The Folly of the Flat Tax

inlet13

blueandwhite wrote:

markin ball wrote:

"Fairness" isn't the only variable in the system.

Lets look at it from the other end and ask these questions instead..."why do we currently have a progressive tax system?" and "would it be good for the economy and government revenue if we moved to a flat tax?"

I know the question is rhetorical but I suppose you have a progressive tax system because the first $30,000 or so dollars most people make is used for basic survival. Things like food, shelter, transportation, medicine etc. come from that base income. If you tax those individuals, the government is only going to end up paying it back in the form of welfare, and other programs which are exceedingly costly to administrate unless you cut those programs altogether. It's like trying to squeeze money from a fossilized orange.

With the rate at which your middle class is disappearing into poverty, I'm surprised that there is such strong support for a flat tax rate. Mind you, I'm a teacher so my opinion doesn't count anyways .

One can survive off a hell of a lot less than $30,000 in the average state/city. That salary is a reasonable starting salary. Any argument stating that one would struggle to survive on $30,000 is absolutely wrong. I live in Philly and I made $30,000 out of college working as a financial analyst about 10 years ago. That was beyond do-able... I had a lot of money to spend on renting a great place in manayunk (a fun under age city), my car, insurance, a water bed (why I bought that I still don't know), a flat screen TV, a new stereo system, going out and drinking every weekend and some week days, a cell phone, a computer, fantasy football dues, and more...

I'd say one may struggle to survive on less than $10,000. Yet, if one made $5 an hour (which is below our minimum wage) and worked only 40 hours a week, they'd still make more than $10,000 a year.

From what I've seen the average welfare recipient receives anywhere from 18K to 60K. According to this link (which you can take or dismiss)... they earn $55K on average:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/On_average_ho ... ts_receive
Is this "fair"? Does this also provide any incentive to "get off" welfare? Hell no!
At one point, in graduate school, my graduate stipend was the poverty level. I was able to live off of that. Yet, someone can't live off of $30K.... I say, bull shit.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

markin ball wrote:

"Fairness" isn't the only variable in the system.

Lets look at it from the other end and ask these questions instead..."why do we currently have a progressive tax system?" and "would it be good for the economy and government revenue if we moved to a flat tax?"

I know the question is rhetorical but I suppose you have a progressive tax system because the first $30,000 or so dollars most people make is used for basic survival. Things like food, shelter, transportation, medicine etc. come from that base income. If you tax those individuals, the government is only going to end up paying it back in the form of welfare, and other programs which are exceedingly costly to administrate unless you cut those programs altogether. It's like trying to squeeze money from a fossilized orange.

With the rate at which your middle class is disappearing into poverty, I'm surprised that there is such strong support for a flat tax rate. Mind you, I'm a teacher so my opinion doesn't count anyways .

One can survive off a hell of a lot less than $30,000 in the average state/city. That salary is a reasonable starting salary. Any argument stating that one would struggle to survive on $30,000 is absolutely wrong. I live in Philly and I made $30,000 out of college working as a financial analyst about 10 years ago. That was beyond do-able... I had a lot of money to spend on renting a great place in manayunk (a fun under age city), my car, insurance, a water bed (why I bought that I still don't know), a flat screen TV, a new stereo system, going out and drinking every weekend and some week days, a cell phone, a computer, fantasy football dues, and more...

I'd say one may struggle to survive on less than $10,000. Yet, if one made $5 an hour (which is below our minimum wage) and worked only 40 hours a week, they'd still make more than $10,000 a year.

From what I've seen the average welfare recipient receives anywhere from 18K to 60K. According to this link (which you can take or dismiss)... they earn $55K on average:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/On_average_ho ... ts_receive
Is this "fair"? Does this also provide any incentive to "get off" welfare? Hell no!
At one point, in graduate school, my graduate stipend was the poverty level. I was able to live off of that. Yet, someone can't live off of $30K.... I say, bull shit.

