It's Time For A Flat Tax.

[Widdekind]

...punitive nature of the progressive tax code...

All people pay (about) the same grocery bill. So, wealthy people have allot more money left over, as (official) "savings". In the absence of taxes, those "savings" are lent to (potentially profitable) businesses, who expand, hire workers, and grow the economy. But taxes take those savings, for government (Public sector), and from businesses (private sector).

Mathematically,

C+I+G+NX = GDP = C+S+T

I + G + NX = S + T​

As taxes increase, savings decrease. Government takes the taxes, leaving less for business investment. Progressive taxes specifically target US "savings", specifically targeting the US private sector (the "Standard Oil" phenomenon). US business is weakened; provides fewer jobs; the US populace turns away from business & industry; towards Government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes yes, we know... the bottom 45% pay nothing or make money from income tax and that's fair. The top 10% pay 75% of all taxes and that's not enough.

Let's encourage more poverty while driving success, wealth and achievement out of this nation. I just don't get why you leftie loonies can't see that you tax items you want to reduce, and subsidize what you want more of, but fail to apply that to people.

The bottom 45% pay taxes, maybe not Federal Income Tax, so try to be honest. Who are the bottom 45%? You tend to toss out numbers and stats without context, doing so might make your opinions credible.

Many of the poor work, some two or more part-time jobs at minimum wage without benefits. What I find despicable about the right is their willingness to take from the poor - their labor - and expect the poor to pay the same percentage of their limited income as does everyone who is earning much more.

And you guys claim the left is engaged in class warfare. The fact that some of you believe that is amazing.

This thread is about federal income taxes in case you haven't noticed yet

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes yes, we know... the bottom 45% pay nothing or make money from income tax and that's fair. The top 10% pay 75% of all taxes and that's not enough.

Let's encourage more poverty while driving success, wealth and achievement out of this nation. I just don't get why you leftie loonies can't see that you tax items you want to reduce, and subsidize what you want more of, but fail to apply that to people.

The bottom 45% pay taxes, maybe not Federal Income Tax, so try to be honest. Who are the bottom 45%? You tend to toss out numbers and stats without context, doing so might make your opinions credible.

Many of the poor work, some two or more part-time jobs at minimum wage without benefits. What I find despicable about the right is their willingness to take from the poor - their labor - and expect the poor to pay the same percentage of their limited income as does everyone who is earning much more.

And you guys claim the left is engaged in class warfare. The fact that some of you believe that is amazing.

This thread is about federal income taxes in case you haven't noticed yet

he did. That's why the goalposts had to move.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This "Moonbat" is concerned with the long term effect of a flat tax. Our nation has always returned to the center, when our elected officials overreach to the left or to the right the American voter produces a correction. We have seen this time and again in national as well as state and local elections.

In less than a generation of a flat tax, the very wealthy + the Citizens United decision will have the ability to transform us from a democratic republic into a pure plutocracy, where the party of the wealthy will make the laws and, by controlling a majority on the Supreme Court modify even our Constitution to suit their needs, at the expense of the hoi polloi.

History suggests such a transformation can have only one consequence, one most feared by the rich and powerful. See 1789, 1848, 1917 and the Spring of 2011 for a few notable examples.

Of course a flat tax is not a sufficient and necessary cause of civil unrest; examples of civil unrest are well known in our country during the lifetime of most baby boomers. Efforts to suppress voting rights, to undermine public education and to cut the salary and benefits of working men and women while defending millionaires and billionaires is another cause leading us eventually to a plutocratic America.

Or to our own "Arab Spring". Think about it (those of you who can).

Puhlease.

So your justification for a punitive tax code is that you're afraid of the big bad rich people?

With all the extra money that will be injected into the economy there will be a lot more opportunity for people to get rich.

I have no fear of the "big bad rich people", they are few in number and the tax schedule I've suggested is not punitive. I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars? Suggesting this is punitive is absurd.

With all the money currently horded by the rich and corporate America no one is getting rich, it is NOT trickling down. Keep supporting the likes of Gov. Walker, keep cutting the taxes of the very wealthy, keep up your efforts to reduced the wages and benefits of the middle class, continue to clamor for less government oversight of banks and others in the financial 'services' industry and see where that policy gets us. Back to the Gilded Age, the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

You say that so easily when you don't have to write the check.

