The Flat Tax

[Foxfyre]

But again, there is no indication that a flat tax in any way hindered the prosperity that was generated, and no emperical evidence that it was not a contribution to it. In other words, there is no reason or logic to dismiss it any more than there is reason or logic to give it all the credit.

My intent was to defend the flat tax concept from those who would say it cannot work.

Disagree. That the flat tax puts 'skin in the game' does not suggest or ignore that there are no other taxes that do that. But I will continue to defend the flat income tax over any form of consumption tax becase a) it is much more difficult to manipulate without attracting a lot of notice and b) when applied evenly cross the board on all forms of earned income--wages, interest, business, investment etc.--it is less regressive than most or all other general taxes.

Putting aside the underlying assumption of perfect functioning of markets, and the bigger assumption that all good boys deserve favours, and always get them, there are pragmatic reasons not to have a flat tax.

Too much money in the world's financial system is a little bit like unemployed youth. It tends to float around, and eventually cause trouble unless more pro-social tasks for it can be found. The Asian currency crisis, the dot com bubble, and the real estate bubble are examples of money that could have been put to better use. Untaxed money eventually caused a meltdown of the world economy, and trillions of dollars of lost wealth. Government may be inefficient at times, but greed can cause biblical spectacles.

We are already seeing a huge polarization of wealth in the US, and other countries, and a flat tax would accelerate this trend. We don't have to look too far into history to see the results of wealth concentrated in a tiny minority of the population, and an impoverishment of the masses. Even if there is no social dislocation, the further atrophying of the middle class, and enrichment of the affluent means more resources going to peripheral wims, rather than employment creating, local businesses where the middle class are statistically more likely to spend their money.

A progressive tax has certainly not twarted a polarization of wealth nor the erosion of the middle class. The more the government has attempted to go after the wealth of the rich, the more the rich has incentive to shelter more and more of their assets which removes those assets from our overall economy. And THAT erodes the middle class and disadvantages the poor because both then have fewer resources by which they can hope to improve their socioeconomic situations.

The problem is not that there are rich and poor. Such has always been the existence of humankind for all of its history. The problem is when the poor have no opportunity to become richer. So long as their is no hindrance to people to equip themselves to become richer, it doesn't matter how much of the resources are at the top.

There are economic truths I have learned.

1. In a free society, the poor man is not poor because the rich are rich.

2. In a free society, every poor person can prepare himself or herself to move up and will have opportunity to do so.

3. In a free society you cannot help the poor by hurting the rich, and will invariably hurt the poor when you try.

 

[AmazonTania]

It is possible that the gross misunderstanding of the Flat Tax stems from the Steve Forbes Flat Tax proposal, which is really not a Fair Tax at all when you examine it. The plan is more progressive than our current tax programme. If you want an example of a real flat tax, look at the Medicare Tax. Everyone pays 2.9% (Split between the employer and employee) on every dollar earned, matter one's marital status, number of dependents, or income level. I am neither in favor of Medicare nor the tax, but if you are looking for a genuine flat tax, then Medicare is your tax.

Applicable to real world examples of an Advance Economy, Hong Kong has already levied a Flat Tax on Corporate Income of 17.5%. Contrast to the very progressive Corporate Income Tax in the United States. Currently, Hong Kong's Corporate Tax Revenue to GDP is about 5%. American Corporate Tax Revenue to GDP is as little as 2.1%.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Inserting my comments in blue:

But again, there is no indication that a flat tax in any way hindered the prosperity that was generated, and no empirical evidence that it was not a contribution to it. In other words, there is no reason or logic to dismiss it any more than there is reason or logic to give it all the credit.

My intent was to defend the flat tax concept from those who would say it cannot work.

OK, I plead guilty to overenthusiasm. Whenever the Soviet economy comes up I have a "Goody! Goody! I get to use that graduate education!" moment.

I see the reason for raising the example and agree you are correct; a number of former Soviet-style economies have income tax systems that are pretty close to a flat tax, so it is not only possible, it happens. How long they stay that way and whether they help or hinder development is another issue, but they clearly don't implode the system.

Disagree. That the flat tax puts 'skin in the game' does not suggest or ignore that there are no other taxes that do that. But I will continue to defend the flat income tax over any form of consumption tax becase a) it is much more difficult to manipulate without attracting a lot of notice and b) when applied evenly cross the board on all forms of earned income--wages, interest, business, investment etc.--it is less regressive than most or all other general taxes.

I would agree that a flat income tax is superior to a consumption tax. I would prefer a progressive income tax, but the problem with the current tax system is not the rate structure, but the mind-numbing myriad of deductions and credits. So a flat tax with reform of all the goodies would be, IMHO better than the current Code.

I prefer a reformed progressive income tax with limited deduction and credits. Yes, the devil is in the details and the framework should be laid using accounting principles and not members of congress doing the bidding of those who donate to them or their party.

 

[Wry Catcher]

But again, there is no indication that a flat tax in any way hindered the prosperity that was generated, and no emperical evidence that it was not a contribution to it. In other words, there is no reason or logic to dismiss it any more than there is reason or logic to give it all the credit.

My intent was to defend the flat tax concept from those who would say it cannot work.

Disagree. That the flat tax puts 'skin in the game' does not suggest or ignore that there are no other taxes that do that. But I will continue to defend the flat income tax over any form of consumption tax becase a) it is much more difficult to manipulate without attracting a lot of notice and b) when applied evenly cross the board on all forms of earned income--wages, interest, business, investment etc.--it is less regressive than most or all other general taxes.

Putting aside the underlying assumption of perfect functioning of markets, and the bigger assumption that all good boys deserve favours, and always get them, there are pragmatic reasons not to have a flat tax.

Too much money in the world's financial system is a little bit like unemployed youth. It tends to float around, and eventually cause trouble unless more pro-social tasks for it can be found. The Asian currency crisis, the dot com bubble, and the real estate bubble are examples of money that could have been put to better use. Untaxed money eventually caused a meltdown of the world economy, and trillions of dollars of lost wealth. Government may be inefficient at times, but greed can cause biblical spectacles.

We are already seeing a huge polarization of wealth in the US, and other countries, and a flat tax would accelerate this trend. We don't have to look too far into history to see the results of wealth concentrated in a tiny minority of the population, and an impoverishment of the masses. Even if there is no social dislocation, the further atrophying of the middle class, and enrichment of the affluent means more resources going to peripheral wims, rather than employment creating, local businesses where the middle class are statistically more likely to spend their money.

A progressive tax has certainly not twarted a polarization of wealth nor the erosion of the middle class. The more the government has attempted to go after the wealth of the rich, the more the rich has incentive to shelter more and more of their assets which removes those assets from our overall economy. And THAT erodes the middle class and disadvantages the poor because both then have fewer resources by which they can hope to improve their socioeconomic situations.

