Why are conservatives OK with the Flat Tax?

[Opteron]

I've often heard conservatives say the Flat Tax is a fair tax while the Progressive Tax is not fair, but why are conservatives ok with the Flat Tax? Under the Flat Tax, you still pay more in taxes the more you make, so you are punished for making more just like in a Progressive Tax. The only truly fair tax is a tax where everyone pays the same amount in taxes. Although impractical to implement, this is the only tax system that can truly be called fair. So why are conservatives still ok with the Flat Tax when you pay more the more you make?

 

[ArchieBunker]

I've often heard conservatives say the Flat Tax is a fair tax while the Progressive Tax is not fair, but why are conservatives ok with the Flat Tax? Under the Flat Tax, you still pay more in taxes the more you make, so you are punished for making more just like in a Progressive Tax. The only truly fair tax is a tax where everyone pays the same amount in taxes. Although impractical to implement, this is the only tax system that can truly be called fair. So why are conservatives still ok with the Flat Tax when you pay more the more you make?

I think the flat tax is a good idea. If a person makes more, they should pay more. A progressive tax is not a flat tax as I understand it, the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I've often heard conservatives say the Flat Tax is a fair tax while the Progressive Tax is not fair, but why are conservatives ok with the Flat Tax? Under the Flat Tax, you still pay more in taxes the more you make, so you are punished for making more just like in a Progressive Tax. The only truly fair tax is a tax where everyone pays the same amount in taxes. Although impractical to implement, this is the only tax system that can truly be called fair. So why are conservatives still ok with the Flat Tax when you pay more the more you make?

The primary appeal of the "fair tax", which I assume that you are referring to, is that many more voters would pay taxes and at the same flat rate, so it would be much harder for our congress critters to raise the tax rate.

 

[Opteron]

I think the flat tax is a good idea. If a person makes more, they should pay more. A progressive tax is not a flat tax as I understand it, the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.

In a progressive tax, its about paying more the more you make, so you pay higher rates at higher levels of income.

 

[Wiseone]

The problem with a flat tax is that it doesn't make practical sense to tax someone who makes 10,000 dollars a year the same percentage of their income as someone who makes 100,000 dollars a year.

 

[ArchieBunker]

The problem with a flat tax is that it doesn't make practical sense to tax someone who makes 10,000 dollars a year the same percentage of their income as someone who makes 100,000 dollars a year.

Sure it does. If the tax rate is 10% one pays $1000 and the other pays $10,000. The more you make, the more you pay.

 

[Thom Paine]

The problem with a flat tax is that it doesn't make practical sense to tax someone who makes 10,000 dollars a year the same percentage of their income as someone who makes 100,000 dollars a year.

:?: Why not ? Could you go with this a little more?

Thom Paine

 

[ttwtt78640]

The problem with a flat tax is that it doesn't make practical sense to tax someone who makes 10,000 dollars a year the same percentage of their income as someone who makes 100,000 dollars a year.

The "fair tax" would not, since it includes a prebate to (theoretically) offset that affect and taxes only consumption (not income).

What is the FairTax | What is a Consumption Tax | Tax Reform Solutions - Americans For Fair Taxation

 

[the_recruit]

It's a valid counterargument to the assertion that a flat tax is clearly "fair". Claiming a flat tax is "fair" is just as arbitrary as claiming a more progressive tax is "fair".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sure it does. If the tax rate is 10% one pays $1000 and the other pays $10,000. The more you make, the more you pay.

Except that the more you make does not mean the more you eat or the more utilities that you use. Basic living expenses are not proportional to income - the rich do not spend 10X more on groceries, gasoline or electricity than the poor.

 

[Fletch]

The problem with a flat tax is that it doesn't make practical sense to tax someone who makes 10,000 dollars a year the same percentage of their income as someone who makes 100,000 dollars a year.

That is basically how states and municipalities tax the public so there is no reason it wouldn't work on a national level. It would, however, make leftist redistribution schemes less workable so that is why they oppose it.

 

[a351]

:?: Why not ? Could you go with this a little more?

Thom Paine

Because taxing those with little disposable income to begin with at what would be the necessary level (%), would reduce both current and future consumption by even further reducing their ability to save or invest. It simply doesn't make practical sense to raise taxes on those who have nearly negative savings rates.

