Next Up: a "Flat Tax" for the Rich

[ThePatriot]

I believe that both, a small business owner as well as a millionaire, should be taxed at the same rate. The problem American's have, is that many feel that just because an individual has a lot of money they don't work. Or they feel that the rich have a responsibility to carry the poor. In a country founded on trickle down economics, tax brackets are virtually socialism.

 

[asterism]

We could probably cut the military budget in half...or by 2/3rds..and still be able to more then protect our homeland.

Invasions? Well we couldn't do that so easily anymore.

I'm on board with that.

Got any details?

-Shrink our Nukes to about 2k.
-Cut military bases around the world save for trouble spots like South Korea and Taiwan.
-Get rid of missile defense.
-Focus more weapon systems like the predator and less on fighter planes (although they are still needed)

Overall the focus should be on small limited military actions..and not on full out war...or nation building.

Ok, why no missile defense? That seems quite valid in my opinion. I can agree with the rest.

 

[asterism]

Would anyone pay taxes in your America?

If so, would your system of taxation fall more heavily on "earned" or "unearned" income?

How about consumption? I'd gladly pay more for that system.

Would your definition of "consumption" apply to economic elements that have no counterpart in actual cost of production, i.e., land rent, monopoly rent, interest and other financial fees, and insurance premiums.

"This economic rent is the major return to wealth.
"It is grounded in the finance, insurance and real estate sector."

Would FIRE pay consumption taxes at the same rate as labor?

Flat Tax

Yes. http://FairTax.org

 

[asterism]

Does a small business owner working 70 to 80 hours per week for $250,000/year deserve to keep her "earnings' in the same way someone "earning" $50,000,000/year deserves his?

The great thing about being a consistent defender of freedom, is that I don't go around under the arrogant pretense that I can decide who is and isn't "deserving" of their earnings.

Should the small business owner and plutocrat have their income taxed at the same rate?

No. Their consumption should be taxed at the same rate.

 

[asterism]

Does a small business owner working 70 to 80 hours per week for $250,000/year deserve to keep her "earnings' in the same way someone "earning" $50,000,000/year deserves his?

Yes.... yes he/she does..... THEY EARNED IT, its theirs!

That person earning $50,000,000/year didnt get that by sitting on their ass and doing nothing. They started a buisiness that employs hundreds or even thousands, and yes they deserve every penny of their earnings.

Otherwise why would someone put all their capital into a buisiness just to give it all away?

This arguement is retarded.

Should their incomes be taxed at the same rate?

Are producers and speculators of equal value to society?

About ten thousand Americans "earn" $50,000,000 per year or about 30% of total US annual income.

Should elements of income with no counterparts in actual production be taxed more or less than income based on production of goods and services?

You can't make the judgement on "value to society" at the upper end and then try to justify feeding those who can't/won't work. We either value our whole society (which we do, the poor in this country are upper middle class in third world nations) or we don't.

 

[georgephillip]

PATRIOT:

Many small business owners are multi-millionaires and have the ulcers to prove they have earned their money. While they're forced by the ruthless economic system they compete in to exploit every situation/individual they encounter, at least their labor produces something of tangible value for society.

I believe these same small business owners (earning over $250,000/year) pay taxes at the same rate as the richest 10,000 Americans who earn $50,000,000/year. These richest 0.01% of Americans earn their money more from speculation and government's tax bias in favor of debt over equity investment.

They get rich from using other people's money in the market and shedding other people's blood in Iraq and Afghanistan (and maybe Mexico when the War Racket becomes too expensive to wage half a world away.)

Finally, I don't know the history of supply/demand side Economics well enough to know if our country was founded on trickle down or not, but I am clear on the overwhelming unequal distribution of wealth out current tax brackets produce:

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool…

"10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%.

"This is your idea of fair?

"Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

* Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
* Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
* Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
* Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with...

"The joke of the thing (and believe me it is a joke to The 10,000) is how vociferously the players at table 2 and even table 3 will defend the same system that is working against them.

"In part, it’s because they are so close to the main table that they can almost smell the money and, for many, that drives them into a frenzy where nothing else matters but getting to Table One and playing with the big boys for their chance at Fame and Fortune.

"Why is that? Why do we feel that way?

"Perhaps it’s because we have an entire culture that emphasizes this behavior from birth.

