The Flat Tax

[kwc57]

So, got it. You do not know of a country with a flat tax that is doing really well. So, that was my point, me boy. The concept of a flat tax is really simply for weak minded cons, like you. The concept is so bad you can not find a country with a predominantly flat tax that you would suggest is a great place to be. What a surprise.

Did you hear that France has admitted it cannot afford more taxes? Are you aware that their top marginal rate is 100%? Why don't you tell me how good they are doing.

Just checking, me poor ignorant con. Thanks for the conformation that you can not name a country that is doing well with a flat tax.

Answer the question coward.

 

[Rshermr]

Did you hear that France has admitted it cannot afford more taxes? Are you aware that their top marginal rate is 100%? Why don't you tell me how good they are doing.

Just checking, me poor ignorant con. Thanks for the conformation that you can not name a country that is doing well with a flat tax.

Answer the question coward.

Funny. You get angry with Windbag for failing to answer my question. But go ahead. You answer the question for Windbag. Between the two of you, perhaps you can come up with a name. Though the two of you can not come up with normal IQ. Cumulatively.

 

[Foxfyre]

Once free of the USSR, many of the Soviet empire nations instituted flat taxes that were quite successful and those nations enjoyed amazing economic growth. But was that due to the flat tax? Or was it due to being out from under the oppressive Soviet regime? That would be difficult to say.

In the wake of the 2008 global downturn, many nations are now suffering economic woes regardless of their tax systems. But can you blame the flat tax for that? It would really be difficult to make a case that the flat tax was the problem.

The bottom line for me is that a flat tax depoliticizes the tax system. A flat tax applied equitably across the board means the government cannot use the tax code to buy favor to keep itself in power nor punish its 'enemies'. A change in the tax code would affect everybody equally and proportionately which means the government would have more incentive to do its level best to keep all the people happy. It might even be persuaded to become more of a public servant again instead of a massive entity that serves mostly itself.

And if the government has less money to operate on, perhaps it won't be wasting as much money on a shrimp on a treadmill or lavish parties for government employees, and it will have at least some less incentive to use the people's money to buy votes to keep itself in power.

 

[Rshermr]

Once free of the USSR, many of the Soviet empire nations instituted flat taxes that were quite successful and those nations enjoyed amazing economic growth. But was that due to the flat tax? Or was it due to being out from under the oppressive Soviet regime? That would be difficult to say.

In the wake of the 2008 global downturn, many nations are now suffering economic woes regardless of their tax systems. But can you blame the flat tax for that? It would really be difficult to make a case that the flat tax was the problem.

The bottom line for me is that a flat tax depoliticizes the tax system. A flat tax applied equitably across the board means the government cannot use the tax code to buy favor to keep itself in power nor punish its 'enemies'. A change in the tax code would affect everybody equally and proportionately which means the government would have more incentive to do its level best to keep all the people happy. It might even be persuaded to become more of a public servant again instead of a massive entity that serves mostly itself.

And if the government has less money to operate on, perhaps it won't be wasting as much money on a shrimp on a treadmill or lavish parties for government employees, and it will have at least some less incentive to use the people's money to buy votes to keep itself in power.

So you can not name a successful economy who's tax system is primarily a flat tax either. But you believe it would work great. Got it.

 

[Bern80]

Demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously.

Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

You didn't disguise your alterior motive very well, wry. It doesn't seem your interested in a fair tax policy so much your interested in making sure people don't have more wealth than you believe is okay. The a flat tax would do a lot more than just make wealthy peopel wealthier (not really sure how that's a bad thing). First and foremost, it would be fair. Everybody pays the same percentage of tax on any type of income.

To claim that libertarians aren't for freedom if there okay with rich people having more money is simply false. One person having more money than another does not inherently mean the person with less is less free. Money is the means by which many freedoms are exercised for sure, but it is not societies or the government job to make sure that everyone has enough money to do so. It's your own job to make sure you have the money needed to do the things you want.