Now tell me if progressive pricing is so great then I'm sure you'd be happy to pay more for a Chevy Volt than some poor person right? How about the poor guy gets one for free and you pay double after all you can afford it.

And money that is saved and invested is not hoarded. It is used by banks and corporations.

You or anyone has yet to prove that taking more money from the rich will increase anyone's wages

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOWER TAXES INCREASE REVENUE

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I get it. All of us should cut our income so we can enjoy greater wealth.

You can't deny the results. Every country that has implemented a flat tax has seen an increase in revenue.

If you care to refute that then post a link to support your ovine knee jerk bleating.

You are so focused on your agenda you are unable to consider its potential for negative consequences. Revenue may or may not increase, it's your argument and I'm not disputing it (though that does not mean I accept it as universally true). I point out, concisely, clearly and with as many examples as I can what may be the result of what you consider, apparently, a panacea for our economic woes.

Call me a devil's advocate or stupid, what ever gives you solace. My remarks are based on my education, experience and the ability to critically examine the opinions of others and myself. Try that sometime, it can make your opinions stronger and your arguments more effective - or give you a new perspective which might surprise you.

Not may or may not revenue has absolutely increased in countries that adopted a flat tax.

GDP has grown as well

 

[Wry Catcher]

That said, the rest of your statements:

I can mostly agree with. It's implied in your statements and context you believe communism is the next natural step for this nation. But that could also be my inference of your historical preference for that political state coloring it.

Really? Germany, Spain, Chile and Argentina were manifestations of Fascism; Russian, Cuba and China manifestations of Communism. In fact all were forms of Authoritarianism which I do not support in any shape or form, be they authority framed in a military uniform, a clerics collar a grey suit and tie, or jeans and a 'T' shirt.

Authoritarianism is a system. Communism is the guiding philosophy on how it was applied. That is why the leftist rainbow is true.

Liberalism = Progressivism = Communism = Marxism = Socialism = Fascism.

They all see authoritarian control over the populations for implementation of their philosophy. The methodology in how the system is applied may vary, but the end results is ALWAYS the same.

Thanks for sharing; I'd ask for a reference/source but I suspect none exists. I doubt even Michael Weiner would broadcast such an absurdity. Limbaugh might. Are you a ditto head?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You can't deny the results. Every country that has implemented a flat tax has seen an increase in revenue.

If you care to refute that then post a link to support your ovine knee jerk bleating.

You are so focused on your agenda you are unable to consider its potential for negative consequences. Revenue may or may not increase, it's your argument and I'm not disputing it (though that does not mean I accept it as universally true). I point out, concisely, clearly and with as many examples as I can what may be the result of what you consider, apparently, a panacea for our economic woes.

Call me a devil's advocate or stupid, what ever gives you solace. My remarks are based on my education, experience and the ability to critically examine the opinions of others and myself. Try that sometime, it can make your opinions stronger and your arguments more effective - or give you a new perspective which might surprise you.

Not may or may not revenue has absolutely increased in countries that adopted a flat tax.

GDP has grown as well

Let's assume that is universally true. What have been the consequences in each of those countries?

 

[Widdekind]

is there any tax simpler than a flat-rate ?

what is bad about "simple" ?

 

[Care4all]

Puhlease.

So your justification for a punitive tax code is that you're afraid of the big bad rich people?

With all the extra money that will be injected into the economy there will be a lot more opportunity for people to get rich.

I have no fear of the "big bad rich people", they are few in number and the tax schedule I've suggested is not punitive. I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars? Suggesting this is punitive is absurd.

With all the money currently horded by the rich and corporate America no one is getting rich, it is NOT trickling down. Keep supporting the likes of Gov. Walker, keep cutting the taxes of the very wealthy, keep up your efforts to reduced the wages and benefits of the middle class, continue to clamor for less government oversight of banks and others in the financial 'services' industry and see where that policy gets us. Back to the Gilded Age, the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

You say that so easily when you don't have to write the check.

Now tell me if progressive pricing is so great then I'm sure you'd be happy to pay more for a Chevy Volt than some poor person right? How about the poor guy gets one for free and you pay double after all you can afford it.