"When was the last time you played a game where your primary objective was to help others?

"When is the sidekick, the person who helps a hero, not the joke of the movie?

"Have you ever seen Superman build low-income housing or watched Batman feed the homeless?

"No, we are trained to fight and win and people who don’t win are left in the dust, not worthy of a second thought other than as a foil for the hero to deliver his catch-phrase to."

Finally, consider the possibility that for thousands of years before anyone coined the word "socialism" ALL governments' principal obligation has been to socialize cost and privatize profit for a select few.

Phil's Stock World

 

[editec]

Flat taxes make perfect sense when you live in a society with FLAT INCOMES.

Otherwise?

It is the sort of fair solution that one might expect from a child who is unable to fathom complex problems.

 

[georgephillip]

The great thing about being a consistent defender of freedom, is that I don't go around under the arrogant pretense that I can decide who is and isn't "deserving" of their earnings.

Should the small business owner and plutocrat have their income taxed at the same rate?

No. Their consumption should be taxed at the same rate.

What's the US Chamber of Commerce's definition of "fair" or "consumption"?

Would you classify FAIR taxation as fundamently regressive?

"Ironically, even as Democrats who have not quite warmed up to the idea are set to take control of both Congress and the White House, a new benefit of the Fair Tax has arrived:

"If taxpayers received more of their paycheck in take-home pay, they would be more equipped to make their mortgage payments. So perhaps fewer Americans would be losing their homes to foreclosure."

Americans For Fair...

Does what I've bolded indicate any tax savings will be simply be redirected from government to Wall Street banks?

How does FAIR TAX differ from value-added tax?

"The flat tax is supposed to be accompanied by a European-style regressive value-added tax (VAT).

"By taxing 'value,' it essentially falls on labor – as in 'the labor theory of value.'

"The tax does not fall on 'empty' pricing in excess of value – what the classical economists termed 'economic rent,' that element of price (and income) that has no counterpart in actual cost of production (ultimately reducible to labor) but is a pure free lunch: land rent, monopoly rent, interest and other financial fees, and insurance premiums.

"This economic rent is the major return to wealth.

"It is grounded in the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector."

Flat Tax

Do you personally believe FAIR TAX would widen or narrow the disposable income gap in the US?

Does Alan Simpson have an opinion of FAIR TAX?

 

[Gunny]

Should the small business owner and plutocrat have their income taxed at the same rate?

No. Their consumption should be taxed at the same rate.

What's the US Chamber of Commerce's definition of "fair" or "consumption"?

Would you classify FAIR taxation as fundamently regressive?

"Ironically, even as Democrats who have not quite warmed up to the idea are set to take control of both Congress and the White House, a new benefit of the Fair Tax has arrived:

"If taxpayers received more of their paycheck in take-home pay, they would be more equipped to make their mortgage payments. So perhaps fewer Americans would be losing their homes to foreclosure."

Americans For Fair...

Does what I've bolded indicate any tax savings will be simply be redirected from government to Wall Street banks?

How does FAIR TAX differ from value-added tax?

"The flat tax is supposed to be accompanied by a European-style regressive value-added tax (VAT).

"By taxing 'value,' it essentially falls on labor – as in 'the labor theory of value.'

"The tax does not fall on 'empty' pricing in excess of value – what the classical economists termed 'economic rent,' that element of price (and income) that has no counterpart in actual cost of production (ultimately reducible to labor) but is a pure free lunch: land rent, monopoly rent, interest and other financial fees, and insurance premiums.

"This economic rent is the major return to wealth.

"It is grounded in the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector."

Flat Tax

Do you personally believe FAIR TAX would widen or narrow the disposable income gap in the US?

Does Alan Simpson have an opinion of FAIR TAX?

Wow. How much time can you spend believing George Goebbels.?

Try again and try sourcing something legit

 

[georgephillip]

Gunny:

Give me an example of a source you consider legit...

 

[asterism]

Should the small business owner and plutocrat have their income taxed at the same rate?

No. Their consumption should be taxed at the same rate.

What's the US Chamber of Commerce's definition of "fair" or "consumption"?

Not sure to be honest. Don't care much either. The US Chamber is a joke and a racket.

Would you classify FAIR taxation as fundamently regressive?

