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

[Skull Pilot]

If you make a million and you get divorced and your wife gets HALF...you ain't gonna STARVE.

If you make $30,000 and you get divorced and your wife gets half....you're fucked.

There. See why a flat tax isn't fair now?

who ever said the rate would be 50%?

If you have 30,000 and the government takes 3,000, you are hardly fucked.

 

[Article 15]

If you want a purely percentage based tax system, and I do, the why not exempt the first X% on all income from taxes completely and then only levy a tax on the remaining 100-X percent?

That way everyone gets have some of their income 100% tax free.

I was discussing this same thing with Care4All earlier and I think that while it goes against the general "equitable responsibility for everyone" it upholds the american value of not stomping all over the little guy.

I get the opposition to this as I hold some reservations...i truly want everyone from $1.00 to a guadzilliion to pay the same % of income. However, I also understand the impact such a setup would have on poor and would be willing (if say i was involved in actually trying to debate and set up this type of system) to compromise and say that all americans pay zero taxes on their first $xx,xxx.xx in income.

I think by doing so many of those who oppose the idea of a flat tax, with no exemptions, would have a lot easier time supporting it since it doesn't crush the poor.

It depends on the tax rate and the % exempt.

Work some numbers.

Tough to find a happy medium there.

 

[TheDecepticon]

Not if you don't tax the 1st $20,000. I would assume the ex-wife has to pay taxes on her half of the alimony, if her total income exceeds $20,000. Most of the flat tax plans do not tax the 1st dollar, they give you a baseline at the poverty level or certain numberof exemptions if you got kids to support.

Well, it's not a FLAT tax if it has EXEMPTIONS, is it?
Jebus.

It is if I say it is. LOL, Seems to me you should give a single person a different income floor for tax purposes over a married couple with kids. Frankly, I'd limit the number though, if you have 12 kids you only get an exemption for the 1st two.

Point is, there's gotta be some amount of income that's not taxed, the bottom wrung of the income ladder are not able to pay whatever the flat tax rate is. Whether you set it at the current poverty line or tax people at a different starting point depending on whether they have dependents, everything above that gets taxed.

WHY must there be some amount that is not taxed?
If a FLAT rate is fair, it shouldn't matter should it ?

Oh, because people have to buy stuff like FOOD and SHELTER AND CLOTHES and it's not fair to tax them on things they NEED to survive, besides being EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR.

So, all I hear from flat tax proponents is that they never actually WANT a flat tax, they just want to eliminate the progressive taxation that higher income earners pay.
And WHY should higher income earners pay more?

"The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."
Adam Smith
Wealth of Nations


Let me know when you think modern day conservative intellectual giants like Rick Perry and Cain stack up against the guy who LITERALLY WROTE THE BOOK on economics.

 

[Article 15]

If a FLAT rate is fair, it shouldn't matter should it ?

Oh, because people have to buy stuff like FOOD and SHELTER AND CLOTHES and it's not fair to tax them on things they NEED to survive, besides being EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR.

So, all I hear from flat tax proponents is that they never actually WANT a flat tax, they just want to eliminate the progressive taxation that higher income earners pay.

I'm not a flat tax proponent but in defense of those you just broadbrushed, Diamond Dave doesn't believe in these exemptions. Exemptions schemptions, he wants to stick it to the poor too while taking a hatchet to the top marginal rates.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How can you manipulate the masses without a repressive tax code?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If you want a purely percentage based tax system, and I do, the why not exempt the first X% on all income from taxes completely and then only levy a tax on the remaining 100-X percent?

That way everyone gets have some of their income 100% tax free.

I was discussing this same thing with Care4All earlier and I think that while it goes against the general "equitable responsibility for everyone" it upholds the american value of not stomping all over the little guy.

I get the opposition to this as I hold some reservations...i truly want everyone from $1.00 to a guadzilliion to pay the same % of income. However, I also understand the impact such a setup would have on poor and would be willing (if say i was involved in actually trying to debate and set up this type of system) to compromise and say that all americans pay zero taxes on their first $xx,xxx.xx in income.

I think by doing so many of those who oppose the idea of a flat tax, with no exemptions, would have a lot easier time supporting it since it doesn't crush the poor.

It depends on the tax rate and the % exempt.

Work some numbers.

