A Flat Tax: Please help me understand how it is unfair to have a flat tax!

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The title says it all.

I think a flat tax on all americans is the only truly fair tax structure.

For all examples please use a 10% tax rate, I know its not realistic and would have to be higher but just for math purposes in any pro/anti flat tax examples lets use the easy number.


To me a person making $10,000/year paying $1,000 in taxes while a guy making $10,000,000/year paying $1,000,000 in taxes is fair.

I'm not sure how, under our current system at the end of the year, someone making $50,000/year being responsible for ~$12,500 in federal income tax while someone making $25,000/year is responsible to pay ~$3750 in federal income tax. After deductions its more like $8,000 and $0.00 which still doesn't sound fair to me.


So....now that my opinion is here please try to explain to me or convince me how a flat tax is less fair overall than our current tax system.

 

[DiamondDave]

Because 'fair' is subjective... concentrate on it being equal treatment by government under law.... that is the key... and it is 'SUPPOSEDLY' what libbies call for, but in reality do not want... as stated SO many times.. they are all for equal treatment when it benefits them, but will fully scream for unequal treatment of others when it benefits them

 

[Utilitarian]

Why not a flat 1%?

 

[DiamondDave]

Why not a flat 1%?

Why not a steaming hot cup of "SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL"??

 

[Dragon]

A flat tax isn't fair because all dollars aren't equal.

Money is just a token of exchange. Money is worth what it buys. When someone pays a tax, the way to evaluate how much he is losing to fund public expenses is best measured by what he would otherwise buy with that money, not by counting the dollars. Everyone spends money first on necessities, then on luxuries, then on savings and investment, finally on gambling.

The first money is always spent on necessities: food, clothing, shelter. If one is sufficiently poor, ALL one's money goes to this.

After necessities are taken care of, if one has more money, one spends on luxuries up to a point: eating at a decent restaurant, having a nice apartment or owning a home, having nice clothes, entertainment, and so on.

At some point, one has all one's necessities taken care of and enough luxuries for now, and if one still has more money it goes into saving and investment towards a big purchase or retirement or whatever.

If one is really rich, at some point money over and above all of these needs and desires is simply played with in various non-productive ways.

If your tax takes money that would otherwise be gambled and played with, it's taking nothing of any real value at all.

If it takes money that would otherwise be saved and invested, or spent on luxuries, then it's taking something of significant value.

If it takes money that would otherwise be spent on necessities, it's taking a person's means of survival.

A one hundred percent tax on income above the point where it would be gambled is a lower tax than a one percent tax on income so low it would be spent on necessities.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think the biggest problem is that a flat tax would not bring in nearly as much revenue as a progressive tax rate. This means that a tremendous amount of cutting would have to happen to not drive the deficit even higher. So if we're cutting programs and services, many of those would be programs/services used by the poor and middle class. So not only will they lose services that they depend on, but they will be paying more than they are now, only worsening their situation. That is, unless you implement some sort of exemption on the bottom end. But that puts us right back at a progressive system that people will surely not like, since "everyone isn't paying their fair share".

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Because 'fair' is subjective... concentrate on it being equal treatment by government under law.... that is the key... and it is 'SUPPOSEDLY' what libbies call for, but in reality do not want... as stated SO many times.. they are all for equal treatment when it benefits them, but will fully scream for unequal treatment of others when it benefits them

Well I support equality in the eyes of the law which is probably a big reason that I have trouble not seeing why a flat tax on all americans is unfair.

 

[Utilitarian]

Why not a flat 1%?

Why not a steaming hot cup of "SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL"??

U mad?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A flat tax isn't fair because all dollars aren't equal.

Money is just a token of exchange. Money is worth what it buys. When someone pays a tax, the way to evaluate how much he is losing to fund public expenses is best measured by what he would otherwise buy with that money, not by counting the dollars. Everyone spends money first on necessities, then on luxuries, then on savings and investment, finally on gambling.

The first money is always spent on necessities: food, clothing, shelter. If one is sufficiently poor, ALL one's money goes to this.

After necessities are taken care of, if one has more money, one spends on luxuries up to a point: eating at a decent restaurant, having a nice apartment or owning a home, having nice clothes, entertainment, and so on.

At some point, one has all one's necessities taken care of and enough luxuries for now, and if one still has more money it goes into saving and investment towards a big purchase or retirement or whatever.