No. It is perhaps regressive to the extent that the top .1% of income earners may end up paying the same tax rate as they do now, but they've successfully avoided paying more than that this whole time. However since consumption is taxed, those at the extreme upper end of the wealth scale without income will not be able to avoid paying.

It really comes down to a world view of whether you think the tax structure ought to be oriented towards funding the government or controlling money. This hybrid of the two concepts clearly isn't working. I think we need a fully funded government more than we need a bunch of bureaucrats deciding who gets to keep what and then playing cat and mouse with the super rich.

"Ironically, even as Democrats who have not quite warmed up to the idea are set to take control of both Congress and the White House, a new benefit of the Fair Tax has arrived:

"If taxpayers received more of their paycheck in take-home pay, they would be more equipped to make their mortgage payments. So perhaps fewer Americans would be losing their homes to foreclosure."

Americans For Fair...

Does what I've bolded indicate any tax savings will be simply be redirected from government to Wall Street banks?

No, but that shouldn't be the purpose of our tax system. However you didn't post or bold any part that shows how many people won't have to worry about subsidizing Wall Street because they don't have mortgages.

How does FAIR TAX differ from value-added tax?

Tax is paid on products and services at the point of consumption, it's not paid at each point where the raw "materials" change hands. The tax is transparent, not hidden.

"The flat tax is supposed to be accompanied by a European-style regressive value-added tax (VAT).

"By taxing 'value,' it essentially falls on labor – as in 'the labor theory of value.'

So don't tax value. Don't tax income either. Something ignored by those who favor progressive income taxation is that we don't even really have that. FICA is the most regressive tax structure on the planet. Our tax system is a combination of progressive income and regressive income, the net result is still a regressive income tax. The problem is that the regressive income tax comes with an entitlement directly tied to that contribution amount. It's an unsustainable mess.

"The tax does not fall on 'empty' pricing in excess of value – what the classical economists termed 'economic rent,' that element of price (and income) that has no counterpart in actual cost of production (ultimately reducible to labor) but is a pure free lunch: land rent, monopoly rent, interest and other financial fees, and insurance premiums.

"This economic rent is the major return to wealth.

"It is grounded in the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector."

Flat Tax

Either I misunderstand your point, or you think that the FairTax and the Flat Tax are similar. They are fundamentally different.

Do you personally believe FAIR TAX would widen or narrow the disposable income gap in the US?

Again proper funding of the government is the purpose of taxation, not controlling economic indicators. However, I think it would give more opportunity to narrow the disposable income gap. The truly poor would not pay one dime of any of it, while more of the very wealthy would pay much more than they do now. Not all, but more. One more time though, the purpose of the FairTax is to efficiently fund the federal government not control society through distribution of income and wealth.

Does Alan Simpson have an opinion of FAIR TAX?

The last time I heard him answer a question about it he thought it was a flat tax, so his opinion is already a big fail for me.

 

[editec]

Hey here's another FLAT TAX proposal that I'm, sure you people interested in FAIRNESS can sign onto.

Anything over $1million a year is taxed at a FLAT RATE of 100%.

Everything under $1 Million you get to keep TAX FREE.

How's that for a FLAT tax system?

Seems fair to you lets impose a fair Flat tax guys?

It's a tax system that is flatter than hell so it must be fair, right?

 

[DiamondDave]

Hey here's another FLAT TAX proposal that I'm, sure you people interested in FAIRNESS can sign onto.

Anything over $1million a year is taxed at a FLAT RATE of 100%.

Everything under $1 Million you get to keep TAX FREE.

How's that for a FLAT tax system?

Seems fair to you lets impose a fair Flat tax guys?

It's a tax system that is flatter than hell so it must be fair, right?

Dumb post of the month

 

[editec]

Hey here's another FLAT TAX proposal that I'm, sure you people interested in FAIRNESS can sign onto.

Anything over $1million a year is taxed at a FLAT RATE of 100%.

Everything under $1 Million you get to keep TAX FREE.

How's that for a FLAT tax system?

Seems fair to you lets impose a fair Flat tax guys?

It's a tax system that is flatter than hell so it must be fair, right?

Dumb post of the month

Wow, thanks!

Given the enormous numbers of dumb posts that mine was in competition against this month (and every month for that matter, especially when it comes to macro-economics) , that's quite an honor.