Applying your own experience to others and making conclusions about society as a whole is a mistake. A single person that has healthcare from their employer can live off of $30,000 comfortably (depending on debts). A family that has to pay out the nose to insure a spouse/kids is going to have a harder time.

The link to wiki answers has a number that's too high. It's also not an average. It's totaling up what someone on public assistance could get if they were on each and every program. That's not an average, that would be a maximum amount.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

Applying your own experience to others and making conclusions about society as a whole is a mistake. A single person that has healthcare from their employer can live off of $30,000 comfortably (depending on debts). A family that has to pay out the nose to insure a spouse/kids is going to have a harder time.

The link to wiki answers has a number that's too high. It's also not an average. It's totaling up what someone on public assistance could get if they were on each and every program. That's not an average, that would be a maximum amount.

I'm not making any more conclusions about society as a whole than you or the person I quoted are.

I'm saying I know for sure that $30,000 is way more than necessary to live on for "basic survival". I had a good job, a college education and I was paid $30,000. I'm paid way, way more than that now. But, even then, I had plenty of money. I could have supported a family easily. Would I have lived in as nice of a place? No. Would I have been able to have a waterbed, a new TV, a new computer, a new phone, etc? No. Would I have maybe had to cut a corner here or there? Yes. But, could I have had enough for "basic survival"? Absolutely. I would have had too much for basic survival even with kids.

The issue, in my opinion, is the term used in the original post that you skipped... the term "basic survival". $30,000 is a ridiculous amount for "basic survival". Like I said, $10,000 seems more reasonable for "basic survival".

Survival means only the barest necessities.... no frills whatsoever. Someone who's "just getting by" or "just surviving" doesn't need a cell phone, a TV, a radio, or any other amenity. They need basics... like a shelter, water and the ability to get food. You can do that with $10,000. It would not be pleasant at all, but it could be done.

The reason I say this is to not say that we want people to make $30,000 or $10,000 a year. Nope. We want people to make "something". Handouts don't work. Like myself, people need to work for what they get. Anyone who says $30,000 is not enough is spoiled rotten. I lived on much less. I know they can. The benefit of doing such is not easily seen. The benefit to society is something called 'work ethic'. People learn to work hard, and not be lazy in thinking they'll be better off with handouts. Instead, they will then want to work harder and get promoted. Output within society will increase when this occurs. Our economy increases as productivity increases. More and better jobs will follow. Salary's will rise, and before you know it... that guy who took that low salary (rather than getting a welfare check), is getting a raise, before you know it he's living above the means that welfare would have ever given him.... and yet, he's not finished... a new guy gets down on his luck, and is forced to take a low salary.... the cycle begins again.

Welfare ends this cycle. It breeds dependence and sloth. I'd argue that I care a hell of a lot more about a person than anyone who's pro-welfare. To me being pro-welfare, is the equivalent of not disciplining your child. Your children shouldn't be your best friends.... sometimes, for their own good, you need to discipline them in some way. They need to learn in order to become better people themselves.

The same is true here. Our society needs to teach people out of it... not give them reward them for it. Incentives there are ass-backwards.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Applying your own experience to others and making conclusions about society as a whole is a mistake. A single person that has healthcare from their employer can live off of $30,000 comfortably (depending on debts). A family that has to pay out the nose to insure a spouse/kids is going to have a harder time.

The link to wiki answers has a number that's too high. It's also not an average. It's totaling up what someone on public assistance could get if they were on each and every program. That's not an average, that would be a maximum amount.

I'm not making any more conclusions about society as a whole than you or the person I quoted are.

I'm saying I know for sure that $30,000 is way more than necessary to live on for "basic survival". I had a good job, a college education and I was paid $30,000. I'm paid way, way more than that now. But, even then, I had plenty of money. I could have supported a family easily. Would I have lived in as nice of a place? No. Would I have been able to have a waterbed, a new TV, a new computer, a new phone, etc? No. Would I have maybe had to cut a corner here or there? Yes. But, could I have had enough for "basic survival"? Absolutely. I would have had too much for basic survival even with kids.