 

[Auteur]

Demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously.

Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

You didn't disguise your alterior motive very well, wry. It doesn't seem your interested in a fair tax policy so much your interested in making sure people don't have more wealth than you believe is okay. The a flat tax would do a lot more than just make wealthy peopel wealthier (not really sure how that's a bad thing). First and foremost, it would be fair. Everybody pays the same percentage of tax on any type of income.

To claim that libertarians aren't for freedom if there okay with rich people having more money is simply false. One person having more money than another does not inherently mean the person with less is less free. Money is the means by which many freedoms are exercised for sure, but it is not societies or the government job to make sure that everyone has enough money to do so. It's your own job to make sure you have the money needed to do the things you want.

If you had complete control over the myriod factors that affect your life and well being, then yes, you could at least make that arguement. But you do not. That's why we (through government) must take a proactive stance in creating the sort of society we want, or else someone else will do it for us, and that will probably be the biggest tiger in the jungle.

You cannot control labour laws, interest rates, trade and tariffs, immigration policy, energy use, environmental protection, civil rights, or many other things as and individual. That's why power, in the form of large scale wealth, should not be concentrated in the hands of a few of the most voracious businessmen, but used for what we deem necessary and appropriate. Exxon and Microsoft are not going to do that for you.

 

[RKMBrown]

We have a spending problem. The Spending problem has created a taxing problem based on the fact that the people are voting for money and paychecks out of the general fund. Fix the spending problem and the tax problem goes away. That said. Sales tax + import duties > flat tax with no deductions > flat tax with deductions > progressive tax with no deductions > progressive tax with deductions. Funny how our current tax system is the worst possible type of tax as it punishes people for working and producing. Ok not funny.

 

[Bern80]

Demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously.

Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

You didn't disguise your alterior motive very well, wry. It doesn't seem your interested in a fair tax policy so much your interested in making sure people don't have more wealth than you believe is okay. The a flat tax would do a lot more than just make wealthy peopel wealthier (not really sure how that's a bad thing). First and foremost, it would be fair. Everybody pays the same percentage of tax on any type of income.

To claim that libertarians aren't for freedom if there okay with rich people having more money is simply false. One person having more money than another does not inherently mean the person with less is less free. Money is the means by which many freedoms are exercised for sure, but it is not societies or the government job to make sure that everyone has enough money to do so. It's your own job to make sure you have the money needed to do the things you want.

If you had complete control over the myriod factors that affect your life and well being, then yes, you could at least make that arguement. But you do not. That's why we (through government) must take a proactive stance in creating the sort of society we want, or else someone else will do it for us, and that will probably be the biggest tiger in the jungle.

You cannot control labour laws, interest rates, trade and tariffs, immigration policy, energy use, environmental protection, civil rights, or many other things as and individual. That's why power, in the form of large scale wealth, should not be concentrated in the hands of a few of the most voracious businessmen, but used for what we deem necessary and appropriate. Exxon and Microsoft are not going to do that for you.

You hilight two of the fundmental problems with liberals. You always focuse on what you can't do. You never take responsibility for what you are in control of and you are in control of plenty. Certainly enough in this country to attain most any standard of wealth you desire.

Two, liberals are more interested in assured outcomes than assured opportunity. You are not entitled to outcomes. You are not entitled to x amount of dollars because it's what you think you need. When you start absolving people of responsibility for their own outcomes, holding the producers respsonsible for the outcomes of the non-producers, that's when society starts to break down and you really lose your freedom

 

[Rshermr]

We have a spending problem. The Spending problem has created a taxing problem based on the fact that the people are voting for money and paychecks out of the general fund. Fix the spending problem and the tax problem goes away. That said. Sales tax + import duties > flat tax with no deductions > flat tax with deductions > progressive tax with no deductions > progressive tax with deductions. Funny how our current tax system is the worst possible type of tax as it punishes people for working and producing. Ok not funny.