Tough to find a happy medium there.

Ok let me try something that seems realistic with the numbers. The percentage for taxes is going to be higher than what others have proposed but I still think its an acceptable limit.

Here is the policy. A flat income tax of 25% with no exemptions and all income under $30,000 is exempt.

So under that tax code this is what would happen to individuals @ income rates

An individual makes $20,000/year and has a zero federal income tax burden
An indivudual makes $40,000/year and has a $2,500 tax burden
An individual makes $60,000/year and has a $7,500 burden
An individual makes $75,000/year and has a $11,250 burden
an individual makes $100,000/year and a $17,500 tax burden
@ $250,000/year and has a $55,000 burden
@ $500,000 you pay $117,500
@ $1,000,000 you pay $242,400



How does that sound to you?

 

[billyshugeBhole]

It is fair... but I assume that is the point to why it will never happen.

 

[Wiseacre]

" So, all I hear from flat tax proponents is that they never actually WANT a flat tax, they just want to eliminate the progressive taxation that higher income earners pay. "


For me, the biggest reason for a flat tax that has few or no deductions, exemptions, breaks, loopholes, etc., is that we start over from scratch with no big corps and rich fat cats already getting huge tax savings from their lobbying efforts. Everything goes out the window, and if a congressperson or senator wants to insert something they'd have to face the voters in the next election.

I don't think it's a good idea for nearly half the workforce to be paying no income tax, or even getting money back. Yes, I know they pay the SS tax, and state and local taxes, and sales taxes in many places, but the tax base oughta be broader IMHO.

And I don't think the uberrich should be able to hide millions and billions in tax shelters and foundations. The nice thing about a flat tax is that it doesn't disincentivize somebody from making more money, and incentivize them to hide any of it.

 

[Article 15]

I was discussing this same thing with Care4All earlier and I think that while it goes against the general "equitable responsibility for everyone" it upholds the american value of not stomping all over the little guy.

I get the opposition to this as I hold some reservations...i truly want everyone from $1.00 to a guadzilliion to pay the same % of income. However, I also understand the impact such a setup would have on poor and would be willing (if say i was involved in actually trying to debate and set up this type of system) to compromise and say that all americans pay zero taxes on their first $xx,xxx.xx in income.

I think by doing so many of those who oppose the idea of a flat tax, with no exemptions, would have a lot easier time supporting it since it doesn't crush the poor.

It depends on the tax rate and the % exempt.

Work some numbers.

Tough to find a happy medium there.

Ok let me try something that seems realistic with the numbers. The percentage for taxes is going to be higher than what others have proposed but I still think its an acceptable limit.

Here is the policy. A flat income tax of 25% with no exemptions and all income under $30,000 is exempt.

So under that tax code this is what would happen to individuals @ income rates

An individual makes $20,000/year and has a zero federal income tax burden
An indivudual makes $40,000/year and has a $2,500 tax burden
An individual makes $60,000/year and has a $7,500 burden
An individual makes $75,000/year and has a $11,250 burden
an individual makes $100,000/year and a $17,500 tax burden
@ $250,000/year and has a $55,000 burden
@ $500,000 you pay $117,500
@ $1,000,000 you pay $242,400



How does that sound to you?

Reasonable.

 

[RDD_1210]

I was discussing this same thing with Care4All earlier and I think that while it goes against the general "equitable responsibility for everyone" it upholds the american value of not stomping all over the little guy.

I get the opposition to this as I hold some reservations...i truly want everyone from $1.00 to a guadzilliion to pay the same % of income. However, I also understand the impact such a setup would have on poor and would be willing (if say i was involved in actually trying to debate and set up this type of system) to compromise and say that all americans pay zero taxes on their first $xx,xxx.xx in income.

I think by doing so many of those who oppose the idea of a flat tax, with no exemptions, would have a lot easier time supporting it since it doesn't crush the poor.

It depends on the tax rate and the % exempt.

Work some numbers.

Tough to find a happy medium there.

Ok let me try something that seems realistic with the numbers. The percentage for taxes is going to be higher than what others have proposed but I still think its an acceptable limit.

Here is the policy. A flat income tax of 25% with no exemptions and all income under $30,000 is exempt.