And money that is saved and invested is not hoarded. It is used by banks and corporations.

You or anyone has yet to prove that taking more money from the rich will increase anyone's wages

but for the same car, they ARE paying the same....for the same amount of taxable income in the 1st tax bracket, the millionaire pays the same taxes as I do, for the second bracket of money earned a millionaire pays the same taxes as i do for the money made in the second bracket, and for the third bracket of income, the millionaire also pays the same percentage as I do....etc etc etc.

we are all treated equally for the SAME amount of money earned...

where i see a problem is with allowable deductions, loopholes and a complicated tax code of paper 9 ft high.

i could go with a flat tax but it would have to have a standard deduction for the first X amount earned...and of course if the flat tax was something like 15%-20% effective tax rate of AGI, that would be a tax increase for probably 80%-90% of the nation, and a tax decrease for the wealthiest only.....which would kill this nation and destroy what's left of the middle class imho, so the fear of what percent the flat tax would be is quite large on my end.

ps. You're not taking messages skull, so i couldn't send a thanks to you, so....thanks!

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have no fear of the "big bad rich people", they are few in number and the tax schedule I've suggested is not punitive. I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars? Suggesting this is punitive is absurd.

With all the money currently horded by the rich and corporate America no one is getting rich, it is NOT trickling down. Keep supporting the likes of Gov. Walker, keep cutting the taxes of the very wealthy, keep up your efforts to reduced the wages and benefits of the middle class, continue to clamor for less government oversight of banks and others in the financial 'services' industry and see where that policy gets us. Back to the Gilded Age, the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

You say that so easily when you don't have to write the check.

Now tell me if progressive pricing is so great then I'm sure you'd be happy to pay more for a Chevy Volt than some poor person right? How about the poor guy gets one for free and you pay double after all you can afford it.

And money that is saved and invested is not hoarded. It is used by banks and corporations.

You or anyone has yet to prove that taking more money from the rich will increase anyone's wages

but for the same car, they ARE paying the same....for the same amount of taxable income in the 1st tax bracket, the millionaire pays the same taxes as I do, for the second bracket of money earned a millionaire pays the same taxes as i do for the money made in the second bracket, and for the third bracket of income, the millionaire also pays the same percentage as I do....etc etc etc.

The analogy holds because we are all supposed to get the same services from government even though the receive substantially more than the rich.

we are all treated equally for the SAME amount of money earned...

where i see a problem is with allowable deductions, loopholes and a complicated tax code of paper 9 ft high.

I know that but the tax code is still punitive. With a flat tax if some one makes twice as much money as you the pay twice as much in taxes not 3 or 4 times as much.

i could go with a flat tax but it would have to have a standard deduction for the first X amount earned...and of course if the flat tax was something like 15%-20% effective tax rate of AGI, that would be a tax increase for probably 80%-90% of the nation, and a tax decrease for the wealthiest only.....which would kill this nation and destroy what's left of the middle class imho, so the fear of what percent the flat tax would be is quite large on my end.

ps. You're not taking messages skull, so i couldn't send a thanks to you, so....thanks!

I don't see the need for exemptions and a lot of people in the middle pay a net of more than 10% of their income in taxes.

My own taxes would be cut by more than half with a 10% flat tax.

That would give me about 30K more money to spend, save or invest every year.

What would an infusion of money like that could be generated do for the economy?

If the corporate tax rate was lowered to 10% as well we would see a repatriation of corporate money because the incentive to hold it offshore would be gone.

 

[Care4all]

it won't be a 10% flat tax skull....and if it were, and this would give you 30k more, it would also take 30k away from 10 individuals making only 30k a year...and honestly, I truly don't think that would be a wise thing to do, for our nation, for the people within our nation.

and the other thing, what about SS taxes? if we have a flat income tax, then all of those making more than 112k a year should pay SS taxes on every dime that they make as well....so the millionaires would have to pay SS tax for every dime they make vs just taxing only 112k of it and taxing only that....

and if you truly want to make it equal, then we need to abolish ALL OTHER TAXES, like cigarette taxes and liquor taxes and fees etc and combine all of them in to ONE FLAT TAX, so that we treat these drinkers and smokers equally as well.... and businesses? will their tax obligation change? will this hurt small businesses more than larger businesses? Will their deductions and write offs and expenses that can be written off be changed as well?

to make things "equal" as you would like, with the federal gvt and their collection of our taxes, is much more complicated than merely a flat tax....imho.