The issue, in my opinion, is the term used in the original post that you skipped... the term "basic survival". $30,000 is a ridiculous amount for "basic survival". Like I said, $10,000 seems more reasonable for "basic survival".

Survival means only the barest necessities.... no frills whatsoever. Someone who's "just getting by" or "just surviving" doesn't need a cell phone, a TV, a radio, or any other amenity. They need basics... like a shelter, water and the ability to get food. You can do that with $10,000. It would not be pleasant at all, but it could be done.

The reason I say this is to not say that we want people to make $30,000 or $10,000 a year. Nope. We want people to make "something". Handouts don't work. Like myself, people need to work for what they get. Anyone who says $30,000 is not enough is spoiled rotten. I lived on much less. I know they can. The benefit of doing such is not easily seen. The benefit to society is something called 'work ethic'. People learn to work hard, and not be lazy in thinking they'll be better off with handouts. Instead, they will then want to work harder and get promoted. Output within society will increase when this occurs. Our economy increases as productivity increases. More and better jobs will follow. Salary's will rise, and before you know it... that guy who took that low salary (rather than getting a welfare check), is getting a raise, before you know it he's living above the means that welfare would have ever given him.... and yet, he's not finished... a new guy gets down on his luck, and is forced to take a low salary.... the cycle begins again.

Welfare ends this cycle. It breeds dependence and sloth. I'd argue that I care a hell of a lot more about a person than anyone who's pro-welfare. To me being pro-welfare, is the equivalent of not disciplining your child. Your children shouldn't be your best friends.... sometimes, for their own good, you need to discipline them in some way. They need to learn in order to become better people themselves.

The same is true here. Our society needs to teach people out of it... not give them reward them for it. Incentives there are ass-backwards.

The condescending tone to your response takes some work to get around. And again your sentences "I've lived on much less. I know they can." is attempting to generalize your experience and draw conclusions from it. I'm not sure why you think you're not making more conclusions than I am. My conclusion is that some live comfortably on 30k, and for others, it's harder. It seems like your projecting your 'single college educated guy' experience on others and saying if it worked for me, then it can work for you. $30k gets used up pretty quick if someone is a single parent, pays $400/mo for healthcare and $500/mo for childcare.

You also seem to adhere to conservative themes and myths about welfare and the 'if you work hard you'll get ahead' notions. What about people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, or even just get laid off. There aren't even jobs for everyone when the economy is in good shape. What's the typical consensus ideal unemployment rate? Usually around 5%.

You response also reveals the common conservative belief regarding welfare; that there should be some form of punishment involved (i.e. the analogy of the government in the role of parent). You should also show evidence of how welfare breeds dependence and sloth other than I think it and therefore it's true.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

The condescending tone to your response takes some work to get around. And again your sentences "I've lived on much less. I know they can." is attempting to generalize your experience and draw conclusions from it. I'm not sure why you think you're not making more conclusions than I am. My conclusion is that some live comfortably on 30k, and for others, it's harder. It seems like your projecting your 'single college educated guy' experience on others and saying if it worked for me, then it can work for you. $30k gets used up pretty quick if someone is a single parent, pays $400/mo for healthcare and $500/mo for childcare..

I agree that for some it's harder to live comfortably on $30K. I never said that it wouldn't be that way. But, where we disagree is that it's possible or not. I am very aware that everyone has their own circumstances. Regardless, I think it's possible for pretty much everyone to get by easily on $30K with "basic necessities". You don't. You want to make this into an endless debate. I don't. I don't agree with you and I'm not "projecting" anything other than my opinion on the subject.

Go Beavers wrote:

You also seem to adhere to conservative themes and myths about welfare and the 'if you work hard you'll get ahead' notions. What about people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, or even just get laid off. There aren't even jobs for everyone when the economy is in good shape. What's the typical consensus ideal unemployment rate? Usually around 5%.