 

[asterism]

Hey here's another FLAT TAX proposal that I'm, sure you people interested in FAIRNESS can sign onto.

Anything over $1million a year is taxed at a FLAT RATE of 100%.

Everything under $1 Million you get to keep TAX FREE.

How's that for a FLAT tax system?

Seems fair to you lets impose a fair Flat tax guys?

It's a tax system that is flatter than hell so it must be fair, right?

Flawed premise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Would anyone pay taxes in your America?

If so, would your system of taxation fall more heavily on "earned" or "unearned" income?

Yes, almost everyone in "my America". Not just those evil enough to have produced something.

 

[boedicca]

Hey here's another FLAT TAX proposal that I'm, sure you people interested in FAIRNESS can sign onto.

Anything over $1million a year is taxed at a FLAT RATE of 100%.

Everything under $1 Million you get to keep TAX FREE.

How's that for a FLAT tax system?

Seems fair to you lets impose a fair Flat tax guys?

It's a tax system that is flatter than hell so it must be fair, right?

Dumb post of the month

Indeed. All that will accomplish is to demolish economic growth.

 

[onecut39]

"In other words, the Obama tax increases are targeted at those who are largely responsible for capital formation.

Capital formation is the life blood for job creation.

"As jobs are created, more people pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes.

"As the economy grows, corporate income tax receipts grow. Rising corporate profits provide an underpinning to the stock market, so capital gain and dividend tax collections increase.

"A pro-growth, low marginal personal tax rate stimulates capital formation and GDP, which triggers a higher level of tax receipts for the other sources of government revenue."

Capital formation isn't being used for job creation today to the same extent as 1993.

It's more likely to be spent in the Wall Street Casino.

It would be nice if you could forgo the conservative economic pep talk and supply just a few little snippets of fact.

There is little evidence that tax cuts spur economic activity. Were that true the Bush years would have brought us boom times. Instead we got a recession and damn near an economic collapse. Economic activity was as great or greater when we had a 90% marginal rate.

ExxonMoblie made about 19 billion in profits and paid not one single dime in Federal taxes.

But lets keep doing that. Maybe someday it will turn out right?

You are wrong. There is plenty of evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth.

Look again.

Show me. Show me a graph of economic activity that shows tax cuts work. The Kennedy tax cuts don't show it. There were no Reagan tax cuts. Clinton increased taxes, and of course the Bush tax cuts speak for themselves.

 

[onecut39]

Well Somalia has a pretty thin, cheap, very open ended "gubmint". You may want to try your fortunes thar, Matey!

I hear pirating is pretty lucrative there too.

Wow...Two cheap strawmen in a row.

C'mon....Go for the hat trick!

Well..it basically isn't..

But now that we are at 50 states, close to 300 million people, a 13 trillion dollar economy, over 700 military bases worldwide, a standing army over 500k strong, 5000 nukes, a navy bigger then all of the navys in the world, combined, roads, bridges, electrical grids, airports, seaports, public transportation systems, water systems, and hooks into every financial system in the world; what kind of small, "limited", "gubmint" do you propose the manage all that?

Norquist's starving the "beast" and Friedman's trickle down have failed miserably.

Oh no sir! Trickle down works just as it was designed for the middle class. There has been immense trickle down.

It is all warm..............and yellow.

 

[georgephillip]

It would be nice if you could forgo the conservative economic pep talk and supply just a few little snippets of fact.

There is little evidence that tax cuts spur economic activity. Were that true the Bush years would have brought us boom times. Instead we got a recession and damn near an economic collapse. Economic activity was as great or greater when we had a 90% marginal rate.

ExxonMoblie made about 19 billion in profits and paid not one single dime in Federal taxes.

But lets keep doing that. Maybe someday it will turn out right?

You are wrong. There is plenty of evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth.

Look again.

Show me. Show me a graph of economic activity that shows tax cuts work. The Kennedy tax cuts don't show it. There were no Reagan tax cuts. Clinton increased taxes, and of course the Bush tax cuts speak for themselves.

Is there any proof tax increases stimulate economic activity?

Is it likely a return to the Eisenhower tax rates would have the same economic effects they had in the 1950s?

Any thoughts on the distinctions between "flat" and "fair" taxation?