I'm still open for change, but this thing needs to be thought through to the enth degree!

 

[Widdekind]

I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars?

First, that is hypothetical. Second, if you made a billion dollars, nothing would stop you from donating 90% to the government. But (third), why do you, and your hypothetical super-generosity, get to decide the fate, of other people's actual real money? If you get to decree on other people's money; then what else of their lives & fates do you want decree-authority over, too?

for the same amount of taxable income in the 1st tax bracket, the millionaire pays the same taxes as I do, for the second bracket of money earned a millionaire pays the same taxes as i do for the money made in the second bracket, and for the third bracket of income, the millionaire also pays the same percentage as I do

and so, you vs. a real millionaire pay different amounts of taxes, and different overall average rates. your money vs. their money are taxed differently. Then, by some magic, you can call that "the same"?

i could go with a flat tax but it would have to have a standard deduction for the first X amount earned

a standard deduction just higher than your own (actual, real) income, perhaps? In other words, in hypothetical theory, you'd give millions "if you could"; but you won't pay any taxes at all, in reality, "even when you can" (by foregoing a few restaurant dinners & movies). You get credit for super-generosity, even whilst demanding to actually pay nothing

if the flat tax was something like 15%-20% effective tax rate of AGI, that would be a tax increase for probably 80%-90% of the nation, and a tax decrease for the wealthiest only.

so, you openly acknowledge, that taxes "pick on" a hated minority group, comprising 10% of the total population, powerless to outvote the majority? They get "tax lynched" -- but, in America, if you are hated & disliked, then "fair" is actually "none of us cares, right?"

if you truly want to make it equal, then we need to abolish ALL OTHER TAXES, like cigarette taxes and liquor taxes and fees etc and combine all of them in to ONE FLAT TAX

the US has one currency (dollars). Why not one tax on those equal-and-equivalent dollars? you can still have progressive policy, by how you spend the taxes taken. For example, one downside to Capitalism is "structural unemployment" -- times change, businesses become obsolete, all their workers are fired. Should we all go back to wagons, and hire millions of wagon-wheel makers? No -- but what do millions of unemployed do, whilst the entrepreneurs (perhaps some of the same) figure out what to do next? They could apply for Public assistance (for unemployed persons wanting work, until they find work). Structural unemployment may warrant progressive Public programs to smooth over the rough edges of Capitalism. Stereotypically, "millionaires" would never qualify. Dollars can be taxed blindly equally, and then spent absolutely partially. Flat-rate taxes do not eliminate progressive Public programs (on the spending side).

 

[Care4all]

I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars?

First, that is hypothetical. Second, if you made a billion dollars, nothing would stop you from donating 90% to the government. But (third), why do you, and your hypothetical super-generosity, get to decide the fate, of other people's actual real money? If you get to decree on other people's money; then what else of their lives & fates do you want decree-authority over, too?

It's not me who gets to decide, it's our congress and who we vote for, and it has been their decision, all along and as Chief Justice roberts states, it is within their power to do such.

for the same amount of taxable income in the 1st tax bracket, the millionaire pays the same taxes as I do, for the second bracket of money earned a millionaire pays the same taxes as i do for the money made in the second bracket, and for the third bracket of income, the millionaire also pays the same percentage as I do

and so, you vs. a real millionaire pay different amounts of taxes, and different overall average rates. your money vs. their money are taxed differently. Then, by some magic, you can call that "the same"?

we don't pay DIFFERENT amounts of tax for the same taxable dollars earned....we pay the exact same amount for the same dollars in taxable income.....do you want me to explain it again.




a standard deduction just higher than your own (actual, real) income, perhaps? In other words, in hypothetical theory, you'd give millions "if you could"; but you won't pay any taxes at all, in reality, "even when you can" (by foregoing a few restaurant dinners & movies). You get credit for super-generosity, even whilst demanding to actually pay nothing

you have absolutely no idea how much I pay and have paid in income taxes....NOT EVEN A CLUE.....but go ahead and presume what you like....