The problem is not that there are rich and poor. Such has always been the existence of humankind for all of its history. The problem is when the poor have no opportunity to become richer. So long as their is no hindrance to people to equip themselves to become richer, it doesn't matter how much of the resources are at the top.

There are economic truths I have learned.

1. In a free society, the poor man is not poor because the rich are rich.

2. In a free society, every poor person can prepare himself or herself to move up and will have opportunity to do so.

3. In a free society you cannot help the poor by hurting the rich, and will invariably hurt the poor when you try.

I beg to differ.

1. Explain the example of McDonald's corporate policy which restricts the income of the franchise owner who in turn pays his/her staff poorly.

2. In all society's everyone must first provide for their food, clothing and shelter. When each of these products are priced out of their reach there is no opportunity for them to "move up".

3. "hurt" the rich? That's beyond hyperbole. The rich may not like paying taxes, but it hurts to have an empty stomach, an infected tooth, a sidewalk for a bed and a newspaper for a cover.

 

[Bern80]

Start your reading here:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/?_r=0

Not a good link friend. His argument are so full of holes it's no wonder yours are so stupid. Where to start..... First he wants Us all to buy into the class envy argument that we should be upset that the rich don't pay more in income taxes and that they've actually had to pay a little less over the years. Second he tries to continue to sell his unfairness argument by comparing our progressive tax rates to other countries. That argument doesn't fly because he hasn't established why a progressive income tax is fair in the first place. Next implying that capitals gains should be taxed on unrealized income; taxing money you don't actually have, yeah, sorry you might want to get your tax theory from smarter people at some point. Lastly he doesn't ever even touch on the concept of a flat tax. So make your own argument instead of using the argument of someone....or not the argument of someone else in this case.

The problem is people like you look at the tax system completely backwards. You look at it as a means of punishing this group or that group. That's wrong. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government's obligations. So step one in coming up with a system to do that should first be to determine how much money the government actually needs. That alone renders most of your argument irrellavent. The next question is simply what is a fair method of distributing that tax burden. Most of us derive equal benefit from that which our tax dollars fund. Defense of the country, our education system, roads and highways, social programs, etc. So it seems to me the fairest way to collect that would be to tax everyone's income the same amount. I would go higher than 10% admittedly. Historically the U.S. government has always collected around 18% of GDP in tax revenue. GDP can essentially also be thought of the entire countries gross income. It has always been around 18% give or take a couple percentage points despite politicians messing with the tax code over the decades. So since that's all they're ever likely to get anyway I would say an 18% flat tax on any and all income, elimination of most, if not all, tax credits, loopholes, deductions, etc. Would be a rather fair system for funding the government's obligations.

Lastly, you liberals really need to stop pretending what you want is fair tax code. In every tax debate I've had about this liberals prove they wouldn't know the definition of the word 'fair' if it bit them on the ass. A progressive tax system meets no defintion of the word fair that I know of. That the rich should pay more in taxes for no other reason than they have more meets no defintion of the word fair I am aware of. Make any other argument you want for whatever tax system you want, but please stop lieing and telling us it's because you want the system to be more fair.

The link made a great deal of sense, your response is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and a bastardization of the word fair.

From the link:

We’ve drawn our most talented young people into financial shenanigans, rather than into creating real businesses, making real discoveries, providing real services to others. More efforts go into “rent-seeking” — getting a larger slice of the country’s economic pie — than into enlarging the size of the pie."

This ^^^ is 'Mitt Romney' and no amount of propaganda, distortion or demagoguery will ever displace the unfairness of his business life's endeavor.

Then I'll ask you what no liberal has been able to answer; point me to the definition of fair that says it is fair for the rich to have to shoulder the bulk of the tax burden and pay more just because they have more.

And the quote above assumes that we're steering all of our young people towards the sale of derivatives and the financial sector. That is observably false.

 

[Bern80]

1. Explain the example of McDonald's corporate policy which restricts the income of the franchise owner who in turn pays his/her staff poorly.

Such a policy doesn't contradict anything Fox said. If you are a McDonald's franchisee you are openly agreeing to their terms when you enter into it. Take it or leave it.

2. In all society's everyone must first provide for their food, clothing and shelter. When each of these products are priced out of their reach there is no opportunity for them to "move up".

This is false as it assumes that there is no action a person can take to acquire the income that would price them back into these items. That simply isn't the case.

. "hurt" the rich? That's beyond hyperbole. The rich may not like paying taxes, but it hurts to have an empty stomach, an infected tooth, a sidewalk for a bed and a newspaper for a cover.

For something that's hyperbole you liberals sure spend a lot fo time trying to do it anyway. I'm sure those things do hurt. They are not the responsibility of the wealthy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not a good link friend. His argument are so full of holes it's no wonder yours are so stupid. Where to start..... First he wants Us all to buy into the class envy argument that we should be upset that the rich don't pay more in income taxes and that they've actually had to pay a little less over the years. Second he tries to continue to sell his unfairness argument by comparing our progressive tax rates to other countries. That argument doesn't fly because he hasn't established why a progressive income tax is fair in the first place. Next implying that capitals gains should be taxed on unrealized income; taxing money you don't actually have, yeah, sorry you might want to get your tax theory from smarter people at some point. Lastly he doesn't ever even touch on the concept of a flat tax. So make your own argument instead of using the argument of someone....or not the argument of someone else in this case.

The problem is people like you look at the tax system completely backwards. You look at it as a means of punishing this group or that group. That's wrong. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government's obligations. So step one in coming up with a system to do that should first be to determine how much money the government actually needs. That alone renders most of your argument irrellavent. The next question is simply what is a fair method of distributing that tax burden. Most of us derive equal benefit from that which our tax dollars fund. Defense of the country, our education system, roads and highways, social programs, etc. So it seems to me the fairest way to collect that would be to tax everyone's income the same amount. I would go higher than 10% admittedly. Historically the U.S. government has always collected around 18% of GDP in tax revenue. GDP can essentially also be thought of the entire countries gross income. It has always been around 18% give or take a couple percentage points despite politicians messing with the tax code over the decades. So since that's all they're ever likely to get anyway I would say an 18% flat tax on any and all income, elimination of most, if not all, tax credits, loopholes, deductions, etc. Would be a rather fair system for funding the government's obligations.

Lastly, you liberals really need to stop pretending what you want is fair tax code. In every tax debate I've had about this liberals prove they wouldn't know the definition of the word 'fair' if it bit them on the ass. A progressive tax system meets no defintion of the word fair that I know of. That the rich should pay more in taxes for no other reason than they have more meets no defintion of the word fair I am aware of. Make any other argument you want for whatever tax system you want, but please stop lieing and telling us it's because you want the system to be more fair.

The link made a great deal of sense, your response is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and a bastardization of the word fair.