We have a spending problem? Jee, did you see that in all of your favorite bat shit crazy con web sites??? Of course you did. and, that is the end of your economic contribution.
Right. Bad tax system. which punishes people from working. Which explains why amerian workers have among the very highest productivity of any in the wold.
So, we noticed Ed, the resident troll, is missing. Are you simply trying to fill his roll?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously.

Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Excuse me but do you care to prove that a 10% flat tax on all income regardless of the source would result in less revenue not more and don't forget to factor in the billions that could be saved when we downsize the IRS.

Right now the total effective tax rate is 11% but that does not include 100% of all income. A flat tax of 10% on all income from dollar one would not reduce revenue.

 

[Rshermr]

Demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously.

Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Excuse me but do you care to prove that a 10% flat tax on all income regardless of the source would result in less revenue not more and don't forget to factor in the billions that could be saved when we downsize the IRS.

Right now the total effective tax rate is 11% but that does not include 100% of all income. A flat tax of 10% on all income from dollar one would not reduce revenue.

Sorry. You forgot to provide a link to back up your claim that the current effective tax rate is 11%. So, how about one. Because effective tax rate has a number of variables. Who are the people on whom the rate is based. What taxes are included. Why do you think a flat tax would have no deductions over time? Can you constiturionaly keep politicians from adding deductions?? And on, and on, and on.

 

[Auteur]

You didn't disguise your alterior motive very well, wry. It doesn't seem your interested in a fair tax policy so much your interested in making sure people don't have more wealth than you believe is okay. The a flat tax would do a lot more than just make wealthy peopel wealthier (not really sure how that's a bad thing). First and foremost, it would be fair. Everybody pays the same percentage of tax on any type of income.

To claim that libertarians aren't for freedom if there okay with rich people having more money is simply false. One person having more money than another does not inherently mean the person with less is less free. Money is the means by which many freedoms are exercised for sure, but it is not societies or the government job to make sure that everyone has enough money to do so. It's your own job to make sure you have the money needed to do the things you want.

If you had complete control over the myriod factors that affect your life and well being, then yes, you could at least make that arguement. But you do not. That's why we (through government) must take a proactive stance in creating the sort of society we want, or else someone else will do it for us, and that will probably be the biggest tiger in the jungle.

You cannot control labour laws, interest rates, trade and tariffs, immigration policy, energy use, environmental protection, civil rights, or many other things as and individual. That's why power, in the form of large scale wealth, should not be concentrated in the hands of a few of the most voracious businessmen, but used for what we deem necessary and appropriate. Exxon and Microsoft are not going to do that for you.

You hilight two of the fundmental problems with liberals. You always focuse on what you can't do. You never take responsibility for what you are in control of and you are in control of plenty. Certainly enough in this country to attain most any standard of wealth you desire.

I didn't here your reply to that tiny sampling of factors in modern society beyond your control. Speak up. Did you say zero items there within your control? And we could fill pages here with similar listings, could we not?

Two, liberals are more interested in assured outcomes than assured opportunity. You are not entitled to outcomes. You are not entitled to x amount of dollars because it's what you think you need. When you start absolving people of responsibility for their own outcomes, holding the producers respsonsible for the outcomes of the non-producers, that's when society starts to break down and you really lose your freedom

I'm not talking about incomes. I'm talking about directing society towards what is desired by the people, not by the corporate lobby. Do you want a literate and educated population, or more Flinstones movies, with their producers free to be millionaires in your flat tax environment? Another lovely day shopping at Wal Mart for made in China junk, or transit systems, clean energy, liveable cities? With your flat tax, society would be all about self-interest, not public interest. We have seen this already. The more deregulation there is, the more retreat to self gain, at the expense of others occurs. What do you think happened in 2008?

 

[Bern80]

Demagoguery at its finest. No one likes to pay taxes, but few of us would want government services curtailed to the extent a flat tax of 10% would cause. Some people seem to believe that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income. Most of us know that is not true.

