It's Time For A Flat Tax.

[auditor0007]

Come on Moonbats, there have to some of you out there who will try to tell us that a flat tax will ruin the country.

Where are you?

I have no problem with a flat tax; however, even the most conservative of conservatives will agree that a certain amount of income should be untaxed, for everyone. Secondly, your idea that a 10% tax is all we need is laughable. The revenue generated would barely cover our military costs. Basically, you are suggesting that we cut spending by 70%. Again, just absolutely laughable.

I will never understand how it is that supposedly intelligent people come up with such batshit crazy ideas.

 

[there4eyeM]

Regressive taxes are a great way to have the poor pay for the rich. If that is what one wants, there is no better method.
10% of $1500 a month is definitely more impactful than 10% of $15,000. People making millions a year succeed because of a society built by others, and understandably should pay more. That is only logical and fair.
It is odd that so many want to be socialist for the costs and capitalist for the profits.

 

[Widdekind]

flat-rate taxes are not regressive, they are flat-rate; neither are they progressive, they are flat-rate

aggregate transaction revenues (retail & wholesale goods + wages) total nearly $40T / year, 10% of which would be nearly $4T / year

flat-rate taxes are not more onerous on lower incomes vs. higher incomes, they are the same flat rate (taxes on "that other guy" are always less onerous than taxes on "me personally")

(property taxes are onerous. The taxed must pay the tax assessor their salary, and the government their tax. Property taxes tax assets whose fair market values are unknown to private-sector markets -- the property was not bought-and-sold at market. Instead, government assessors proclaim superior-to-market knowledge, of what markets "would" value the property at, and collect "re-sales taxes", as if the property was being repeatedly repurchased. Logically, if homeowners must pay property taxes on "big stuff" (land & houses), then all asset owners should pay property taxes, even on "small stuff" (cups & plates, silverware, tables & chairs, appliances, TVs & stereos, cars), all periodically assessed at "government value". Property taxes are onerous. Taxes on "that other guy" are always less onerous than taxes on "me personally", amounting to "tax evasion without affecting the total tax take")

 

[there4eyeM]

Technically, it may be called a proportional tax, but the reality is that it functions regressively.

 

[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.

When my wife and I were only making about 50K combined we were paying 9.5% of our income and we got by just fine.

 

[dblack]

Technically, it may be called a proportional tax, but the reality is that it functions regressively.

They're really only regressive if employing rather odd conception of "equal" which assesses the "impact" a given cost has on it's payer. By this logic, every single thing we pay for is regressive if it is not indexed to our "ability to pay".

 

[dblack]

I will never understand how it is that supposedly intelligent people come up with such batshit crazy ideas.

Yet, how often - when perusing history - do we find the most intelligent people written often as 'batshit crazy' by the ignorance of 'common wisdom'?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Regressive taxes are a great way to have the poor pay for the rich. If that is what one wants, there is no better method.
10% of $1500 a month is definitely more impactful than 10% of $15,000. People making millions a year succeed because of a society built by others, and understandably should pay more. That is only logical and fair.
It is odd that so many want to be socialist for the costs and capitalist for the profits.

Qualitative terms like regressive or progressive have no use other than to make one tax system seem more desirable than another.

A flat tax is completely fair and equitable.

The idea that successful people get more from the government than the poor and should therefore pay a higher percentage in taxes is ridiculous. And with flat tax if one makes 10 times more than another he pays 10 times more in taxes.

The cost analogy does not work because people who make more pay more in taxes and always have so those costs for building the society have always been funded by the rich more than the poor.

None of your objections hold up.

 

[dblack]

The idea that successful people get more from the government than the poor and should therefore pay a higher percentage in taxes is ridiculous. And with flat tax if one makes 10 times more than another he pays 10 times more in taxes.

I actually think there is some merit to this justification. The problem is, it's not the way taxation works and it's not the way government should work. Taxation distributes the cost of government across the citizenry equally, presuming that the services it is financing are of equal value to society as a whole (defense, police protection, education, welfare safety nets, etc ...). We shouldn't strive for a system that breaks the costs of these programs down and charges only those who receive direct benefit from them. Doing so defeats the purpose, and the assumption that the programs benefit the nation as a whole. Should we, for example, charge welfare recipients higher taxes because they "get more from government"?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The idea that successful people get more from the government than the poor and should therefore pay a higher percentage in taxes is ridiculous. And with flat tax if one makes 10 times more than another he pays 10 times more in taxes.

I actually think there is some merit to this justification. The problem is, it's not the way taxation works and it's not the way government should work. Taxation distributes the cost of government across the citizenry equally, presuming that the services it is financing are of equal value to society as a whole (defense, police protection, education, welfare safety nets, etc ...). We shouldn't strive for a system that breaks the costs of these programs down and charges only those who receive direct benefit from them. Doing so defeats the purpose, and the assumption that the programs benefit the nation as a whole. Should we, for example, charge welfare recipients higher taxes because they "get more from government"?