From the link:

We’ve drawn our most talented young people into financial shenanigans, rather than into creating real businesses, making real discoveries, providing real services to others. More efforts go into “rent-seeking” — getting a larger slice of the country’s economic pie — than into enlarging the size of the pie."

This ^^^ is 'Mitt Romney' and no amount of propaganda, distortion or demagoguery will ever displace the unfairness of his business life's endeavor.

Then I'll ask you what no liberal has been able to answer; point me to the definition of fair that says it is fair for the rich to have to shoulder the bulk of the tax burden and pay more just because they have more.

And the quote above assumes that we're steering all of our young people towards the sale of derivatives and the financial sector. That is observably false.

The article did not claim ALL young people - please try to be honest.
Life isn't fair; that said, a just society makes rules which do no harm. Taxing the poor does harm; making the cost for food, clothing or shelter too expensive does harm; not providing reasonable priced health and dental care does harm.

Someone working PT at McDonalds cannot afford health care so local government and local taxpayers bear the brunt of providing ER care to the uninsured at a great cost, and in fact subsidize corporate McDonalds (McDonald Corp. can well afford to provide health care to all their employees). This is the type of bullshit the faux conservatives on the far right perpetuate with their "personal responsibility" rhetoric.

 

[Foxfyre]

Putting aside the underlying assumption of perfect functioning of markets, and the bigger assumption that all good boys deserve favours, and always get them, there are pragmatic reasons not to have a flat tax.

Too much money in the world's financial system is a little bit like unemployed youth. It tends to float around, and eventually cause trouble unless more pro-social tasks for it can be found. The Asian currency crisis, the dot com bubble, and the real estate bubble are examples of money that could have been put to better use. Untaxed money eventually caused a meltdown of the world economy, and trillions of dollars of lost wealth. Government may be inefficient at times, but greed can cause biblical spectacles.

We are already seeing a huge polarization of wealth in the US, and other countries, and a flat tax would accelerate this trend. We don't have to look too far into history to see the results of wealth concentrated in a tiny minority of the population, and an impoverishment of the masses. Even if there is no social dislocation, the further atrophying of the middle class, and enrichment of the affluent means more resources going to peripheral wims, rather than employment creating, local businesses where the middle class are statistically more likely to spend their money.

A progressive tax has certainly not twarted a polarization of wealth nor the erosion of the middle class. The more the government has attempted to go after the wealth of the rich, the more the rich has incentive to shelter more and more of their assets which removes those assets from our overall economy. And THAT erodes the middle class and disadvantages the poor because both then have fewer resources by which they can hope to improve their socioeconomic situations.

The problem is not that there are rich and poor. Such has always been the existence of humankind for all of its history. The problem is when the poor have no opportunity to become richer. So long as their is no hindrance to people to equip themselves to become richer, it doesn't matter how much of the resources are at the top.

There are economic truths I have learned.

1. In a free society, the poor man is not poor because the rich are rich.

2. In a free society, every poor person can prepare himself or herself to move up and will have opportunity to do so.

3. In a free society you cannot help the poor by hurting the rich, and will invariably hurt the poor when you try.

I beg to differ.

1. Explain the example of McDonald's corporate policy which restricts the income of the franchise owner who in turn pays his/her staff poorly.

2. In all society's everyone must first provide for their food, clothing and shelter. When each of these products are priced out of their reach there is no opportunity for them to "move up".

3. "hurt" the rich? That's beyond hyperbole. The rich may not like paying taxes, but it hurts to have an empty stomach, an infected tooth, a sidewalk for a bed and a newspaper for a cover.

1. If having a McDonald's franchise is so oppressive, then why have I audited dozens and dozens of corporations that have 10 - 20 - 30 or ore of these franchises? And even those who have only one store, seem to be living pretty well. News flash: nobody forces anybody to take a McDonald's franchise. It is purely a voluntary thing.

Further McDonald's products are priced competitively with Burger King, Wendy's, Sonic, Jack in the Box, and all the other burger franchises, and the bottom line is similar in all these types of businesses. And because I've audited all of them at some time or other, I am quite confident that the profit margin is similar in all with variations in both traffic and overhead depending on location. Second News flash: nobody forces anybody to patronize these stores nor is anybody forced to work for one.

And finally, NONE of that has one single thing to do with the benefit or lack thereof of a flat tax. A flat tax, however, would free up corporate profits to enable more expansion and more jobs, or maybe better pay and benefits in existing ones. That certainly won't happen as much if you cut deeper into the profits of the person who owns the franchises.

2. In a free market, somebody is going to provide food, clothing, and shelter at a price people can afford. Why? But it is in their interest to sell their product, and if they price it out of reach of people, they don't sell it and they don't profit.

A flat tax, however, would almost certainly have the effect of allowing many products and services to be provided more cheaply than they are now. And if that increased demand, it would likely spur increased acivity that would encourage more employment that in turn would reduce unemployment which is unsually necessary if wages and benefits are to be increased.

3. I didn't say the rich would be hurt. I said any attempt of the self-righteous leftwing dogooder to take from the rich in favor of the poor, will almost always result in the poor being hurt far more than any rich person will be. Nothing stays the same when you change key dynamics like tax policy. If the tax policy encourages the wealthy to make more of their resources available, then all are benefitted. If the goal of the tax policy is to redistribute wealth, fewer resources will be available to the poor, and the poor will suffer the most.

 

[Rshermr]

A progressive tax has certainly not twarted a polarization of wealth nor the erosion of the middle class. The more the government has attempted to go after the wealth of the rich, the more the rich has incentive to shelter more and more of their assets which removes those assets from our overall economy. And THAT erodes the middle class and disadvantages the poor because both then have fewer resources by which they can hope to improve their socioeconomic situations.

The problem is not that there are rich and poor. Such has always been the existence of humankind for all of its history. The problem is when the poor have no opportunity to become richer. So long as their is no hindrance to people to equip themselves to become richer, it doesn't matter how much of the resources are at the top.

There are economic truths I have learned.

1. In a free society, the poor man is not poor because the rich are rich.

2. In a free society, every poor person can prepare himself or herself to move up and will have opportunity to do so.

3. In a free society you cannot help the poor by hurting the rich, and will invariably hurt the poor when you try.

I beg to differ.

1. Explain the example of McDonald's corporate policy which restricts the income of the franchise owner who in turn pays his/her staff poorly.

2. In all society's everyone must first provide for their food, clothing and shelter. When each of these products are priced out of their reach there is no opportunity for them to "move up".

3. "hurt" the rich? That's beyond hyperbole. The rich may not like paying taxes, but it hurts to have an empty stomach, an infected tooth, a sidewalk for a bed and a newspaper for a cover.

1. If having a McDonald's franchise is so oppressive, then why have I audited dozens and dozens of corporations that have 10 - 20 - 30 or ore of these franchises? And even those who have only one store, seem to be living pretty well. News flash: nobody forces anybody to take a McDonald's franchise. It is purely a voluntary thing.