if the flat tax was something like 15%-20% effective tax rate of AGI, that would be a tax increase for probably 80%-90% of the nation, and a tax decrease for the wealthiest only.

so, you openly acknowledge, that taxes "pick on" a hated minority group, comprising 10% of the total population, powerless to outvote the majority? They get "tax lynched" -- but, in America, if you are hated & disliked, then "fair" is actually "none of us cares, right?"

gawd are you silly. I have no qualms with a progressive tax rate...I do have a problem with the tax code and how it is manipulated to favor some over others with loopholes, and deductions and writeoffs etc... I could accept a flat tax, with no writeoffs and a standard deduction, if it came down to that...

TAXES don't pick on a minority group...I totally disagree with your opinion on that.... taxes are a necessary evil, to live in this great country of opportunity.

if you truly want to make it equal, then we need to abolish ALL OTHER TAXES, like cigarette taxes and liquor taxes and fees etc and combine all of them in to ONE FLAT TAX

the US has one currency (dollars). Why not one tax on those equal-and-equivalent dollars? you can still have progressive policy, by how you spend the taxes taken. For example, one downside to Capitalism is "structural unemployment" -- times change, businesses become obsolete, all their workers are fired. Should we all go back to wagons, and hire millions of wagon-wheel makers? No -- but what do millions of unemployed do, whilst the entrepreneurs (perhaps some of the same) figure out what to do next? They could apply for Public assistance (for unemployed persons wanting work, until they find work). Structural unemployment may warrant progressive Public programs to smooth over the rough edges of Capitalism. Stereotypically, "millionaires" would never qualify. Dollars can be taxed blindly equally, and then spent absolutely partially. Flat-rate taxes do not eliminate progressive Public programs (on the spending side).

but why would you really want the gvt handling all of these progressive programs when the guy making 30k only needs his own money to make ends meet?

 

[Big Fitz]

Really? Germany, Spain, Chile and Argentina were manifestations of Fascism; Russian, Cuba and China manifestations of Communism. In fact all were forms of Authoritarianism which I do not support in any shape or form, be they authority framed in a military uniform, a clerics collar a grey suit and tie, or jeans and a 'T' shirt.

Authoritarianism is a system. Communism is the guiding philosophy on how it was applied. That is why the leftist rainbow is true.

Liberalism = Progressivism = Communism = Marxism = Socialism = Fascism.

They all see authoritarian control over the populations for implementation of their philosophy. The methodology in how the system is applied may vary, but the end results is ALWAYS the same.

Thanks for sharing; I'd ask for a reference/source but I suspect none exists. I doubt even Michael Weiner would broadcast such an absurdity. Limbaugh might. Are you a ditto head?

Consider the goals of the parts of the leftist rainbow.

They all want:

Universal health care
Disarmed citizenry
all powerful central government
planned economies
Speech control

among other things. What varies is only HOW they achieve those goals. Some go right for government take overs of property. Others say, obey or we'll put you in prison or kill you.

But all of them want those same goals. That is why they are all attached. Authoritarianism is a means to an end and that end is total domination of their citizenry.

You go pretend that this is foolishness all you want. I see evidence in it all the time from history, news and interactions with people like you that these are all linked.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

I don't think anyone should be exempt from income taxes.

And 10% is not much to ask of anyone.

hell yes it ******* is.

This post only goes to show that FAR TOO MANY people in America only understand life based on their income level.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars?

First, that is hypothetical. Second, if you made a billion dollars, nothing would stop you from donating 90% to the government. But (third), why do you, and your hypothetical super-generosity, get to decide the fate, of other people's actual real money? If you get to decree on other people's money; then what else of their lives & fates do you want decree-authority over, too?