Taxing welfare benefits makes no sense at all.

Our tax code is not based on income. It's based on whether or not you're married, whether or not you have kids, whether or not you own a home etc etc.

These reasons are why the tax code doesn't work anymore.

And one cannot assume that all people get exactly the same level of services from the government because quite frankly they don't.

 

[there4eyeM]

"The idea that successful people get more from the government than the poor and should therefore pay a higher percentage in taxes is ridiculous."

Rich people's sons die much less commonly in wars (especially illegal ones) than those of modest means. That for one is an enormous debt impossible to compensate. What is ridiculous is thinking the rich do not benefit disproportionately.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"The idea that successful people get more from the government than the poor and should therefore pay a higher percentage in taxes is ridiculous."

Rich people's sons die much less commonly in wars (especially illegal ones) than those of modest means. That for one is an enormous debt impossible to compensate. What is ridiculous is thinking the rich do not benefit disproportionately.

The military is a volunteer organization. The analogy does not hold up.

 

[dblack]

And one cannot assume that all people get exactly the same level of services from the government because quite frankly they don't.

In my view, the notion that the services provided by government DO benefit society as a whole, or to put it another way "promote the general welfare", is crucial to just government. That should be the litmus test for whether a given program should be run by government, and financed via coercive taxation. If it doesn't, if it's merely a convenience for some at the expense of others, government isn't the tool for the job, and general taxation is not a fair means of paying for the service.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

How does ceding power to the corporate elite factor into your limited and simplistic political science?

Because by creating a flat tax system, we will, in effect, be ceding power to corporate interests over the interests of the majority of the people. Flat tax policies dramatically reduce the tax rates of those with means while exponentially raising the tax burden on those with limited means. Follow the money! Where it goes, so goes power.

It's a tough concept for someone who lumps all those "isms" together. But nuance and thoroughness of thought aren't hallmarks of the Conservative mindset.

 

[there4eyeM]

Piloting a project like the flat tax is certainly a challenge and one that might encourage overlooking facts.
Although the recent illegal war in Iraq was fought by an army that is technically volunteer, the fact is that the social classes most involved have very few alternatives to military service as a beginning career path. It should also be remembered that past wars, upon which the current US society depended for its survival, were fought by conscripts from the poorer levels of the system.
But the flesh of their children is not the only contribution the working class makes disproportionately to the rich. Every echelon of infrastructure emplacement and maintenance is provided by the same group.
And need we mention that the thousands of billions of dollars paid for the errors of the uppermost income brackets in the recent crisis are moneys channeled from the middle and working classes?
The rich do benefit more and should pay more, especially since they lack the social consciousness to spred the wealth with intervention from authorities.

 

[dblack]

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.

How does ceding power to the corporate elite factor into your limited and simplistic political science?

Because by creating a flat tax system, we will, in effect, be ceding power to corporate interests over the interests of the majority of the people. Flat tax policies dramatically reduce the tax rates of those with means while exponentially raising the tax burden on those with limited means. Follow the money! Where it goes, so goes power.

It's a tough concept for someone who lumps all those "isms" together. But nuance and thoroughness of thought aren't hallmarks of the Conservative mindset.

By far the biggest factor in how much tax corporations and wealthy interests pay, or don't, is the lawyered up mess of incentives. loopholes, deduction, credits, yada, yada, yada.... that obscure what's really going on. The whole progressive vs flat tax issues a bit of a ruse in that regard, and seems to me more symbolic than anything else.

Setting aside how "progressive" income tax should be - would you support ending all the incentives and deductions that currently pollute the tax code?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

How does ceding power to the corporate elite factor into your limited and simplistic political science?

Because by creating a flat tax system, we will, in effect, be ceding power to corporate interests over the interests of the majority of the people. Flat tax policies dramatically reduce the tax rates of those with means while exponentially raising the tax burden on those with limited means. Follow the money! Where it goes, so goes power.

It's a tough concept for someone who lumps all those "isms" together. But nuance and thoroughness of thought aren't hallmarks of the Conservative mindset.

By far the biggest factor in how much tax corporations and wealthy interests pay, or don't, is the lawyered up mess of incentives. loopholes, deduction, credits, yada, yada, yada.... that obscure what's really going on. The whole progressive vs flat tax issues a bit of a ruse in that regard, and seems to me more symbolic than anything else.

Setting aside how "progressive" income tax should be - would you support ending all the incentives and deductions that currently pollute the tax code?

Last summer, in the midst of the budget turmoil, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that eliminating loopholes was a tax increase. He and his party, fueled by what they see as a popular groundswell of protest (Tea Party activists) have declared any tax increase, no matter how obscure, will not gain any support from them.

So, they plan to cut spending alone as a way to reduce the federal deficit. That means all federal spending, with the notable exception of defense spending, will suffer the political axe of the Republicans. They would, in effect, balance the budget by making life tougher for those on the edge while comforting and coddling those who can most afford a rise in their marginal rate from 35% to 39.5%.