Further McDonald's products are priced competitively with Burger King, Wendy's, Sonic, Jack in the Box, and all the other burger franchises, and the bottom line is similar in all these types of businesses. And because I've audited all of them at some time or other, I am quite confident that the profit margin is similar in all with variations in both traffic and overhead depending on location. Second News flash: nobody forces anybody to patronize these stores nor is anybody forced to work for one.

And finally, NONE of that has one single thing to do with the benefit or lack thereof of a flat tax. A flat tax, however, would free up corporate profits to enable more expansion and more jobs, or maybe better pay and benefits in existing ones. That certainly won't happen as much if you cut deeper into the profits of the person who owns the franchises.

2. In a free market, somebody is going to provide food, clothing, and shelter at a price people can afford. Why? But it is in their interest to sell their product, and if they price it out of reach of people, they don't sell it and they don't profit.

A flat tax, however, would almost certainly have the effect of allowing many products and services to be provided more cheaply than they are now. And if that increased demand, it would likely spur increased acivity that would encourage more employment that in turn would reduce unemployment which is unsually necessary if wages and benefits are to be increased.

3. I didn't say the rich would be hurt. I said any attempt of the self-righteous leftwing dogooder to take from the rich in favor of the poor, will almost always result in the poor being hurt far more than any rich person will be. Nothing stays the same when you change key dynamics like tax policy. If the tax policy encourages the wealthy to make more of their resources available, then all are benefitted. If the goal of the tax policy is to redistribute wealth, fewer resources will be available to the poor, and the poor will suffer the most.

You are arguing theory, relative to flat taxes. Pure theory. So, assuming you believe a flat tax is a great idea, what industrialized nation is doing well that uses flat tax as their primary tax type?? That is that do not have a major vat or other income tax to support them???
Good luck on that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A progressive tax has certainly not twarted a polarization of wealth nor the erosion of the middle class. The more the government has attempted to go after the wealth of the rich, the more the rich has incentive to shelter more and more of their assets which removes those assets from our overall economy. And THAT erodes the middle class and disadvantages the poor because both then have fewer resources by which they can hope to improve their socioeconomic situations.

The problem is not that there are rich and poor. Such has always been the existence of humankind for all of its history. The problem is when the poor have no opportunity to become richer. So long as their is no hindrance to people to equip themselves to become richer, it doesn't matter how much of the resources are at the top.

There are economic truths I have learned.

1. In a free society, the poor man is not poor because the rich are rich.

2. In a free society, every poor person can prepare himself or herself to move up and will have opportunity to do so.

3. In a free society you cannot help the poor by hurting the rich, and will invariably hurt the poor when you try.

I beg to differ.

1. Explain the example of McDonald's corporate policy which restricts the income of the franchise owner who in turn pays his/her staff poorly.

2. In all society's everyone must first provide for their food, clothing and shelter. When each of these products are priced out of their reach there is no opportunity for them to "move up".

3. "hurt" the rich? That's beyond hyperbole. The rich may not like paying taxes, but it hurts to have an empty stomach, an infected tooth, a sidewalk for a bed and a newspaper for a cover.

1. If having a McDonald's franchise is so oppressive, then why have I audited dozens and dozens of corporations that have 10 - 20 - 30 or ore of these franchises? And even those who have only one store, seem to be living pretty well. News flash: nobody forces anybody to take a McDonald's franchise. It is purely a voluntary thing.

Corporations which have dozens or more can - if they live so well - afford to compensate their employees with living (yeah, we all know what that means, don't pretend you don't) wages and benefits.

Further McDonald's products are priced competitively with Burger King, Wendy's, Sonic, Jack in the Box, and all the other burger franchises, and the bottom line is similar in all these types of businesses. So, they too are paying low wages and provide no benefits. The taxpayers where they work pick up the cost of their health care at the local county/public hospital And because I've audited all of them at some time or other, I am quite confident that the profit margin is similar in all with variations in both traffic and overhead depending on location. Second News flash: nobody forces anybody to patronize these stores nor is anybody forced to work for one.

Well I don't patronize those stores, 'cause I won't poison my body with that crap. But that's for another thread. They are purveyors of high fat and high caloric foods to the poor. Adding to the costs of health care to local taxpayers. Those who work in the field are exploited, many are working in the US illegally and or single moms the product of a dead beat dad.

And finally, NONE of that has one single thing to do with the benefit or lack thereof of a flat tax. A flat tax, however, would free up corporate profits to enable more expansion and more low pay jobs, or maybe better pay and benefits in existing ones. If you were honest you wouldn't even suggest such a thing. That certainly won't happen as much if you cut deeper into the profits of the person who owns the franchises. It won't happen until strikes force them to become less greedy.

2. In a free market, somebody is going to provide food, clothing, and shelter at a price people can afford. Why? But it is in their interest to sell their product, and if they price it out of reach of people, they don't sell it and they don't profit. Sure, Goodwill and the Salvation Army are great organizations; poor kids love getting worn and used clothing to attend school. The new right hopes to end foods subsidy's for the poor and rents allow many a single mom and a couple of kids to live in a one room unit. Of course they have every chance to "move up", don't they?A flat tax, however, would almost certainly have the effect of allowing many products and services to be provided more cheaply than they are now. Laugh my ass off! And if that increased demand, it would likely spur increased acivity that would encourage more employment that in turn would reduce unemployment which is unsually necessary if wages and benefits are to be increased.

Higher wages and benefits will spur general economic activity. Yet the new right is opposed to unions which have in the past aided in the creation of a vibrant middle class.

3. I didn't say the rich would be hurt. I said any attempt of the self-righteous leftwing dogooder to take from the rich in favor of the poor, will almost always result in the poor being hurt far more than any rich person will be. 'Bulloony', that makes no sense. Nothing stays the same when you change key dynamics like tax policy. If the tax policy encourages the wealthy to make more of their resources available, then all are benefitted. If the goal of the tax policy is to redistribute wealth, fewer resources will be available to the poor, and the poor will suffer the most.

You really did drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[Foxfyre]

I beg to differ.

1. Explain the example of McDonald's corporate policy which restricts the income of the franchise owner who in turn pays his/her staff poorly.

2. In all society's everyone must first provide for their food, clothing and shelter. When each of these products are priced out of their reach there is no opportunity for them to "move up".

3. "hurt" the rich? That's beyond hyperbole. The rich may not like paying taxes, but it hurts to have an empty stomach, an infected tooth, a sidewalk for a bed and a newspaper for a cover.

1. If having a McDonald's franchise is so oppressive, then why have I audited dozens and dozens of corporations that have 10 - 20 - 30 or ore of these franchises? And even those who have only one store, seem to be living pretty well. News flash: nobody forces anybody to take a McDonald's franchise. It is purely a voluntary thing.