So under that tax code this is what would happen to individuals @ income rates

An individual makes $20,000/year and has a zero federal income tax burden
An indivudual makes $40,000/year and has a $2,500 tax burden
An individual makes $60,000/year and has a $7,500 burden
An individual makes $75,000/year and has a $11,250 burden
an individual makes $100,000/year and a $17,500 tax burden
@ $250,000/year and has a $55,000 burden
@ $500,000 you pay $117,500
@ $1,000,000 you pay $242,400



How does that sound to you?

Sounds good in theory. However, the next thing you would need to do is calculate out how much total would be brought in by this tax structure. Then compare that to our total expenses and see if and how big the discrepancy is. This proposal may not be anywhere near enough to cover our expenses which could result in heavy cutting that some people might not be prepared for. And that's a whole separate topic!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It depends on the tax rate and the % exempt.

Work some numbers.

Tough to find a happy medium there.

Ok let me try something that seems realistic with the numbers. The percentage for taxes is going to be higher than what others have proposed but I still think its an acceptable limit.

Here is the policy. A flat income tax of 25% with no exemptions and all income under $30,000 is exempt.

So under that tax code this is what would happen to individuals @ income rates

An individual makes $20,000/year and has a zero federal income tax burden
An indivudual makes $40,000/year and has a $2,500 tax burden
An individual makes $60,000/year and has a $7,500 burden
An individual makes $75,000/year and has a $11,250 burden
an individual makes $100,000/year and a $17,500 tax burden
@ $250,000/year and has a $55,000 burden
@ $500,000 you pay $117,500
@ $1,000,000 you pay $242,400



How does that sound to you?

Sounds good in theory. However, the next thing you would need to do is calculate out how much total would be brought in by this tax structure. Then compare that to our total expenses and see if and how big the discrepancy is. This proposal may not be anywhere near enough to cover our expenses which could result in heavy cutting that some people might not be prepared for. And that's a whole separate topic!

yeah it is

I was thinking that too. Basically we would have to do what you said and figure out the total revunue then keep addding or subtracting a percentage point until we find the "sweet spot"

 

[NYcarbineer]

And as you might be able to see... I have broken it down to show the inequity in that scenario as well... it is just another name for the same progressive bullshit

How do you propose to get people with no money to pay their equal share of the federal tax bill.

Let's say the budget is 2 trillion. Let's say we have 200 million people that have to pay that.

That comes to 10,000 per person. EQUAL TREATMENT. How are you going to make the 10,000 a year guy pay his EQUAL SHARE? Take ALL his money?

I did not promote equal 'share' or 'amount'... I promoted equal % on each and every dollar earned... no exceptions, no loopholes, no deductions...

So... since we tax on income and not amassed wealth of accumulation... your 'no money' scenario makes no sense... you earn no money in a given year and you pay no income taxes on it... they are paying the same % on every dollar earned from earning $1 and up though...

Now... if a person makes $1000 and the tax is 10%, they pay $100... someone else makes $1000000, they pay 10% on every dollar just like the guy who earned 1K, and that bill comes out to $100000... and the person making $10000000 pays $1000000... if there are 10X as many people making 1K as there are 100K, guess what, the need for 10K per person on average is still taken care of...

You are trying every progressive liberal trick in the book... I just do not fall for them

Paying the same % is NOT equal treatment, since you've decided to rant about equal treatment.
You don't go to the store and pay a % of your income for a television. If the tv is 500 bucks you pay 500 bucks whether you are a millionaire or make 50 grand a year.

That is equal treatment. So equal treatment on taxes would be that everyone pays the same amount of federal taxes.

If you're going to claim a flat tax is 'equal treatment' then you're acknowledging that some individuals paying thousands more in federal taxes than other individuals is 'equal treatment'.

Once you concede that, the only other issue is how much more or less certain people should pay.

 

[Warrior102]

How do you propose to get people with no money to pay their equal share of the federal tax bill.

Let's say the budget is 2 trillion. Let's say we have 200 million people that have to pay that.

That comes to 10,000 per person. EQUAL TREATMENT. How are you going to make the 10,000 a year guy pay his EQUAL SHARE? Take ALL his money?

I did not promote equal 'share' or 'amount'... I promoted equal % on each and every dollar earned... no exceptions, no loopholes, no deductions...