The truth being a billionaire pays the same tax that I do and all of us do on equal earnings. The rate goes up on schedules listed in the tax booklet as does income. A flat rate would simply increase the amount of wealth of the very wealthy, rapidly and enormously.

Wealth = Power, and in a society where money can buy political ads and influence our road to a pure Plutocracy would be facilitated by a 10% flat tax. Hence, those Libertarian types who claim to support Liberty and Freedom for the individual really don't. For economic slavery is little different than confinement.

Excuse me but do you care to prove that a 10% flat tax on all income regardless of the source would result in less revenue not more and don't forget to factor in the billions that could be saved when we downsize the IRS.

Right now the total effective tax rate is 11% but that does not include 100% of all income. A flat tax of 10% on all income from dollar one would not reduce revenue.

I think liberals would be surprised how the math would work out seeing as all they care about is getting the government more money. I don't know for sure, but I would bet if we simplified the tax code in this manor, eliminating deduvtions, credit, loopholes etc. and all income was taxed at 10% (and I'd even be willing to gove up a few percantage points), whether it be individual or corproation, poor and rich, the government would more tax revenue than it does now. The real reason government doesn't want to do this is because they lose a bargaining chip in being able to make favors by manipulating the tax code.

 

[Auteur]

All a flat tax would do would be to further increase inequality in society, a trend that is already accelerating, without any help from the tax department. Those that believe in supernatural invisible guiding hands in the marketplace, rewarding only the honest and hard working, and slapping lazy welfare people on the head, are merely living out a fantasy, one strongly promoted by the most affluent, for obvious reasons.



One argument advanced by the flat taxers is that the current system is somehow "punishing success" and "chasing away our entrepreneurs." But this idea is just plain wrong. Top marginal income tax rates were well over 80% in the 1950s and 1960s, the decades of the past century with the highest levels of GDP, income and productivity growth.

A flat tax for fat cats | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

The above discusses Canada, but the issues are the same in the US.

 

[Bern80]

All a flat tax would do would be to further increase inequality in society, a trend that is already accelerating, without any help from the tax department. Those that believe in supernatural invisible guiding hands in the marketplace, rewarding only the honest and hard working, and slapping lazy welfare people on the head, are merely living out a fantasy, one strongly promoted by the most affluent, for obvious reasons.



One argument advanced by the flat taxers is that the current system is somehow "punishing success" and "chasing away our entrepreneurs." But this idea is just plain wrong. Top marginal income tax rates were well over 80% in the 1950s and 1960s, the decades of the past century with the highest levels of GDP, income and productivity growth.

A flat tax for fat cats | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

The above discusses Canada, but the issues are the same in the US.

Living in a fantasy only in the sense that we have the expectation that people hold themselves accountable. Which of course you liberals have an extreme aversion to. And historical circumstances may have plaid a small role in the productivity of those decades.

 

[Bern80]

If you had complete control over the myriod factors that affect your life and well being, then yes, you could at least make that arguement. But you do not. That's why we (through government) must take a proactive stance in creating the sort of society we want, or else someone else will do it for us, and that will probably be the biggest tiger in the jungle.

You cannot control labour laws, interest rates, trade and tariffs, immigration policy, energy use, environmental protection, civil rights, or many other things as and individual. That's why power, in the form of large scale wealth, should not be concentrated in the hands of a few of the most voracious businessmen, but used for what we deem necessary and appropriate. Exxon and Microsoft are not going to do that for you.

You hilight two of the fundmental problems with liberals. You always focuse on what you can't do. You never take responsibility for what you are in control of and you are in control of plenty. Certainly enough in this country to attain most any standard of wealth you desire.

I didn't here your reply to that tiny sampling of factors in modern society beyond your control. Speak up. Did you say zero items there within your control? And we could fill pages here with similar listings, could we not?

Of course there are factors beyond one's control. They are not however, factors that can not be overcome by the ones you can control.