 

[TurtleDude]

I've often heard conservatives say the Flat Tax is a fair tax while the Progressive Tax is not fair, but why are conservatives ok with the Flat Tax? Under the Flat Tax, you still pay more in taxes the more you make, so you are punished for making more just like in a Progressive Tax. The only truly fair tax is a tax where everyone pays the same amount in taxes. Although impractical to implement, this is the only tax system that can truly be called fair. So why are conservatives still ok with the Flat Tax when you pay more the more you make?

the good thing about a flat tax is that politicians cannot easily pander to the many by telling them more handouts will be paid for by a tax hike only on the rich. If the many want the successful to pay more taxes, the many will have to suffer a tax hike as well

 

[TurtleDude]

The problem with a flat tax is that it doesn't make practical sense to tax someone who makes 10,000 dollars a year the same percentage of their income as someone who makes 100,000 dollars a year.

sure it does. what makes it so practical is preventing 1 million people who make 10K a year demanding that the one millionaire pay more and more and more and more

 

[TurtleDude]

Except that the more you make does not mean the more you eat or the more utilities that you use. Basic living expenses are not proportional to income - the rich do not spend 10X more on groceries, gasoline or electricity than the poor.

and the rich sure don't use 10X more government either but yet they pay so much more for the same services

 

[a351]

That is basically how states and municipalities tax the public so there is no reason it wouldn't work on a national level.

States and municipalities don't have to fund a national defense, and are heavily subsidized by federal funding in the form of supplementary income assistance. They're tasked with crafting a tax code tailored to their area's needs, rather than the overall well-being and economic health of the entire country. What may work for South Dakota and Utah is not necessarily preferable or pragmatic on a larger scale.

 

[Opteron]

:?: Why not ? Could you go with this a little more?

Thom Paine

I'll try to explain. Expenses are about constant for everybody, income above expenses can be considered as spent on luxuries. It's less impactful or less economically hurtful to tax income that will be spent on luxuries rather than income that will be spent on necessities and expenses.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'll try to explain. Expenses are about constant for everybody, income above expenses can be considered as spent on luxuries. It's less impactful or economically hurtful to tax income that will be spent on luxuries rather than income that will be spent on necessities and expenses.

why should the rich pay more for the same value received than someone else? and all a progressive income tax does is to encourage the many to vote for big spending politicians who promise them more paid for by the rich

 

[Opteron]

why should the rich pay more for the same value received than someone else? and all a progressive income tax does is to encourage the many to vote for big spending politicians who promise them more paid for by the rich

Well, what I'm saying is that in a Flat Tax, the rich are still paying more money in taxes the more they make. I am just comparing the tax systems economically, what politicians do with the money and how they spend it definitely needs to be addressed.

 

[Fletch]

States and municipalities don't have to fund a national defense, and are heavily subsidized by federal funding in the form of supplementary income assistance. They're tasked with crafting a tax code tailored to their area's needs, rather than the overall well-being and economic health of the entire country. What may work for South Dakota and Utah is not necessarily preferable or pragmatic on a larger scale.

It is noteworthy that liberals never take this perspective on any other issue. To them, a one size fits all national policy is what they want in all aspects of life. Romneycare, for example, may 'work' in Massachusetts but it is "not necessarily preferable or pragmatic on a larger scale."

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, what I'm saying is that in a Flat Tax, the rich are still paying more money in taxes the more they make. I am just comparing the tax systems economically, what politicians do with the money and how they spend it definitely needs to be addressed.

Yes the rich do pay more. However, a flat tax has a major method of preventing politicians from jacking that tax rate up on the rich-if they do so they will piss off most of the voters. The current system encourages them to jack up taxes on the rich

that's the main issue

 

[ttwtt78640]

and the rich sure don't use 10X more government either but yet they pay so much more for the same services

That is debatable. I don't use air traffic control, don't visit professional sports stadiums (or the roads that serve them), never see the heavily subsidized opera, symphony or playhouses or use any facilites for watercraft. I also have far less for the police to protect, no alarm system to summon them falsely and no fancy investments that require massive federal market supervision/oversight. The rich use more legal services as well.

you could close at least half of the federal gov't down and my life would be totally unaffected

 

[Kobie]

It is noteworthy that liberals never take this perspective on any other issue. To them, a one size fits all national policy is what they want in all aspects of life. Romneycare, for example, may 'work' in Massachusetts but it is "not necessarily preferable or pragmatic on a larger scale."

Thank you for telling us what all liberals believe! I will upload it to the hivemind immediately.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is noteworthy that liberals never take this perspective on any other issue. To them, a one size fits all national policy is what they want in all aspects of life. Romneycare, for example, may 'work' in Massachusetts but it is "not necessarily preferable or pragmatic on a larger scale."

most lefties I have dealt with despise state solutions and want federal solutions to what they see as problems. WHY? because utopianesque pillow headed solutions at a state level generally fail because such solutions attract the dependent and cause the net tax payers to leave. any state that has massive welfare handouts with the accompanying confiscatory tax rates will quickly become bankrupt

 

[TurtleDude]

That is debatable. I don't use air traffic control, professional sports stadiums (or the roads that serve them), visit the heavily subsidized opera. symphony or playhouses or have any watercraft. I also have far less for the police to protect, no alarm system to summon them falsely and no fancy investments that require massive federal market supervision/oversight. The rich use more legal services as well.

you could close at least half of the federal gov't down and my life would be totally unaffected

most rich people don't use stuff like the police near as much as the poor. same with the court system or jails

and I agree with you about the federal government.