It's not me who gets to decide, it's our congress and who we vote for, and it has been their decision, all along and as Chief Justice roberts states, it is within their power to do such.



and so, you vs. a real millionaire pay different amounts of taxes, and different overall average rates. your money vs. their money are taxed differently. Then, by some magic, you can call that "the same"?

we don't pay DIFFERENT amounts of tax for the same taxable dollars earned....we pay the exact same amount for the same dollars in taxable income.....do you want me to explain it again.




a standard deduction just higher than your own (actual, real) income, perhaps? In other words, in hypothetical theory, you'd give millions "if you could"; but you won't pay any taxes at all, in reality, "even when you can" (by foregoing a few restaurant dinners & movies). You get credit for super-generosity, even whilst demanding to actually pay nothing

you have absolutely no idea how much I pay and have paid in income taxes....NOT EVEN A CLUE.....but go ahead and presume what you like....



so, you openly acknowledge, that taxes "pick on" a hated minority group, comprising 10% of the total population, powerless to outvote the majority? They get "tax lynched" -- but, in America, if you are hated & disliked, then "fair" is actually "none of us cares, right?"

gawd are you silly. I have no qualms with a progressive tax rate...I do have a problem with the tax code and how it is manipulated to favor some over others with loopholes, and deductions and writeoffs etc... I could accept a flat tax, with no writeoffs and a standard deduction, if it came down to that...

TAXES don't pick on a minority group...I totally disagree with your opinion on that.... taxes are a necessary evil, to live in this great country of opportunity.

if you truly want to make it equal, then we need to abolish ALL OTHER TAXES, like cigarette taxes and liquor taxes and fees etc and combine all of them in to ONE FLAT TAX

the US has one currency (dollars). Why not one tax on those equal-and-equivalent dollars? you can still have progressive policy, by how you spend the taxes taken. For example, one downside to Capitalism is "structural unemployment" -- times change, businesses become obsolete, all their workers are fired. Should we all go back to wagons, and hire millions of wagon-wheel makers? No -- but what do millions of unemployed do, whilst the entrepreneurs (perhaps some of the same) figure out what to do next? They could apply for Public assistance (for unemployed persons wanting work, until they find work). Structural unemployment may warrant progressive Public programs to smooth over the rough edges of Capitalism. Stereotypically, "millionaires" would never qualify. Dollars can be taxed blindly equally, and then spent absolutely partially. Flat-rate taxes do not eliminate progressive Public programs (on the spending side).

but why would you really want the gvt handling all of these progressive programs when the guy making 30k only needs his own money to make ends meet?

I believe the better question is why do you trust the government with your money?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't think anyone should be exempt from income taxes.

And 10% is not much to ask of anyone.

hell yes it ******* is.

This post only goes to show that FAR TOO MANY people in America only understand life based on their income level.

In the golden years of the top tax bracket being 90% the lowest bracket was about 20%

And people paid it then.

10 cents out of every dollar is not too much to ask anyone to contribute.

 

[Widdekind]

It's not me who gets to decide, it's our congress and who we vote for

so, you vote for those policies, and they represent you, and your values (?)

we don't pay DIFFERENT amounts of tax for the same taxable dollars earned....we pay the exact same amount for the same dollars in taxable income

you are saying "one tax code, for all people". But, in practice, that "one tax code" picks & chooses who to tax more or less, depending upon their incomes. No, it's not a case of "Bob pays 50% taxes, because he's Bob" whilst "Doug pays no taxes, because he's Doug". Nevertheless, different people are treated differently, paying different relative amounts of taxes. That's not "the same".

A flat-rate tax could be taken off the top, of every paycheck (wage & salary). That would keep government funded in real time; and obviate anybody having to do any additional taxes every April. Every pay-stub would show X% taken in taxes, just as every receipt from every cash-register would show the same X%. No additional effort, on anybody's part, required.

you have absolutely no idea how much I pay and have paid in income taxes....NOT EVEN A CLUE.....but go ahead and presume what you like....

have you ever paid 90% of any income over half a billion dollars? did you do so "happily" ? (If so, then the US should seriously name some ship after you.)

I could accept a flat tax, with no writeoffs and a standard deduction

why not simply a lower tax rate, with no deduction? That's the same to you, for your wallet. And it's simpler -- as soon as you yield to one exception, you'll soon yield to others as well. Please ponder, total trade volume in the US is nearly $40T per year (retail sales of final goods, wholesales of intermediate goods, professional services, general labor). You could have a "penny per dollar tax" -- one cent for Local, one cent for State, one cent for Federal -- and generate over a trillion dollars per year in total taxes, nearly a half trillion dollars per year, for each level of government (L,S,F). Every paycheck and every receipt shows (-1%, -1%, -1%); the math is easy; the taxes taken are huge (>$1T / year).

why would you really want the gvt handling all of these progressive programs when the guy making 30k only needs his own money to make ends meet?