Corporations which have dozens or more can - if they live so well - afford to compensate their employees with living (yeah, we all know what that means, don't pretend you don't) wages and benefits.

Further McDonald's products are priced competitively with Burger King, Wendy's, Sonic, Jack in the Box, and all the other burger franchises, and the bottom line is similar in all these types of businesses. So, they too are paying low wages and provide no benefits. The taxpayers where they work pick up the cost of their health care at the local county/public hospital And because I've audited all of them at some time or other, I am quite confident that the profit margin is similar in all with variations in both traffic and overhead depending on location. Second News flash: nobody forces anybody to patronize these stores nor is anybody forced to work for one.

Well I don't patronize those stores, 'cause I won't poison my body with that crap. But that's for another thread. They are purveyors of high fat and high caloric foods to the poor. Adding to the costs of health care to local taxpayers. Those who work in the field are exploited, many are working in the US illegally and or single moms the product of a dead beat dad.

And finally, NONE of that has one single thing to do with the benefit or lack thereof of a flat tax. A flat tax, however, would free up corporate profits to enable more expansion and more low pay jobs, or maybe better pay and benefits in existing ones. If you were honest you wouldn't even suggest such a thing. That certainly won't happen as much if you cut deeper into the profits of the person who owns the franchises. It won't happen until strikes force them to become less greedy.

2. In a free market, somebody is going to provide food, clothing, and shelter at a price people can afford. Why? But it is in their interest to sell their product, and if they price it out of reach of people, they don't sell it and they don't profit. Sure, Goodwill and the Salvation Army are great organizations; poor kids love getting worn and used clothing to attend school. The new right hopes to end foods subsidy's for the poor and rents allow many a single mom and a couple of kids to live in a one room unit. Of course they have every chance to "move up", don't they?A flat tax, however, would almost certainly have the effect of allowing many products and services to be provided more cheaply than they are now. Laugh my ass off! And if that increased demand, it would likely spur increased acivity that would encourage more employment that in turn would reduce unemployment which is unsually necessary if wages and benefits are to be increased.

Higher wages and benefits will spur general economic activity. Yet the new right is opposed to unions which have in the past aided in the creation of a vibrant middle class.

3. I didn't say the rich would be hurt. I said any attempt of the self-righteous leftwing dogooder to take from the rich in favor of the poor, will almost always result in the poor being hurt far more than any rich person will be. 'Bulloony', that makes no sense. Nothing stays the same when you change key dynamics like tax policy. If the tax policy encourages the wealthy to make more of their resources available, then all are benefitted. If the goal of the tax policy is to redistribute wealth, fewer resources will be available to the poor, and the poor will suffer the most.

You really did drink the Kool-Aid.

And you illegally edited my post. I won't report it, but just noted it.

In your previous post you obviously haven't bothered to read the thread as your question was asked and answered ad nauseum earlier. I won't bother answering it again. I'm sure you'll understand.

In this one I was stating opinions that I believe will stand up to any kind of test you want to give them. Changing the parameters or rewriting the thesis of the statements is not only dishonest debate, but also points to how political and manipulative are those who can't bear to think some people are more successful than others because they MERIT success. Or that millions of people don't need a living wage at any given time and appreciate having the ability to make extra money working at a place like Micky D's.

And yes, it's a free country. You don't have to patronize any place you don't wish to patronize. If only you could take the same live and let live approach and apply it to what other folks choose to do.

The flat tax is not a cure all or end all solution to anything. But it's a damn good start in restoring honest equality to the system.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. If having a McDonald's franchise is so oppressive, then why have I audited dozens and dozens of corporations that have 10 - 20 - 30 or ore of these franchises? And even those who have only one store, seem to be living pretty well. News flash: nobody forces anybody to take a McDonald's franchise. It is purely a voluntary thing.

Corporations which have dozens or more can - if they live so well - afford to compensate their employees with living (yeah, we all know what that means, don't pretend you don't) wages and benefits.

Further McDonald's products are priced competitively with Burger King, Wendy's, Sonic, Jack in the Box, and all the other burger franchises, and the bottom line is similar in all these types of businesses. So, they too are paying low wages and provide no benefits. The taxpayers where they work pick up the cost of their health care at the local county/public hospital And because I've audited all of them at some time or other, I am quite confident that the profit margin is similar in all with variations in both traffic and overhead depending on location. Second News flash: nobody forces anybody to patronize these stores nor is anybody forced to work for one.

Well I don't patronize those stores, 'cause I won't poison my body with that crap. But that's for another thread. They are purveyors of high fat and high caloric foods to the poor. Adding to the costs of health care to local taxpayers. Those who work in the field are exploited, many are working in the US illegally and or single moms the product of a dead beat dad.

And finally, NONE of that has one single thing to do with the benefit or lack thereof of a flat tax. A flat tax, however, would free up corporate profits to enable more expansion and more low pay jobs, or maybe better pay and benefits in existing ones. If you were honest you wouldn't even suggest such a thing. That certainly won't happen as much if you cut deeper into the profits of the person who owns the franchises. It won't happen until strikes force them to become less greedy.

2. In a free market, somebody is going to provide food, clothing, and shelter at a price people can afford. Why? But it is in their interest to sell their product, and if they price it out of reach of people, they don't sell it and they don't profit. Sure, Goodwill and the Salvation Army are great organizations; poor kids love getting worn and used clothing to attend school. The new right hopes to end foods subsidy's for the poor and rents allow many a single mom and a couple of kids to live in a one room unit. Of course they have every chance to "move up", don't they?A flat tax, however, would almost certainly have the effect of allowing many products and services to be provided more cheaply than they are now. Laugh my ass off! And if that increased demand, it would likely spur increased acivity that would encourage more employment that in turn would reduce unemployment which is unsually necessary if wages and benefits are to be increased.

Higher wages and benefits will spur general economic activity. Yet the new right is opposed to unions which have in the past aided in the creation of a vibrant middle class.

3. I didn't say the rich would be hurt. I said any attempt of the self-righteous leftwing dogooder to take from the rich in favor of the poor, will almost always result in the poor being hurt far more than any rich person will be. 'Bulloony', that makes no sense. Nothing stays the same when you change key dynamics like tax policy. If the tax policy encourages the wealthy to make more of their resources available, then all are benefitted. If the goal of the tax policy is to redistribute wealth, fewer resources will be available to the poor, and the poor will suffer the most.

You really did drink the Kool-Aid.

And you illegally edited my post. I won't report it, but just noted it.

I did? Do you mean by putting parenthetic comments in red? If that's 'editing' we have a much different understanding of what that is. I did not change any of your words, if I did please show me where and I will humbly apologize for an unintended error.

