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

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Which is by proxy saying they don't currently pay enough.

Let me be clear (tee hee) I am not saying the rich don't pay enough I am saying that under a flat tax system I would like to see all exemptions to taxes eliminated.

That's an obfuscation.

You want a flat tax: check
You said the rich will see a tax increase, because it will drop their current plethora of exemptions: check
You still want a flat tax: check

So you do not see what they're paying now as adequate, one could only gather. You favor them paying more, as you said yourself.

sure if you want to be dishonest and one of the assholes you describe in your sig line you could put those words in my mouth.

 

[G.T.]

Let me be clear (tee hee) I am not saying the rich don't pay enough I am saying that under a flat tax system I would like to see all exemptions to taxes eliminated.

That's an obfuscation.

You want a flat tax: check
You said the rich will see a tax increase, because it will drop their current plethora of exemptions: check
You still want a flat tax: check

So you do not see what they're paying now as adequate, one could only gather. You favor them paying more, as you said yourself.

sure if you want to be dishonest and one of the assholes you describe in your sig line you could put those words in my mouth.

How so? Which part is dishonest about what you said?

 

[Article 15]

the entire context of my post might help you understand what I said better

I got the entire context of it.

My point stands.

yes and i said your point in my long response

lol ... so you did.

My bad, I'm a big dummy.

 

[jgarden]

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.

The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.

- Warren Buffett speaking at a $4,600-a-seat political fundraiser in New York, as quoted in "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than his secretary," Times Online, June 28, 2007.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

One major problem is that much of the revenue that the wealthy receive comes from investments, not employment income.

Investment income has traditionally been taxed at a substantially lower rate than employment income - which explains why Warren Buffett is taxed at a lower rate than his receptionists and cleaning ladies.

"The devil is in the details" - it has never been made clear if all income will be taxed at the same rate or whether investment income will continue be taxed at a lower rate than employment income.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That's an obfuscation.

You want a flat tax: check
You said the rich will see a tax increase, because it will drop their current plethora of exemptions: check
You still want a flat tax: check

So you do not see what they're paying now as adequate, one could only gather. You favor them paying more, as you said yourself.

sure if you want to be dishonest and one of the assholes you describe in your sig line you could put those words in my mouth.

How so? Which part is dishonest about what you said?

the parts in red. I didn't say they weren't paying enough. I didn't say I favored them paying more either I just said I thought they would pay more. Your inserting an opinion onto me saying them paying more...maybe I object to it, maybe I do agree to it like you said but to claim one or the other is only guessing as I still haven't told you if I think they pay too little or too much yet

Ok ok i'm not talking about this anymore, back to the subject. Take my words for what they are and don't ascribe other intent onto them and if you think i'm trying to say something other than what I typed ask me and I'll tell you.

 

[Navy1960]

Most flat tax proposals do not start at zero, they start at the poverty level, or they have an exemption for each individual and go from there. So, married with 2 kids, you only pay the flat tax on the money you make over $40,000. No other deductions, breaks, loopholes, although maybe the handicapped deserve some extra help.

I'm okay with something along these lines, although I would be open to a lower tax rate for capital gains to spur investments and economic growth. No hiding money in tax shelters or tax free foundations either.

Same deal for corporate taxes, no breaks, no exemptions, no deductions. And any tax credits you have up to now get wiped out. Profits made overseas would not be taxed here, same as every other country does.

Sort of said the same thing Wise, although I applied the 51% rule to corporations, and even on the retail end, for those that had 51% of their product produced here and sold 51% domestic product for sale, then as far as I was concerned, then give them all the breaks to make that happen. However, the reverse should be true too, if you don't produce here then you should not be subject to the same tax breaks here.

 

[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.

One major problem is that much of the revenue that the wealthy receive comes from investments, not income. Investment income has traditionally been taxed at a far lower rate than payroll income which explains why Warren Buffett is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary and cleaning lady.

Yeah he pays a higher income tax but most of his money is cap gains.

Go back a few posts from my quote of your response to the exchange between care4all and myself.....you will see we actually adress that situation too.



I am having fun in this thread and would like to thank everyone at this point for participating, even the ninnyhammers

 

[G.T.]

sure if you want to be dishonest and one of the assholes you describe in your sig line you could put those words in my mouth.

