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

[RDD_1210]

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

But doesn't your point highlight that our current system is "fair" in that it taxes the dollars and not the person. Meaning that everyones first $20k is taxes the same way, just as everyones million + is taxed the same way. It's the money that is taxed, not the person.

 

[8537]

Will this 10% rate include all forms of income?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

So what if some low income household is getting $300 a month in food stamps? You want to raise their taxes? Why not just take away their food stamps? Wouldn't that be more efficient and achieve the same effect?

 

[uscitizen]

Will this 10% rate include all forms of income?

Not the latest proposal, it excludes capital gains and such.
And the choice concept would allow the rich to pay less and would result in even less tax income for the govt.

 

[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

But doesn't your point highlight that our current system is "fair" in that it taxes the dollars and not the person. Meaning that everyones first $20k is taxes the same way, just as everyones million + is taxed the same way. It's the money that is taxed, not the person.

It has nothing to do with fair... just as a flat sales tax of 6% has nothing to do with fair... it in fact takes the personal equation out of it and treats each dollar equally... simple

And a floor or rate that varies on a subjective income 'level' creates a progressive rate that varies depending on income... By nature it is not equal treatment... I have posted the math many times showing that a 20K floor makes for a differing rate on all income earned for someone making 30K than someone making 100K and someone making 10MIL... it is a roundabout sneaking way of you calling for the exact same progressive bullshit.... our current system or a floor system is not equal treatment.. a flat sales tax is indeed equal treatment.. and a flat tax system with no deductions, exceptions, loopholes, etc is equal treatment

 

[NYcarbineer]

Will this 10% rate include all forms of income?

Of course not. They'll want the capital gains tax for the 'job creators' to be zero, so the millionaire making half his income in capital gains will pay an effective 5% rate, while the person who cleans the toilets in his mansion pays the full 10%.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.....

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.

So both of you are basically saying that at lower income levels the taxes are actually going to take away from money for basic needs while at higher income levels the taxes would not take from money the people need to survive, making a flat tax unfair. Correct?

Would either of you be able to support a flat tax that say taxed all income over $20,000 at XX percent and all income under $20,000 at zero percent. Basically a flat tax that doesn't start taxing income until some basic level of income is reached.

I agree that it is more hardship inducing to tax a person making barely enough to survie, i do agree with that completely and that it sucks and causes a real measureable hurt on their standard of living.


I still don't see it as being fair to exempt a certain class of people from taxes based on income. However, I do understand the difference in impact a XX% tax would have on someone making at or below the poverty line vs the same XX%'s impact on a person making $1,000,000. The impact would cause more hardship for the poor person than the rich person. With this knowledge I still don't find it unfair to charge everyone the same, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to look into what I suggested 2 paragraphs above.

 

[Care4all]

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...

it's not unequal treatment if everyone is treated the same for each dollar earned.

you know i differ with ya on that....

 

[Cuyo]

Because the first dollar you make is a lot different than the last.

Just as companies are allowed to write off certain expenses as cost of doing business, we grant a certain amount to individuals and families at lower rates, since your first dollars are going to the necessities of life; something you need less and less of the higher you get into income.

But instead of making everyone fill out a huge, complex tax return every year with thousands of rules and stipulations (like a corporate return), we simplify it into an identical sliding scale that applies to everyone.

That's the important fact some people miss: The same exact sliding scale applies to everyone.

 

[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.

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...

Equal treatment would eliminate any tax breaks for religious institutions and that will never happen,

so it's really not useful to try to structure a real world argument around some lofty notion of 'equal treatment'.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

So what if some low income household is getting $300 a month in food stamps? You want to raise their taxes? Why not just take away their food stamps? Wouldn't that be more efficient and achieve the same effect?

Blind equal stake in the game...

Oh... and eliminate their food stamps.. they can work like anyone else... reducing the need for govt expenditure and reducing the level of a needed tax rate to support govt

 

[RDD_1210]

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.....

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.

So both of you are basically saying that at lower income levels the taxes are actually going to take away from money for basic needs while at higher income levels the taxes would not take from money the people need to survive, making a flat tax unfair. Correct?

Would either of you be able to support a flat tax that say taxed all income over $20,000 at XX percent and all income under $20,000 at zero percent. Basically a flat tax that doesn't start taxing income until some basic level of income is reached.

I agree that it is more hardship inducing to tax a person making barely enough to survie, i do agree with that completely and that it sucks and causes a real measureable hurt on their standard of living.


I still don't see it as being fair to exempt a certain class of people from taxes based on income. However, I do understand the difference in impact a XX% tax would have on someone making at or below the poverty line vs the same XX%'s impact on a person making $1,000,000. The impact would cause more hardship for the poor person than the rich person. With this knowledge I still don't find it unfair to charge everyone the same, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to look into what I suggested 2 paragraphs above.

See as soon as you have two tiers, people like DiamondDave says no good, you now have a progressive system. He's right, that is a progressive system, but that doesn't mean what he wants is a better option. Basically, his system would completely shit on the poorest among us in the name of "fairness".

 

[uscitizen]

You all do realize that the tax prep outfits will spend their last dollar fighting this don't you?
but then they are parasitic industries anyway.

 

[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?

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.

No it wouldn't exlude everyone.

Say the percentage was found to be 25% to keep every program we have now without incuring and more debt as a nation. The person making 10,000/year is now going to pay 2500 in taxes and the person making 1,000,000 is going to pay 250,000. Everyone still pays.

I think you may have assumed something I wasn't thinking about.....maybe.

 

[Dragon]

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?

A person making $10,000 a year is spending all of that, or nearly so, on necessities of survival.

A person making a million a year is spending a considerable percentage of his income on gambling.

Apply, say, a twenty percent tax to both of them, and you are taking $200,000 of gambling money from the millionaire and $2,000 of survival money from the poor fellow.

$2,000 of survival money is worth MUCH more than $200,000 of gambling money. In terms of what each is losing, the poor person is paying by far the higher tax.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

This is basically the underlying theme of my opinion on taxes.

If you earn money its taxed at the same percent as everyone else no matter how you earned it or how much you earned.

 

[DiamondDave]

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...

it's not unequal treatment if everyone is treated the same for each dollar earned.

you know i differ with ya on that....

It is not the same on each dollar earned when dollar #75K is not treated the same as dollar#15K...

Sales tax... that is equal treatment... Progressive tax by definition is not equal treatment...

What if the number of votes were reliant on a # of dollars?? All votes would still count as 1...
This is the same kind of twisting bullshit and shifting of subjective viewpoint that supporters of a progressive system spew when they call it equal...

 

[WillowTree]

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.

It's not unfair.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

A person making $10,000 a year is spending all of that, or nearly so, on necessities of survival.

A person making a million a year is spending a considerable percentage of his income on gambling.

Apply, say, a twenty percent tax to both of them, and you are taking $200,000 of gambling money from the millionaire and $2,000 of survival money from the poor fellow.

$2,000 of survival money is worth MUCH more than $200,000 of gambling money. In terms of what each is losing, the poor person is paying by far the higher tax.

No... in your VIEW it is PERSONALLY worth a differing IMPACT... in fact 200K is still worth more than 2K

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Will this 10% rate include all forms of income?

The percentage is irrelivant to the conversation really. I just picked 10% to make examples with math easier .

Yes, I would personally think that a true flat tax would treat all forms of income equally so if its cap gains, inheritance, income, gambling winnings, whatever it is all considered income and taxed at the same rate, no exemptions.

However, most of the proposals from canidates don't do it this way nor do most general flat tax proposals by many who support the idea.