In your previous post you obviously haven't bothered to read the thread as your question was asked and answered ad nauseum earlier. I won't bother answering it again. I'm sure you'll understand.

No, I don't - please cite where (time and post number) and I will endeavor to understand.

In this one I was stating opinions that I believe will stand up to any kind of test you want to give them. Changing the parameters or rewriting the thesis of the statements is not only dishonest debate, but also points to how political and manipulative are those who can't bear to think some people are more successful than others because they MERIT success. Or that millions of people don't need a living wage at any given time and appreciate having the ability to make extra money working at a place like Micky D's.

Oh, grow up. You have a biased opinion, so do I. I can support my theory of government using historical events; evidence not simply opinions based on some dogma.

These threads have a life all of their own. They ramble with every opinion offered and every rebuttal. Don't pretend this forum requires the rules of debate or narrow parameters.

Of course I understand some people are more successful than others; I'm one of them. I also understand that not everyone needs a living wage. However, in the example I used (McDonalds) I've know single moms I described above. As a Little League Coach, CYO Basketball Coach and a volunteer with the PTA when my kids were in elementary school, I've seen the single moms and intact families struggle to get by on low wages wikth no benefits; I have empathy for them, that you seem not too makes you one of those callous conservatives I despise.



And yes, it's a free country. You don't have to patronize any place you don't wish to patronize. If only you could take the same live and let live approach and apply it to what other folks choose to do.

I suggest you take your own advice.

The flat tax is not a cure all or end all solution to anything. But it's a damn good start in restoring honest equality to the system.

Wrong. The flat tax if established will be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in America. The coffin was built by five members of the USSC, in CU v. FEC and the efforts of people like you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bump

 

[Foxfyre]

Not going to respond to all that chopped up stuff Wry. I hate that method of posting and choose not to do it.

As for the flat tax ending democracy as we know it, I'm sure you probably believe that. But only an extreme left winger can believe that treating everybody equally and the same is destructive to democracy.

You probably believe commerce and industry charges anything they want for their products and services. I've noticed that is a delusion that many extreme left wingers operate under. But no business is going to provide a product or service if there are no customers, so it is in their interest to provide products and services that people can afford to buy. That is the magic of the free market--it finds a level that allows those who produce to profit from their labor and, because it does, products and services are available to those who need or want them.

Perhaps instead of finding a way to support the single mothers out there--the number one cause of child poverty in the USA today and way ahead of anything else--we should instead be focusing on encouraging and strengthening the traditional family which is the surest cure for poverty and the surest way to ensure that the family enjoys a living income. A flat tax would actually help in that regard.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not going to respond to all that chopped up stuff Wry. I hate that method of posting and choose not to do it.

As for the flat tax ending democracy as we know it, I'm sure you probably believe that. But only an extreme left winger can believe that treating everybody equally and the same is destructive to democracy.

You probably believe commerce and industry charges anything they want for their products and services. I've noticed that is a delusion that many extreme left wingers operate under. But no business is going to provide a product or service if there are no customers, so it is in their interest to provide products and services that people can afford to buy. That is the magic of the free market--it finds a level that allows those who produce to profit from their labor and, because it does, products and services are available to those who need or want them.

Perhaps instead of finding a way to support the single mothers out there--the number one cause of child poverty in the USA today and way ahead of anything else--we should instead be focusing on encouraging and strengthening the traditional family which is the surest cure for poverty and the surest way to ensure that the family enjoys a living income. A flat tax would actually help in that regard.

In deference to your taste I'll respond paragraph by paragraph.

I never wrote everyone should be treated equally, I do believe everyone should be treated equally under the law.

Most, but not all businesses charge what they can for services and products, I have no problems with that. What bothers me is the value of the products - and even the services - are less and the purveyors expect more; and those who do not labor pay those who do poorly. Can you deny the new right is opposed to and hopes to take away the right of workers to bargain collectively? Once upon a time I could break a Craftsman Tool and Sears would replace it, no questions asked. Once upon a time I could buy a major appliance and expect the maker to honor its reliability; today we need to buy an insurance policy just to get a warranty.

A flat tax is bullshit. It is the surest way to establish an underclass and an elite class. As for your hope to socially engineer traditional families, good luck. That train has left the station.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm going to the dog park now, puppy gets into trouble if she doesn't get to run around and play with others of her kind.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not going to respond to all that chopped up stuff Wry. I hate that method of posting and choose not to do it.

As for the flat tax ending democracy as we know it, I'm sure you probably believe that. But only an extreme left winger can believe that treating everybody equally and the same is destructive to democracy.

You probably believe commerce and industry charges anything they want for their products and services. I've noticed that is a delusion that many extreme left wingers operate under. But no business is going to provide a product or service if there are no customers, so it is in their interest to provide products and services that people can afford to buy. That is the magic of the free market--it finds a level that allows those who produce to profit from their labor and, because it does, products and services are available to those who need or want them.

Perhaps instead of finding a way to support the single mothers out there--the number one cause of child poverty in the USA today and way ahead of anything else--we should instead be focusing on encouraging and strengthening the traditional family which is the surest cure for poverty and the surest way to ensure that the family enjoys a living income. A flat tax would actually help in that regard.

In deference to your taste I'll respond paragraph by paragraph.

I never wrote everyone should be treated equally, I do believe everyone should be treated equally under the law.

Most, but not all businesses charge what they can for services and products, I have no problems with that. What bothers me is the value of the products - and even the services - are less and the purveyors expect more; and those who do not labor pay those who do poorly. Can you deny the new right is opposed to and hopes to take away the right of workers to bargain collectively? Once upon a time I could break a Craftsman Tool and Sears would replace it, no questions asked. Once upon a time I could buy a major appliance and expect the maker to honor its reliability; today we need to buy an insurance policy just to get a warranty.

A flat tax is bullshit. It is the surest way to establish an underclass and an elite class. As for you hope to socially engineer traditional families, good luck. That train has left the station.

No you didn't write that everybody should be treated equally. You favor a tax code that treats people very unequally as we currently have. I prefer that everybody be treated equally period.

The free market takes care of the value of products and services too. Somebody who wants something cheap for short term temporary use doesn't care much about quality. So we enjoy having the Dollar Stores and flea markets. But for those who want quality, those who produce the products will give them that quality. Everybody wants a piece of the pie and they will do their damndest to make their product or service the most attractive to the consumer. That's how the free market works. Those who take no pride in their product or service will fall by the wayside or prosper little and that's takes care of the quality issues. That is why artificial price and/or wage controls invariably result in less quality and poorer service.

I have yet to find quality in the private sector to be inferior to that provided by government and it will almost always be superior.

And until you can provide a rationale for how a flat tax would create more of an underclass and elite class than we currently have, I have to think your unsupportable opinion about that is what is bullshit.

 

[Rshermr]

Not going to respond to all that chopped up stuff Wry. I hate that method of posting and choose not to do it.