How so? Which part is dishonest about what you said?

the parts in red. I didn't say they weren't paying enough. I didn't say I favored them paying more either I just said I thought they would pay more. Your inserting an opinion onto me saying them paying more...maybe I object to it, maybe I do agree to it like you said but to claim one or the other is only guessing as I still haven't told you if I think they pay too little or too much yet

Ok ok i'm not talking about this anymore, back to the subject. Take my words for what they are and don't ascribe other intent onto them and if you think i'm trying to say something other than what I typed ask me and I'll tell you.

You don't see the contradiction?

You favor the system that would (your words) "probably make them pay more,"

but are saying you dont favor them paying more?.......................and are saying you dont think they dont pay enough?


your wanting the flat tax while thinking they'd pay more while saying you dont think they dont already pay enough......................is a contradiction dude.

And it's not dishonest to say so.

Favoring the system, which has them pay more as you said it probably will............duh.....means you favor them paying more.

 

[Montrovant]

I think the deductions and loopholes available in our overly complex tax code are a bigger issue than a progressive vs. flat tax rate. I would be much happier with a very progressive tax rate that gets rid of exemptions and deductions (although I admit I am for exempting the first xxx amount of money earned) than a flat tax rate that maintained all the exemptions and deductions. Beyond whether it is fair or equitable, I would like our taxes to just be simple!

There would be a lot of companies and people put out of business by such a change. Maybe it would need a gradual shift or at least a few years time before being implemented, so people in accounting can prepare themselves.

I think it is unlikely these kinds of drastic changes will happen any time soon. The current system is too entrenched. Over time, though, it's certainly possible we could change to an exemption-free and/or flat-tax system.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

One major problem is that much of the revenue that the wealthy receive comes from investments, not income. Investment income has traditionally been taxed at a far lower rate than payroll income which explains why Warren Buffett is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary and cleaning lady.

Yeah he pays a higher income tax but most of his money is cap gains.

Go back a few posts from my quote of your response to the exchange between care4all and myself.....you will see we actually adress that situation too.



I am having fun in this thread and would like to thank everyone at this point for participating, even the ninnyhammers

Watching the news, Pilgrim and saw this,...

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- From 1979 to 2007, average household income for the nation's top 1% more than tripled, while middle-class incomes grew by less than 40%, according to a new report from a research arm of Congress.
CBO study shows growing income disparity - Oct. 26, 2011

I thought in light of data like that, that the talk of " reducing taxes " on upper income Americans is somewhat of a nonstarter for the majority of voters out there. I am sort of the opinion that many will see a "flat tax" as a reduction in taxes for those in the higher income brackets, rather than a fair tax system. While I see the need for reforms in the tax code especially in the massive tax code, and am of the opinion thats where the reform needs to start.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How so? Which part is dishonest about what you said?

the parts in red. I didn't say they weren't paying enough. I didn't say I favored them paying more either I just said I thought they would pay more. Your inserting an opinion onto me saying them paying more...maybe I object to it, maybe I do agree to it like you said but to claim one or the other is only guessing as I still haven't told you if I think they pay too little or too much yet

Ok ok i'm not talking about this anymore, back to the subject. Take my words for what they are and don't ascribe other intent onto them and if you think i'm trying to say something other than what I typed ask me and I'll tell you.

You don't see the contradiction?

You favor the system that would (your words) "probably make them pay more,"

but are saying you dont favor them paying more?.......................and are saying you dont think they dont pay enough?


your wanting the flat tax while thinking they'd pay more while saying you dont think they dont already pay enough......................is a contradiction dude.

And it's not dishonest to say so.

Favoring the system, which has them pay more as you said it probably will............duh.....means you favor them paying more.

Ok ok one last time then i'm done

No I am not saying I don't favor them paying more
No I am not saying I don't think they pay enough

I am saying I would like a flat tax for everyone that gives no exemptions to anyone. If it makes the rich pay more to make it work so be it, if it makes them pay less so be it.

By insisting that I'm saying "i want the rich to pay more" or "the rich don't pay enough" you are being dishonest about what I have said.

Why do you want to keep going with this? What would ascribing that opinion to me accomplish for you?

 

[Wiseacre]

Most flat tax proposals do not start at zero, they start at the poverty level, or they have an exemption for each individual and go from there. So, married with 2 kids, you only pay the flat tax on the money you make over $40,000. No other deductions, breaks, loopholes, although maybe the handicapped deserve some extra help.

I'm okay with something along these lines, although I would be open to a lower tax rate for capital gains to spur investments and economic growth. No hiding money in tax shelters or tax free foundations either.

