were not supposed to be taxes-neither would have passed if they had been premised on that. I agree with the fact you stated but its the income tax rates that are the main subject of political pandering to the non-tax payers

It is a tax because you are required to pay and they will come get you if you don't. That's a tax.

To those who make large incomes, SS/MC tax is a negligible line-item.... to those making lower-blue-collar incomes, it is a substantial expense. It cannot be dismissed.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,155
Reaction score
82,642
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
the reason why we have more and more "poor" people is because the dems-with considerable help from the GOP-make it easy to be poor and encourage the increase in the number of poor. Irresponsible breeding is the main cause of that-single parent homes are the single greatest factor in whether a child is going to be poor or not
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
the reason why we have more and more "poor" people is because the dems-with considerable help from the GOP-make it easy to be poor and encourage the increase in the number of poor. Irresponsible breeding is the main cause of that-single parent homes are the single greatest factor in whether a child is going to be poor or not

How come I'm not shocked by this sort of talk coming from republicans anymore?
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
53,900
Reaction score
35,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
the rich get richer because they are more skilled and educated than the poor

the best tennis players continue to win more prize money becaue they win more tournaments

I want you to actually try thinking for a minute and tell me what it would mean if the most productive and industrious people were not getting richer

it would mean the allocation of wealth was becoming fairer
our nation might move up on the international happiness index like other nations where the wealth is more equitably distributed

you're welcome
glad i could explain it for you
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I believe we should eventually live in a society that can be free of all government theft by taxation. The only tax I can endorse for the society we Americans live in today is a FairTax. I only say this to give background on my two cents regarding flat tax.

Hong Kong has an income tax that resembles a flat tax. I say resembles because in this thread we're talking about a capped tax for everyone when we say flat tax. In Hong Kong it's a flat tax with deductibles. These deductions come out of various charities or state services that people can provide. I could support a tax scheme like this and many benefit from it in Hong Kong but I favor the fairtax over it because the fairtax is less complicated for the individual, doesn't require information from the individual and the tax is not(necessarily) directly charged to the individual.

The FairTax still requires that individuals who retail goods and services should still file and all that and that's still theft and coercion but it's a helluvalot more voluntary and easier and everything. If I had to chose between Flat Tax, what we have now and FairTax, it would be a no brainer for me. 0 tax would be amazing but we don't have that society yet.

Hong Kong Tax - Understanding Hong Kong Tax
Hong Kong's Excellent Taxes | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary


How come I'm not shocked by this sort of talk coming from republicans anymore?

I think you're reading too much into that if you think there's anything wrong with what TurtleDude said. I've heard much worse from people I respect and they meant a lot worse too.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I think you're reading too much into that if you think there's anything wrong with what TurtleDude said. I've heard much worse from people I respect and they meant a lot worse too.

I typically don't subscribe to stereotypes of the unfortunate to support political causes and I don't care who it is that would have that idiocy ooze out of their mouths.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
NO it isn't

the propblem with a graduated progressive tax is the power it gives politicians

it also creates massive spending that ultimately will destroy the system

when the votes of 50-60-70-80-percent of the population can be bought by politicians who promise more government handouts that only the rich will suffer tax increases to pay for, there becomes no limit on how much spending will be promised to maintain power. Then one day the rich stop producing or their move their assets away and a generation of dependent parasites have no source of food.

The only way to stop this sure to happen disaster is to either ban voting by those who don't pay the type of taxes that are at stake or to give those who pay more taxes more votes

You read too much Ayn Rand. The rich don't produce. They invest and get returns on their profits. It is the laborers and employees who produce. And it is only because we require so much of them to produce that they are forced to work for lower wages, because otherwise nobody would be able to afford the products of their labor.

Besides, where are the wealthy going to go? Africa? Asia? The Middle East? Places that have less security where they face the risk of kidnapping and ransom from international terrorists and criminals? Nah. They'll be fine to pay their taxes for a strong police force and transport infrastructure for commerce.