As for the flat tax ending democracy as we know it, I'm sure you probably believe that. But only an extreme left winger can believe that treating everybody equally and the same is destructive to democracy.

You probably believe commerce and industry charges anything they want for their products and services. I've noticed that is a delusion that many extreme left wingers operate under. But no business is going to provide a product or service if there are no customers, so it is in their interest to provide products and services that people can afford to buy. That is the magic of the free market--it finds a level that allows those who produce to profit from their labor and, because it does, products and services are available to those who need or want them.

Perhaps instead of finding a way to support the single mothers out there--the number one cause of child poverty in the USA today and way ahead of anything else--we should instead be focusing on encouraging and strengthening the traditional family which is the surest cure for poverty and the surest way to ensure that the family enjoys a living income. A flat tax would actually help in that regard.

In deference to your taste I'll respond paragraph by paragraph.

I never wrote everyone should be treated equally, I do believe everyone should be treated equally under the law.

Most, but not all businesses charge what they can for services and products, I have no problems with that. What bothers me is the value of the products - and even the services - are less and the purveyors expect more; and those who do not labor pay those who do poorly. Can you deny the new right is opposed to and hopes to take away the right of workers to bargain collectively? Once upon a time I could break a Craftsman Tool and Sears would replace it, no questions asked. Once upon a time I could buy a major appliance and expect the maker to honor its reliability; today we need to buy an insurance policy just to get a warranty.

A flat tax is bullshit. It is the surest way to establish an underclass and an elite class. As for you hope to socially engineer traditional families, good luck. That train has left the station.

No you didn't write that everybody should be treated equally. You favor a tax code that treats people very unequally as we currently have. I prefer that everybody be treated equally period.

The free market takes care of the value of products and services too. Somebody who wants something cheap for short term temporary use doesn't care much about quality. So we enjoy having the Dollar Stores and flea markets. But for those who want quality, those who produce the products will give them that quality. Everybody wants a piece of the pie and they will do their damndest to make their product or service the most attractive to the consumer. That's how the free market works. Those who take no pride in their product or service will fall by the wayside or prosper little and that's takes care of the quality issues. That is why artificial price and/or wage controls invariably result in less quality and poorer service.

I have yet to find quality in the private sector to be inferior to that provided by government and it will almost always be superior.

And until you can provide a rationale for how a flat tax would create more of an underclass and elite class than we currently have, I have to think your unsupportable opinion about that is what is bullshit.

You should actually try reading. Get your head out of your ass and into a few impartial economic discussions of the subject. And then, you may want to try to find an actual example of a nation which has some characteristics of a major industrialized nation where a flat tax in and of itself is working for that nation. You can show nations with over 20% flat taxes where it kind of works. But it will be a small economy and will have a really interesting income distribution.
But then, you will not. You will just keep posting opinion and vindictive. Boring and useless as always.
Maybe a clear plastic navel???

 

[Auteur]

You keep saying that, but you seem unable to explain the mechanism by which that would really happen. Explain how if we went to a flat tax tomorrow why EXACTLY it would be the doom of the middle class. How exactly would the rich having more money inherently mean the middle class can not have more money?

Start your reading here:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/?_r=0

Not a good link friend. His argument are so full of holes it's no wonder yours are so stupid. Where to start..... First he wants Us all to buy into the class envy argument that we should be upset that the rich don't pay more in income taxes and that they've actually had to pay a little less over the years. Second he tries to continue to sell his unfairness argument by comparing our progressive tax rates to other countries. That argument doesn't fly because he hasn't established why a progressive income tax is fair in the first place. Next implying that capitals gains should be taxed on unrealized income; taxing money you don't actually have, yeah, sorry you might want to get your tax theory from smarter people at some point. Lastly he doesn't ever even touch on the concept of a flat tax. So make your own argument instead of using the argument of someone....or not the argument of someone else in this case.

The problem is people like you look at the tax system completely backwards. You look at it as a means of punishing this group or that group. That's wrong. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government's obligations. So step one in coming up with a system to do that should first be to determine how much money the government actually needs. That alone renders most of your argument irrellavent. The next question is simply what is a fair method of distributing that tax burden. Most of us derive equal benefit from that which our tax dollars fund. Defense of the country, our education system, roads and highways, social programs, etc. So it seems to me the fairest way to collect that would be to tax everyone's income the same amount. I would go higher than 10% admittedly. Historically the U.S. government has always collected around 18% of GDP in tax revenue. GDP can essentially also be thought of the entire countries gross income. It has always been around 18% give or take a couple percentage points despite politicians messing with the tax code over the decades. So since that's all they're ever likely to get anyway I would say an 18% flat tax on any and all income, elimination of most, if not all, tax credits, loopholes, deductions, etc. Would be a rather fair system for funding the government's obligations.

Lastly, you liberals really need to stop pretending what you want is fair tax code. In every tax debate I've had about this liberals prove they wouldn't know the definition of the word 'fair' if it bit them on the ass. A progressive tax system meets no defintion of the word fair that I know of. That the rich should pay more in taxes for no other reason than they have more meets no defintion of the word fair I am aware of. Make any other argument you want for whatever tax system you want, but please stop lieing and telling us it's because you want the system to be more fair.

There is so much BS flying about on this thread that I don't know whether to respond, or wipe down my monitor with a strong solution of bleach. Seeing as you have made an effort though, here's an answer.

You have set aside the pragmatic, and waxed towards the philosophical here. Fair enough. Underneath every viewpoint is an underlying set of beliefs. The implicit belief you state here is that the market functions pretty much perfectly, while government bureaucracy is not only inefficient, but something alien and to be feared. If a worker makes a dollar, under this paradigm, then that means he was added exactly a dollars worth of value to society. He "earned" it. If another worker made a dollar fifty, then he added fifty percent more value to society, and earned that money. I suspect there are some young boys and girls in private schools somewhere, who have led an affluent and cloistered existence, that earnestly believe this, but it is hard to imagine anyone else who does.

Here it is bluntly Bern: there is very little fairness in the market place, or in the universe generally. What fairness there is, is for the most part what has been hard won by those motivated to make the human condition better; social activists, labour leaders, intellectuals, reformers, and yes even politicians at times. They have done this for the most part by influencing the political process, not by opening a McDonalds, or a Wal Mart. The magic invisible guiding hand of the market, favored by demented movie stars, voracious industrialists, and greedy entrepreneurs is just that: magic. Magic is great for stage shows and hollywood movies. But it is not real. Those that insist it is invariably have ulterior motives, or are individuals who should have spent more time reading economics, than watching shows.

Many tend to take what they can get, and for some, that's substantial. Wall Street traders can extract millions in fees for even dubious financial transactions (why do you think they wanted social security privatized?), corporate CEOs extract 10, 50, 100 million a year, as their companies lose money, or go bust. One would think society deified plumbers and dentists in our society, such is the rate of compensation for their modest efforts. For those without a voice- without a union or a professional association- compensation can be quite out of line for what they actually do.