If one is really rich, at some point money over and above all of these needs and desires is simply played with in various non-productive ways.

If your tax takes money that would otherwise be gambled and played with, it's taking nothing of any real value at all.

If it takes money that would otherwise be saved and invested, or spent on luxuries, then it's taking something of significant value.

If it takes money that would otherwise be spent on necessities, it's taking a person's means of survival.

A one hundred percent tax on income above the point where it would be gambled is a lower tax than a one percent tax on income so low it would be spent on necessities.

I understand all the points you are making here and they are valid points.

It still doesn't explain, to me, how an american making $10,000/year paying the same percentage of income as an american making $1,000,000/year is unfair?

The person making 1,000,000 is still paying 100x the total tax burden of the person making 10,000. Both are being treated the same under the law.

Help me understand how this isn't either fair to the rich or fair to the poor or fair to those in-between.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why not a flat 1%?

Why not a steaming hot cup of "SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL"??

U mad?

he isn't mad he is telling you that your response reads like you didn't actually read the first post in the thread and were just making a comment completely unrelated to the discussion.

 

[Care4all]

our gvt can not tax all earnings as it stands now....

our gvt taxes, taxable income, not anyone's full income, just as our gvt taxes businesses on their profit, not their entire income.

this is why there is a standard deduction and personal exemption....the gvt can NOT tax you on necessities it can only tax you on your perceived profits.

someone making 10k being taxed $1000 bucks is taking food out of his mouth or a roof over their head.

I agree with a flat tax, but only if there is a personal deduction for everyone, where their immediate needs are not taxed.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

The title says it all.

I think a flat tax on all americans is the only truly fair tax structure.

For all examples please use a 10% tax rate, I know its not realistic and would have to be higher but just for math purposes in any pro/anti flat tax examples lets use the easy number.


To me a person making $10,000/year paying $1,000 in taxes while a guy making $10,000,000/year paying $1,000,000 in taxes is fair.

I'm not sure how, under our current system at the end of the year, someone making $50,000/year being responsible for ~$12,500 in federal income tax while someone making $25,000/year is responsible to pay ~$3750 in federal income tax. After deductions its more like $8,000 and $0.00 which still doesn't sound fair to me.


So....now that my opinion is here please try to explain to me or convince me how a flat tax is less fair overall than our current tax system.

Taking $1000 from a guy making 10,000 a year is taxing the money he needs to survive with any semblance of a decent way of life. Fairness, as it relates to taxes, can also be applied to the principle that it is unfair to tax a person's income that is to be used for one's basic needs the same as you would tax a person's income that is well beyond need.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think the biggest problem is that a flat tax would not bring in nearly as much revenue as a progressive tax rate. This means that a tremendous amount of cutting would have to happen to not drive the deficit even higher. So if we're cutting programs and services, many of those would be programs/services used by the poor and middle class. So not only will they lose services that they depend on, but they will be paying more than they are now, only worsening their situation. That is, unless you implement some sort of exemption on the bottom end. But that puts us right back at a progressive system that people will surely not like, since "everyone isn't paying their fair share".

Well what if we found a percentage that if applied equally to all americans brings in the revenue to cover all the bills?

 

[DiamondDave]

A flat tax isn't fair because all dollars aren't equal.

Money is just a token of exchange. Money is worth what it buys. When someone pays a tax, the way to evaluate how much he is losing to fund public expenses is best measured by what he would otherwise buy with that money, not by counting the dollars. Everyone spends money first on necessities, then on luxuries, then on savings and investment, finally on gambling.

The first money is always spent on necessities: food, clothing, shelter. If one is sufficiently poor, ALL one's money goes to this.

After necessities are taken care of, if one has more money, one spends on luxuries up to a point: eating at a decent restaurant, having a nice apartment or owning a home, having nice clothes, entertainment, and so on.

At some point, one has all one's necessities taken care of and enough luxuries for now, and if one still has more money it goes into saving and investment towards a big purchase or retirement or whatever.

If one is really rich, at some point money over and above all of these needs and desires is simply played with in various non-productive ways.

If your tax takes money that would otherwise be gambled and played with, it's taking nothing of any real value at all.

If it takes money that would otherwise be saved and invested, or spent on luxuries, then it's taking something of significant value.