So... since we tax on income and not amassed wealth of accumulation... your 'no money' scenario makes no sense... you earn no money in a given year and you pay no income taxes on it... they are paying the same % on every dollar earned from earning $1 and up though...

Now... if a person makes $1000 and the tax is 10%, they pay $100... someone else makes $1000000, they pay 10% on every dollar just like the guy who earned 1K, and that bill comes out to $100000... and the person making $10000000 pays $1000000... if there are 10X as many people making 1K as there are 100K, guess what, the need for 10K per person on average is still taken care of...

You are trying every progressive liberal trick in the book... I just do not fall for them

Paying the same % is NOT equal treatment, since you've decided to rant about equal treatment.
You don't go to the store and pay a % of your income for a television. If the tv is 500 bucks you pay 500 bucks whether you are a millionaire or make 50 grand a year.

That is equal treatment. So equal treatment on taxes would be that everyone pays the same amount of federal taxes.

If you're going to claim a flat tax is 'equal treatment' then you're acknowledging that some individuals paying thousands more in federal taxes than other individuals is 'equal treatment'.

Once you concede that, the only other issue is how much more or less certain people should pay.

Jerk off, kiss your Mother good night, and go to bed. You've had a long day.

 

[Jackson]

I am not as well versed on the tax plans as the rest of you, but I do think every American enjoys the protection of our defense system, infrastructure and education. Everyone should contribute to the country regardless of the income. A flat or progressive tax would be alright, but I want those who receive welfare to contribute too, perhaps 10%. They are receiving more benefits than the rest of the population. Some that are able workers that are now on welfare may find that getting a job more profitable that welfare.

I do not like that our governemnt gives funds to religipus organizations(some churches are funded where others are not) and think that dumping the charitiy deduction may see the rich contributing less. I would like to see more government funded programs , such as Endowment to the arts and perhaps some scholarships eliminated, for that isn't constitutional for the government to to give. Scholarships should be by private donations.

Government programs must be following the strict interpretation of the constitution.

 

[Care4all]

I am not as well versed on the tax plans as the rest of you, but I do think every American enjoys the protection of our defense system, infrastructure and education. Everyone should contribute to the country regardless of the income. A flat or progressive tax would be alright, but I want those who receive welfare to contribute too, perhaps 10%. They are receiving more benefits than the rest of the population. Some that are able workers that are now on welfare may find that getting a job more profitable that welfare.

I do not like that our governemnt gives funds to religipus organizations(some churches are funded where others are not) and think that dumping the charitiy deduction may see the rich contributing less. I would like to see more government funded programs , such as Endowment to the arts and perhaps some scholarships eliminated, for that isn't constitutional for the government to to give. Scholarships should be by private donations.

Government programs must be following the strict interpretation of the constitution.

silly to make those on welfare pay the gvt tax monies just to get them back from the gvt in these benefits....why not let them keep THEIR own money, and take less in benefit monies?

taxing many, would just put them at a level of needing gvt help and qualifying for gvt help....let them keep THEIR OWN money....

they pay LOT'S in Taxes already that hurts them greatly at such a low level of income....gas taxes, cigarette taxes, SS taxes, state income taxes, medicare taxes, state sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes in their rents, license fees, corporate taxes in all that they purchase for the state and federal gvt......

GET REAL jackson, they ALREADY contribute to their nation......wake up!

 

[DiamondDave]

Now I betcha....

Those promoting the arbitrary exemption of X number of the first dollars earned, are also completely against the arbitrary exemption of people making over 120K no longer having a portion go to the current SS tax.... and this would further show the hypocrisy, because that is one that does not benefit them

 

[DiamondDave]

How do you propose to get people with no money to pay their equal share of the federal tax bill.

Let's say the budget is 2 trillion. Let's say we have 200 million people that have to pay that.

That comes to 10,000 per person. EQUAL TREATMENT. How are you going to make the 10,000 a year guy pay his EQUAL SHARE? Take ALL his money?

I did not promote equal 'share' or 'amount'... I promoted equal % on each and every dollar earned... no exceptions, no loopholes, no deductions...

So... since we tax on income and not amassed wealth of accumulation... your 'no money' scenario makes no sense... you earn no money in a given year and you pay no income taxes on it... they are paying the same % on every dollar earned from earning $1 and up though...