(i thought you did ?)

Private citizens not needing Public assistance are more economically competitive, and better, for their economies, than others requiring doles. Still, Capitalism is known for growth, implying change, implying some "antiquated" sectors are always shrinking, costing jobs in the short term. Public programs to help people through such "structural unemployment", over into newer, growing sectors, might be beneficial, for "smoothing over the bumps in the business cycle".

In theory, you could have a flat-rate tax (on the revenue side), and progressive programs (on the expenditure side). You could have "the best of both worlds". (And, if you could imagine government "limited" to a trillion dollars per year, then you could do so, with a few pennies per dollar. Low taxes are least evaded.)

 

[Big Fitz]

It's not me who gets to decide, it's our congress and who we vote for

so, you vote for those policies, and they represent you, and your values (?)

we don't pay DIFFERENT amounts of tax for the same taxable dollars earned....we pay the exact same amount for the same dollars in taxable income

you are saying "one tax code, for all people". But, in practice, that "one tax code" picks & chooses who to tax more or less, depending upon their incomes. No, it's not a case of "Bob pays 50% taxes, because he's Bob" whilst "Doug pays no taxes, because he's Doug". Nevertheless, different people are treated differently, paying different relative amounts of taxes. That's not "the same".

A flat-rate tax could be taken off the top, of every paycheck (wage & salary). That would keep government funded in real time; and obviate anybody having to do any additional taxes every April. Every pay-stub would show X% taken in taxes, just as every receipt from every cash-register would show the same X%. No additional effort, on anybody's part, required.





have you ever paid 90% of any income over half a billion dollars? did you do so "happily" ?

I could accept a flat tax, with no writeoffs and a standard deduction

why not simply a lower tax rate, with no deduction? That's the same to you, for your wallet. And it's simpler -- as soon as you yield to one exception, you'll soon yield to others as well. Please ponder, total trade volume in the US is nearly $40T per year (retail sales of final goods, wholesales of intermediate goods, professional services, general labor). You could have a "penny per dollar tax" -- one cent for Local, one cent for State, one cent for Federal -- and generate over a trillion dollars per year in total taxes, nearly a half trillion dollars per year, for each level of government (L,S,F). Every paycheck and every receipt shows (-1%, -1%, -1%); the math is easy; the taxes taken are huge (>$1T / year).

why would you really want the gvt handling all of these progressive programs when the guy making 30k only needs his own money to make ends meet?

(i thought you did ?)

Private citizens not needing Public assistance are more economically competitive, and better, for their economies, than others requiring doles. Still, Capitalism is known for growth, implying change, implying some "antiquated" sectors are always shrinking, costing jobs in the short term. Public programs to help people through such "structural unemployment", over into newer, growing sectors, might be beneficial, for "smoothing over the bumps in the business cycle".

In theory, you could have a flat-rate tax (on the revenue side), and progressive programs (on the expenditure side). You could have "the best of both worlds". (And, if you could imagine government "limited" to a trillion dollars per year, then you could do so, with a few pennies per dollar. Low taxes are least evaded.)

You've got a wrong quote attribution going on there.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are so focused on your agenda you are unable to consider its potential for negative consequences. Revenue may or may not increase, it's your argument and I'm not disputing it (though that does not mean I accept it as universally true). I point out, concisely, clearly and with as many examples as I can what may be the result of what you consider, apparently, a panacea for our economic woes.

Call me a devil's advocate or stupid, what ever gives you solace. My remarks are based on my education, experience and the ability to critically examine the opinions of others and myself. Try that sometime, it can make your opinions stronger and your arguments more effective - or give you a new perspective which might surprise you.

Not may or may not revenue has absolutely increased in countries that adopted a flat tax.

GDP has grown as well

Let's assume that is universally true. What have been the consequences in each of those countries?

Increased GDP and increased government revenue.