If it takes money that would otherwise be spent on necessities, it's taking a person's means of survival.

A one hundred percent tax on income above the point where it would be gambled is a lower tax than a one percent tax on income so low it would be spent on necessities.

Yes dollars ARE equal.. you just love to put personal aspects of individuals ON dollars... is the dollar earned by the pizza driver not the exact same as the dollar earned by Charles Barkley and exactly the same as the dollar you earn??

You put SUBJECTIVE shit into your argument...

Equal treatment... you don't get to call for it only when it benefits you, and then subsequently call for the removal of it on others when it benefits you

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because 'fair' is subjective... concentrate on it being equal treatment by government under law.... that is the key... and it is 'SUPPOSEDLY' what libbies call for, but in reality do not want... as stated SO many times.. they are all for equal treatment when it benefits them, but will fully scream for unequal treatment of others when it benefits them

Actually, a progressive tax rate structure is fair, because the marginal rates apply to everyone who makes money within each rate.

If the marginal rate on the first 20,000 is 10%, the millionaire pays 10% on that 20,000 just like the guy who only makes 20,000 pays.

 

[Utilitarian]

Why not a steaming hot cup of "SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL"??

U mad?

he isn't mad he is telling you that your response reads like you didn't actually read the first post in the thread and were just making a comment completely unrelated to the discussion.

What does fairness have to do with taxation? Life isn't fair.

If we're to believe that it's best to let the market clear everything, since life isn't fair and some people make bad decisions or face more hurdles than others, then why should I concern myself with how fair a tax plan is?

It's arbitrary. Have a flat tax or a bracket system. It doesn't matter either way. Fairness is subjective, and the wealthy will end up paying a larger amount than everyone else regardless of the system used, unless you had a flat fee for income tax rather than a flat %.

 

[DiamondDave]

our gvt can not tax all earnings as it stands now....

our gvt taxes, taxable income, not anyone's full income, just as our gvt taxes businesses on their profit, not their entire income.

this is why there is a standard deduction and personal exemption....the gvt can NOT tax you on necessities it can only tax you on your perceived profits.

someone making 10k being taxed $1000 bucks is taking food out of his mouth or a roof over their head.

I agree with a flat tax, but only if there is a personal deduction for everyone, where their immediate needs are not taxed.....

Which does not make it a flat tax, but indeed a progressive tax.... no different than what we have now.. hence why you and the libbie entitlement junkies and the libbie 'unequal treatment when it benefits them' junkies support such a thing

 

[RDD_1210]

I think the biggest problem is that a flat tax would not bring in nearly as much revenue as a progressive tax rate. This means that a tremendous amount of cutting would have to happen to not drive the deficit even higher. So if we're cutting programs and services, many of those would be programs/services used by the poor and middle class. So not only will they lose services that they depend on, but they will be paying more than they are now, only worsening their situation. That is, unless you implement some sort of exemption on the bottom end. But that puts us right back at a progressive system that people will surely not like, since "everyone isn't paying their fair share".

Well what if we found a percentage that if applied equally to all americans brings in the revenue to cover all the bills?

Sure, but what would that number be? And that brings us back to the point that this would then exclude a good number of people from paying anything which is what the far right seem to have a big problem with.

 

[uscitizen]

I am for pure flat tax with NO deductions on ALL personal income.

Interest, dividends, capital gains, Wages, etc.

the govt should not be in the business of social engineering thru tax systems.

What has been recently proposed by one on the right is garbage though.

 

[DiamondDave]

Because 'fair' is subjective... concentrate on it being equal treatment by government under law.... that is the key... and it is 'SUPPOSEDLY' what libbies call for, but in reality do not want... as stated SO many times.. they are all for equal treatment when it benefits them, but will fully scream for unequal treatment of others when it benefits them

Actually, a progressive tax rate structure is fair, because the marginal rates apply to everyone who makes money within each rate.

If the marginal rate on the first 20,000 is 10%, the millionaire pays 10% on that 20,000 just like the guy who only makes 20,000 pays.

No.. it is not 'fair' in the eyes of many... and it is definitely not equal treatment.... as stated... when you treat dollars earned differently because of situation and subjective exclusion, by DEFINITION it is unequal treatment.... the dollar #$125K I make now should not be any different as dollar #$20K that the beer vendor is making now... to state or support otherwise is to support unequal treatment by government under law...