Two, liberals are more interested in assured outcomes than assured opportunity. You are not entitled to outcomes. You are not entitled to x amount of dollars because it's what you think you need. When you start absolving people of responsibility for their own outcomes, holding the producers respsonsible for the outcomes of the non-producers, that's when society starts to break down and you really lose your freedom

I'm not talking about incomes. I'm talking about directing society towards what is desired by the people, not by the corporate lobby. Do you want a literate and educated population, or more Flinstones movies, with their producers free to be millionaires in your flat tax environment? Another lovely day shopping at Wal Mart for made in China junk, or transit systems, clean energy, liveable cities? With your flat tax, society would be all about self-interest, not public interest. We have seen this already. The more deregulation there is, the more retreat to self gain, at the expense of others occurs. What do you think happened in 2008?

Most people would desire to have more money? Surely you're not arguing the government should just give that to them as well? We want a lot of the same things, the problem is liberals are such poor problem solvers. Look no further than Obamacare. Again it boils down to taking responsibility for your role in society. YOU are the one is supposed to regulate the swindlers of the corporate world by not doing business with them. But again you don't want that responsibility, you insist on a care free existence where someone else is responsible for navigating life's pitfalls for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Once free of the USSR, many of the Soviet empire nations instituted flat taxes that were quite successful and those nations enjoyed amazing economic growth. But was that due to the flat tax? Or was it due to being out from under the oppressive Soviet regime? That would be difficult to say.

In the wake of the 2008 global downturn, many nations are now suffering economic woes regardless of their tax systems. But can you blame the flat tax for that? It would really be difficult to make a case that the flat tax was the problem.

The bottom line for me is that a flat tax depoliticizes the tax system. A flat tax applied equitably across the board means the government cannot use the tax code to buy favor to keep itself in power nor punish its 'enemies'. A change in the tax code would affect everybody equally and proportionately which means the government would have more incentive to do its level best to keep all the people happy. It might even be persuaded to become more of a public servant again instead of a massive entity that serves mostly itself.

And if the government has less money to operate on, perhaps it won't be wasting as much money on a shrimp on a treadmill or lavish parties for government employees, and it will have at least some less incentive to use the people's money to buy votes to keep itself in power.

So you can not name a successful economy who's tax system is primarily a flat tax either. But you believe it would work great. Got it.

I just referred to several nations that were quite successful with a flat tax, but my post was intended to communicate a somewhat different observation re the benefits of a flat tax. But one of these days I would like to start a foundation that could address the abysmal reading dysfunctions that seem to prevalent among all our liberal friends here. Your response to my post would certainly allow you to qualify for a full scholarship to such a program and I'll add your name to the list of potential candidates.

 

[Rshermr]

Among the primary economies of the world, included in those of the 33 included in OECD, there are only 3 countries with lower tax rates. Those would be Turkey, Chile, and Mexico. Here is the chart and the link:



How do US taxes compare internationally?

So what is the problem again???

 

[Bern80]

Among the primary economies of the world, included in those of the 33 included in OECD, there are only 3 countries with lower tax rates. Those would be Turkey, Chile, and Mexico. Here is the chart and the link:

View attachment 27380

How do US taxes compare internationally?

So what is the problem again???

I guess I can't tell you what the problem is as I have no idea what tax rates and policy in our country has to do with tax rates in other countries.

 

[Foxfyre]

Among the primary economies of the world, included in those of the 33 included in OECD, there are only 3 countries with lower tax rates. Those would be Turkey, Chile, and Mexico. Here is the chart and the link:

View attachment 27380

How do US taxes compare internationally?

So what is the problem again???

I guess I can't tell you what the problem is as I have no idea what tax rates and policy in our country has to do with tax rates in other countries.

Yep. The only way to make a valid comparison of tax rates between countries is to choose countries for comparison that have similar federal, state, county, city, and independent school board, etc. structures. The USA is pretty much a unique country in that regard.