Whether self-employed entrepreneur or employee, all are constrained by factors far from their control in our modern world, as I have outlined above. Davy Crockett may have made his own way, but today he would have many additional things to think about. Why do you think corporations spend billions on lobbyists? It's because they know that making money is not merely a matter of a well functioning marketplace, but is inextricably embedded in political and social functioning, and is to a great extent a matter of subjectivity.

The uber-right likes to toss around the term "social engineering". It's a code phrase meaning: less tax, regulation, and government functioning means more profit for us- bring those pork chops over here! "Social engineering" happens every day of the week. If it's not done by the people, through there accepted institutions, then it will be done by someone else. That someone else today is usually those at the apex of the corporate world, and the engineered results are usually take the form of structures beneficial to them. Fairness for them is often not fairness for us. I don't think many Americans voted for massive redistribution of wealth to the top half a percent or so of the population. I don't think they voted for being bankrupted by medical expenses, when they see those in other countries easily accessing these sort of medical necessities. Those to whom materialism is supreme attempt their social engineering every day. Often this is counterbalanced by those with deeper social values in mind. Fortunately, the latter can (sometimes) use taxes as a positive, pro-social instrument.

 

[Foxfyre]

Start your reading here:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/?_r=0

Not a good link friend. His argument are so full of holes it's no wonder yours are so stupid. Where to start..... First he wants Us all to buy into the class envy argument that we should be upset that the rich don't pay more in income taxes and that they've actually had to pay a little less over the years. Second he tries to continue to sell his unfairness argument by comparing our progressive tax rates to other countries. That argument doesn't fly because he hasn't established why a progressive income tax is fair in the first place. Next implying that capitals gains should be taxed on unrealized income; taxing money you don't actually have, yeah, sorry you might want to get your tax theory from smarter people at some point. Lastly he doesn't ever even touch on the concept of a flat tax. So make your own argument instead of using the argument of someone....or not the argument of someone else in this case.

The problem is people like you look at the tax system completely backwards. You look at it as a means of punishing this group or that group. That's wrong. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government's obligations. So step one in coming up with a system to do that should first be to determine how much money the government actually needs. That alone renders most of your argument irrellavent. The next question is simply what is a fair method of distributing that tax burden. Most of us derive equal benefit from that which our tax dollars fund. Defense of the country, our education system, roads and highways, social programs, etc. So it seems to me the fairest way to collect that would be to tax everyone's income the same amount. I would go higher than 10% admittedly. Historically the U.S. government has always collected around 18% of GDP in tax revenue. GDP can essentially also be thought of the entire countries gross income. It has always been around 18% give or take a couple percentage points despite politicians messing with the tax code over the decades. So since that's all they're ever likely to get anyway I would say an 18% flat tax on any and all income, elimination of most, if not all, tax credits, loopholes, deductions, etc. Would be a rather fair system for funding the government's obligations.

Lastly, you liberals really need to stop pretending what you want is fair tax code. In every tax debate I've had about this liberals prove they wouldn't know the definition of the word 'fair' if it bit them on the ass. A progressive tax system meets no defintion of the word fair that I know of. That the rich should pay more in taxes for no other reason than they have more meets no defintion of the word fair I am aware of. Make any other argument you want for whatever tax system you want, but please stop lieing and telling us it's because you want the system to be more fair.

There is so much BS flying about on this thread that I don't know whether to respond, or wipe down my monitor with a strong solution of bleach. Seeing as you have made an effort though, here's an answer.

You have set aside the pragmatic, and waxed towards the philosophical here. Fair enough. Underneath every viewpoint is an underlying set of beliefs. The implicit belief you state here is that the market functions pretty much perfectly, while government bureaucracy is not only inefficient, but something alien and to be feared. If a worker makes a dollar, under this paradigm, then that means he was added exactly a dollars worth of value to society. He "earned" it. If another worker made a dollar fifty, then he added fifty percent more value to society, and earned that money. I suspect there are some young boys and girls in private schools somewhere, who have led an affluent and cloistered existence, that earnestly believe this, but it is hard to imagine anyone else who does.

Here it is bluntly Bern: there is very little fairness in the market place, or in the universe generally. What fairness there is, is for the most part what has been hard won by those motivated to make the human condition better; social activists, labour leaders, intellectuals, reformers, and yes even politicians at times. They have done this for the most part by influencing the political process, not by opening a McDonalds, or a Wal Mart. The magic invisible guiding hand of the market, favored by demented movie stars, voracious industrialists, and greedy entrepreneurs is just that: magic. Magic is great for stage shows and hollywood movies. But it is not real. Those that insist it is invariably have ulterior motives, or are individuals who should have spent more time reading economics, than watching shows.

Many tend to take what they can get, and for some, that's substantial. Wall Street traders can extract millions in fees for even dubious financial transactions (why do you think they wanted social security privatized?), corporate CEOs extract 10, 50, 100 million a year, as their companies lose money, or go bust. One would think society deified plumbers and dentists in our society, such is the rate of compensation for their modest efforts. For those without a voice- without a union or a professional association- compensation can be quite out of line for what they actually do.

Whether self-employed entrepreneur or employee, all are constrained by factors far from their control in our modern world, as I have outlined above. Davy Crockett may have made his own way, but today he would have many additional things to think about. Why do you think corporations spend billions on lobbyists? It's because they know that making money is not merely a matter of a well functioning marketplace, but is inextricably embedded in political and social functioning, and is to a great extent a matter of subjectivity.

The uber-right likes to toss around the term "social engineering". It's a code phrase meaning: less tax, regulation, and government functioning means more profit for us- bring those pork chops over here! "Social engineering" happens every day of the week. If it's not done by the people, through there accepted institutions, then it will be done by someone else. That someone else today is usually those at the apex of the corporate world, and the engineered results are usually take the form of structures beneficial to them. Fairness for them is often not fairness for us. I don't think many Americans voted for massive redistribution of wealth to the top half a percent or so of the population. I don't think they voted for being bankrupted by medical expenses, when they see those in other countries easily accessing these sort of medical necessities. Those to whom materialism is supreme attempt their social engineering every day. Often this is counterbalanced by those with deeper social values in mind. Fortunately, the latter can (sometimes) use taxes as a positive, pro-social instrument.

I got your link to work and it was a fairly well written article focusing on class envy. The thing the writer did not address:

1. Why it is unfair for the rich to have the same tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits that are available to everybody else who qualifies for them in order to reduce their tax burden. . . and. . .

2. How a flat tax on all earned income that would eliminate most or all of those tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits so that the rich would be paying the same percentage on all their income as everybody else would be somehow unfair.