Same deal for corporate taxes, no breaks, no exemptions, no deductions. And any tax credits you have up to now get wiped out. Profits made overseas would not be taxed here, same as every other country does.

Sort of said the same thing Wise, although I applied the 51% rule to corporations, and even on the retail end, for those that had 51% of their product produced here and sold 51% domestic product for sale, then as far as I was concerned, then give them all the breaks to make that happen. However, the reverse should be true too, if you don't produce here then you should not be subject to the same tax breaks here.

Might be a problem determining who's over or under the 51% line, not sure it's worth the trouble and the cost. Far as I'm concerned, businesses will make and sell products and services here if it is profitable to do so. So what if they're also making money overseas, it's a global market. I want to bring that money back home, even if the gov't doesn't get to tax it. That money is going to show up here somewhere, indirectly, which is better for us than if its sitting offshore somewhere.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.....

If businesses were taxed on their gross income and not allowed to deduct operating expenses, you would not be able to afford to buy anything.

The average corporate profit over the past 2 decades has been something like 8.5% which means that 91.5% of the average corp gross income is used up in operating expenses like payroll, supplies, raw materials etc.

If 100% of that was taxed, who do you think would be paying that tab?

 

[G.T.]

the parts in red. I didn't say they weren't paying enough. I didn't say I favored them paying more either I just said I thought they would pay more. Your inserting an opinion onto me saying them paying more...maybe I object to it, maybe I do agree to it like you said but to claim one or the other is only guessing as I still haven't told you if I think they pay too little or too much yet

Ok ok i'm not talking about this anymore, back to the subject. Take my words for what they are and don't ascribe other intent onto them and if you think i'm trying to say something other than what I typed ask me and I'll tell you.

You don't see the contradiction?

You favor the system that would (your words) "probably make them pay more,"

but are saying you dont favor them paying more?.......................and are saying you dont think they dont pay enough?


your wanting the flat tax while thinking they'd pay more while saying you dont think they dont already pay enough......................is a contradiction dude.

And it's not dishonest to say so.

Favoring the system, which has them pay more as you said it probably will............duh.....means you favor them paying more.

Ok ok one last time then i'm done

No I am not saying I don't favor them paying more
No I am not saying I don't think they pay enough

I am saying I would like a flat tax for everyone that gives no exemptions to anyone. If it makes the rich pay more to make it work so be it, if it makes them pay less so be it.

By insisting that I'm saying "i want the rich to pay more" or "the rich don't pay enough" you are being dishonest about what I have said.

Why do you want to keep going with this? What would ascribing that opinion to me accomplish for you?

Because it's keeping it honest.

If you want a system where you don't even know its net effects and don't even care, then you're not willing enough to study the cause/effect of such a system and are behaving irresponsibly by calling for it. Not knowing any of this but still favoring it is like saying "man, I wish there was time machines and I wish lakes were made of coca cola."

If you don't know what it will or won't do to tax revenues, and still support it - that's sloppy.



And further......if it makes the rich pay more and you still favor it - then you by proxy favor making the rich pay more. It's complete dishonesty to duck that fact. Which is what you are doing, you're ducking it.


In summary:

You can't favor the program and then say "I might or might not favor what it does," which is what you are doing. <--that's blatant dishonesty.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

If something is a necessity then by definition you cannot need it less, ever.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave is hilariously stupid and obtuse on this issue.

Yeah... because I break it down in terms of facts.. show the inequality in all the bullshit systems based on subjective fairness...

That's the epitome of 'stupid'.. LOL

 

[DiamondDave]

I would exempt the first $30, 000.00 and have from there upward be taxed at a flat rate, including capital gains.

The $30, 000.00 exemption would, though, include a Millionnaire's first $30k as well.

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

Yeah you did show that by exempting the first XXXXXX of income you end up, even if taxes are flat, creating a system that shows a bit of progressiveness in it.

More than a bit.. when it ranges from zero to ~10% in total... in that example... and the inequality jumps the higher the % tax rate goes

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you want a purely flat 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.

 

[Article 15]

Dave is hilariously stupid and obtuse on this issue.

Yeah... because I break it down in terms of facts.. show the inequality in all the bullshit systems based on subjective fairness...

That's the epitome of 'stupid'.. LOL

No, because you have a massive self created blind spot.

It's okay though, I just view you as a kind of retarded person now and find your retardedness amusing.

 

[G.T.]

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 agree.