Why? Because they believe that the rich are solely responsible for job growth. This is bumper sticker thinking at its very worst. In reality, consumer demand is responsible for driving this economy. Without a vibrant consumer base (Middle Class), the rich aren't going to open any factory or manufacturing plant (job growth). If the customers are bled white, how can they afford what the rich are selling?

 

[dblack]

How does ceding power to the corporate elite factor into your limited and simplistic political science?

Because by creating a flat tax system, we will, in effect, be ceding power to corporate interests over the interests of the majority of the people. Flat tax policies dramatically reduce the tax rates of those with means while exponentially raising the tax burden on those with limited means. Follow the money! Where it goes, so goes power.

It's a tough concept for someone who lumps all those "isms" together. But nuance and thoroughness of thought aren't hallmarks of the Conservative mindset.

By far the biggest factor in how much tax corporations and wealthy interests pay, or don't, is the lawyered up mess of incentives. loopholes, deduction, credits, yada, yada, yada.... that obscure what's really going on. The whole progressive vs flat tax issues a bit of a ruse in that regard, and seems to me more symbolic than anything else.

Setting aside how "progressive" income tax should be - would you support ending all the incentives and deductions that currently pollute the tax code?

Last summer, in the midst of the budget turmoil, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that eliminating loopholes was a tax increase. He and his party, fueled by what they see as a popular groundswell of protest (Tea Party activists) have declared any tax increase, no matter how obscure, will not gain any support from them.

So, they plan to cut spending alone as a way to reduce the federal deficit. That means all federal spending, with the notable exception of defense spending, will suffer the political axe of the Republicans. They would, in effect, balance the budget by making life tougher for those on the edge while comforting and coddling those who can most afford a rise in their marginal rate from 35% to 39.5%.

Why? Because they believe that the rich are solely responsible for job growth. This is bumper sticker thinking at its very worst. In reality, consumer demand is responsible for driving this economy. Without a vibrant consumer base (Middle Class), the rich aren't going to open any factory or manufacturing plant (job growth). If the customers are bled white, how can they afford what the rich are selling?

"Taxed Enough Already" is the calling card for the TEA party, but I think focusing on naked tax reduction is dumb. It's even dumber to whine about the elimination of discriminatory incentive deductions and loopholes that reward some at the expense others. If they really want smaller government, they'd be cheering the elimination of all the bullshit, and insisting that our budget is balanced, even if it means raising taxes across the board to do it.

If we were faced with actually paying for all the government we get, we could start making honest decisions as a country about how much government we really want. I suspect that if that happened, if we were all paying the kind of taxes it would take to keep our government in the black, there would be a groundswell of support for cutting wasteful government. People would question if we really need to be spending trillions propping up client states and protecting friendly regimes all over the world. They'd think twice about supporting every entitlement that sounds 'nice'.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Piloting a project like the flat tax is certainly a challenge and one that might encourage overlooking facts.
Although the recent illegal war in Iraq was fought by an army that is technically volunteer, the fact is that the social classes most involved have very few alternatives to military service as a beginning career path. It should also be remembered that past wars, upon which the current US society depended for its survival, were fought by conscripts from the poorer levels of the system.
But the flesh of their children is not the only contribution the working class makes disproportionately to the rich. Every echelon of infrastructure emplacement and maintenance is provided by the same group.

For which they get paid. No one works for free so don't make it sound like people are fixing roads for free. And you forgot to mention the most important thing: People are free to choose the work they do. No one is forced to fix roads or build bridges.

 

[Nosmo King]

Piloting a project like the flat tax is certainly a challenge and one that might encourage overlooking facts.
Although the recent illegal war in Iraq was fought by an army that is technically volunteer, the fact is that the social classes most involved have very few alternatives to military service as a beginning career path. It should also be remembered that past wars, upon which the current US society depended for its survival, were fought by conscripts from the poorer levels of the system.
But the flesh of their children is not the only contribution the working class makes disproportionately to the rich. Every echelon of infrastructure emplacement and maintenance is provided by the same group.

For which they get paid. No one works for free so don't make it sound like people are fixing roads for free. And you forgot to mention the most important thing: People are free to choose the work they do. No one is forced to fix roads or build bridges.

And engineers get paid. Surveyors, draftsmen, secretaries, Resident Inspectors, contractors, laborers, material providers, equipment manufacturers, property developers, real estate agents, landscapers and every single person driving across the public highways all benefit from them.

And all those folks now will have disposable income. And that leads to consumer spending. And THAT leads to job growth. Shoveling money to the rich ain't gonna make any jobs, save tax attorneys and Swiss bankers. American consumers are the engine of job creation. The more they have to spend, the more jobs get created. Take away government spending and all you have left are those tax attorneys and Swiss bankers. The jobs get created in Asia and Latin America. Unless, of course, there is some magical portion of the private sector willing and able to finance, develop, and maintain public infrastructure. How many privately owned and operated roads, dams, water and sewer systems, bridges, and harbors can you name?