However, I do think there are far too many tax exemptions in the U.S. Perhaps what is required is a universal minimum income tax - that is, everybody in the U.S. is required to pay at least something to the government. That would help offset all the tax exemptions that have been passed.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
22,763
Reaction score
9,400
Location
Lauderdale By-The-Sea, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
the reason why we have more and more "poor" people is because the dems-with considerable help from the GOP-make it easy to be poor and encourage the increase in the number of poor. Irresponsible breeding is the main cause of that-single parent homes are the single greatest factor in whether a child is going to be poor or not

Not a smart comment given income mobility here in the US. A flat tax would only negativily impact income mobility and create greater income inequality. The question for you is.... Why?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I believe we should eventually live in a society that can be free of all government theft by taxation. The only tax I can endorse for the society we Americans live in today is a FairTax. I only say this to give background on my two cents regarding flat tax.

Hong Kong has an income tax that resembles a flat tax. I say resembles because in this thread we're talking about a capped tax for everyone when we say flat tax. In Hong Kong it's a flat tax with deductibles. These deductions come out of various charities or state services that people can provide. I could support a tax scheme like this and many benefit from it in Hong Kong but I favor the fairtax over it because the fairtax is less complicated for the individual, doesn't require information from the individual and the tax is not(necessarily) directly charged to the individual.

The FairTax still requires that individuals who retail goods and services should still file and all that and that's still theft and coercion but it's a helluvalot more voluntary and easier and everything. If I had to chose between Flat Tax, what we have now and FairTax, it would be a no brainer for me. 0 tax would be amazing but we don't have that society yet.

Hong Kong Tax - Understanding Hong Kong Tax
Hong Kong's Excellent Taxes | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary




I think you're reading too much into that if you think there's anything wrong with what TurtleDude said. I've heard much worse from people I respect and they meant a lot worse too.

Businesses don't want the Fair Tax. It doesn't bring in nearly enough revenue to run the government. Businesses need public education in order to have an educated work force they can recruit from. Businesses need public road works so they can transport goods to markets. Businesses need strong law enforcement organization to prevent vandalization of their property. Businesses need a strong military in order to secure international trade routes for international shipping.

Businesses rely on tax-funded government programs and agencies far more than individual Americans do.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
the propblem with a graduated progressive tax is the power it gives politicians

And a flat tax doesn't give politicians power? If anything, it's worse as it can give politicians the capacity to raise taxes on everyone easily with simply raising the flat tax rate. Furthermore, by not allowing exemptions due to being flat, the rate increases will effectively be higher then progressive tiers.

it also creates massive spending that ultimately will destroy the system

And flat tax doesn't have this problem how?

Nothing you said shows how flat tax is any better.
Merely that the voting system of America has problems, which I don't disagree with.

Furthermore, all current flat tax systems in the world today have exemptions for the truly poor.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,155
Reaction score
82,642
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It is a tax because you are required to pay and they will come get you if you don't. That's a tax.

To those who make large incomes, SS/MC tax is a negligible line-item.... to those making lower-blue-collar incomes, it is a substantial expense. It cannot be dismissed.
The SS ponzi scheme is not the tax tha politicians use to buy the votes of the net tax consumers at the expense of the net tax payers
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,155
Reaction score
82,642
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
wrong-you have an opinion I have an opinion

you merely proved you are an envy driven individual who thinks others have a duty to pay your way

you have no right to someone else's income and the founders never would have allowed the crap that the multitudes of losers and the politicians who cater to them foisted on us
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It doesn't bring in nearly enough revenue to run the government.

No matter what the tax, the role and size of Government should be greatly reduced. I don't see how the fair tax will bring is less revenue.

Businesses need public education in order to have an educated work force they can recruit from.

That's if public education does it's job. Algebra and College level reading isn't rocket science that requires 12 years of education. The High School Diploma means that you were taught never to use the N Word and to say no to drugs until you're dropping acid with your liberal college professor and if you're lucky you can do fractions.

Businesses need public road works so they can transport goods to markets.

Why can't business pave their own roads? Why do victims of state income theft need to pay for all of this? I would hate to rely on a bunch of union lazy slobs employed by the Government who cuts them blank checks and affords them any amount of time to build and maintain "my" roads when I can get a bunch of robots, prisoners and mexicans to do it much quicker.

Businesses need strong law enforcement organization to prevent vandalization of their property.

So next time I see shoplifting at the mall I should dial 911 rather than tip off people employed by the mall called Security Guards who patrol the mall for loss prevention.

Businesses rely on tax-funded government programs and agencies far more than individual Americans do.

God bless state enforced theft.
 
Top Bottom