Now... if a person makes $1000 and the tax is 10%, they pay $100... someone else makes $1000000, they pay 10% on every dollar just like the guy who earned 1K, and that bill comes out to $100000... and the person making $10000000 pays $1000000... if there are 10X as many people making 1K as there are 100K, guess what, the need for 10K per person on average is still taken care of...

You are trying every progressive liberal trick in the book... I just do not fall for them

Paying the same % is NOT equal treatment, since you've decided to rant about equal treatment.
You don't go to the store and pay a % of your income for a television. If the tv is 500 bucks you pay 500 bucks whether you are a millionaire or make 50 grand a year.

That is equal treatment. So equal treatment on taxes would be that everyone pays the same amount of federal taxes.

If you're going to claim a flat tax is 'equal treatment' then you're acknowledging that some individuals paying thousands more in federal taxes than other individuals is 'equal treatment'.

Once you concede that, the only other issue is how much more or less certain people should pay.

We are talking tax... not a purchase of a good or service.... are you then saying sales tax is not equal treatment...?? Seems to me it is... you're taxing the income and each dollar as a part of that income... you are not taxing a part of the individual citizen

And if you are talking good purchase... based on income, should one person pay $1 for a gallon of milk because they make 30K, and another pay $10 for the same gallon of milk because they earn 100K??

 

[Skull Pilot]

Now I betcha....

Those promoting the arbitrary exemption of X number of the first dollars earned, are also completely against the arbitrary exemption of people making over 120K no longer having a portion go to the current SS tax.... and this would further show the hypocrisy, because that is one that does not benefit them

SS is a bone of contention anyway.

Most people have been duped into believing that SS is a good use of their money when in all reality they would be better off if they controlled that 15% of their lifetime income.

It doesn't matter how many times you run the numbers for the sheep they just refuse to believe that they can do better than the government when it comes to their money.

 

[editec]

Here's the trouble with the FLAT TAX, as I see it.

You know all those "loopholes" ya'll think will go away?

They won't go away because they are not part of the TAX RATE.

They are found in the tax codes and presumably are the code written to describe EXPENSES.

So read this again...the FLAT TAX, as propsed by Cain, et al, will do NOTHING to close loopholes.

The proposed tax reforms will not close a single loophole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I did not promote equal 'share' or 'amount'... I promoted equal % on each and every dollar earned... no exceptions, no loopholes, no deductions...

So... since we tax on income and not amassed wealth of accumulation... your 'no money' scenario makes no sense... you earn no money in a given year and you pay no income taxes on it... they are paying the same % on every dollar earned from earning $1 and up though...

Now... if a person makes $1000 and the tax is 10%, they pay $100... someone else makes $1000000, they pay 10% on every dollar just like the guy who earned 1K, and that bill comes out to $100000... and the person making $10000000 pays $1000000... if there are 10X as many people making 1K as there are 100K, guess what, the need for 10K per person on average is still taken care of...

You are trying every progressive liberal trick in the book... I just do not fall for them

Paying the same % is NOT equal treatment, since you've decided to rant about equal treatment.
You don't go to the store and pay a % of your income for a television. If the tv is 500 bucks you pay 500 bucks whether you are a millionaire or make 50 grand a year.

That is equal treatment. So equal treatment on taxes would be that everyone pays the same amount of federal taxes.

If you're going to claim a flat tax is 'equal treatment' then you're acknowledging that some individuals paying thousands more in federal taxes than other individuals is 'equal treatment'.

Once you concede that, the only other issue is how much more or less certain people should pay.

We are talking tax... not a purchase of a good or service.... are you then saying sales tax is not equal treatment...?? Seems to me it is... you're taxing the income and each dollar as a part of that income... you are not taxing a part of the individual citizen

And if you are talking good purchase... based on income, should one person pay $1 for a gallon of milk because they make 30K, and another pay $10 for the same gallon of milk because they earn 100K??

You're claiming that the same percentage tax rate is 'equal treatment'. It's not. It's like your town tax, based on your property value. It's a percent of your property value, and it might be the same percent for everyone, but it isn't an equal payment for everyone. You might pay $2000 a year in town taxes, your neighbor might pay $1000, just because his property is worth less than yours. You both get the same services from the town, but your cost is double.

How is that equal treatment?