I'm not adhering to any myths, bro. I'm adhering to facts. If you work hard you will in fact be more likely to get ahead. So, anyone who says "if you work hard you'll get ahead" is right in my mind. Anyone who disagrees with that is saying that if you slack off you'll get ahead. Do you think that MJ would have been a good bball player had he not practiced? Do you think Obama would have been a good public speaker had he not learned and worked on it? Do you think Eddie Vedder would have been successful had he not worked hard to get where he is? Seriously? You're arguing that it's a conservative theme and A MYTH that working hard gets people ahead? ha ha... It not conservative and it's not a myth... it's a common known fact. If you study hard, you're more likely to pass. If you sit on your ass at work and don't do anything, you're more likely to get fired... if you work hard at work, you're more likely to get promoted.

Let's toss out a scenario. Who's more "likely" to get ahead: a guy who takes a welfare check each month, or a guy who works hard at a low-paying job? I'd say the latter... you on the other, I believe, are saying the former. Why, I have no idea... ask yourself. It's literally probably one of the dumbest arguments I've read on this portion of the board, where there are a ton of psuedo-intellectuals tossing out dumb ideas. So, please take pride in that.

For people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, perhaps they aren't in the right field. So, perhaps, in the grand scheme of things they aren't busting their hump hard enough outside of work, looking for another opportunity. If they aren't happy in their job and know they can't get promoted, they should continue to work hard at the job they have and figure out another method (a new job, increased education, etc) to find a smart way to another job that would make them happier. Government doesn't do this, they do.

When the economy is in good shape and the unemployment is near it's natural rate (about 4%), there pretty much are jobs for everyone. Look up the term - frictional unemployment, for example. Certain forms of unemployment will always exist because people change careers, etc.

Go Beavers wrote:

You response also reveals the common conservative belief regarding welfare; that there should be some form of punishment involved (i.e. the analogy of the government in the role of parent). You should also show evidence of how welfare breeds dependence and sloth other than I think it and therefore it's true.

Dude, you crack me up. I don't need to "show you" anything. You know very well that I'm not alone in the thought process that welfare breeds dependence and sloth. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of the country would agree with me if presented the question in that manner. If you want to disprove what I said, go search around and find some data. Have fun with it. Maybe I'll even read it.

AllNiteThing

MayDay Malone wrote:

Wrong again Beavers.

There is no point in educating some people. I imagine you probably feel the same.

I'm not gonna waste 30 minutes of my life typing out all of the socio-economic reasons I support a flat tax, so that Go Beavers on the Pearl Jam forum might see things differently.

If "payng their fair share" means that "rich people" pay 100% in taxes, so that you and the like-minded can live in a tent on public property and shit on park benches, then I'm happy for you. At least you know what you want in life.


A lesser shit, I could not give...

You seem like a real swell guy who has a way of winning people over and projecting a good image of yourself.

MayDay Malone

AllNiteThing wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

Wrong again Beavers.

There is no point in educating some people. I imagine you probably feel the same.

I'm not gonna waste 30 minutes of my life typing out all of the socio-economic reasons I support a flat tax, so that Go Beavers on the Pearl Jam forum might see things differently.

If "payng their fair share" means that "rich people" pay 100% in taxes, so that you and the like-minded can live in a tent on public property and shit on park benches, then I'm happy for you. At least you know what you want in life.


A lesser shit, I could not give...

You seem like a real swell guy who has a way of winning people over and projecting a good image of yourself.

And you sound like Dr. Phil.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

The condescending tone to your response takes some work to get around. And again your sentences "I've lived on much less. I know they can." is attempting to generalize your experience and draw conclusions from it. I'm not sure why you think you're not making more conclusions than I am. My conclusion is that some live comfortably on 30k, and for others, it's harder. It seems like your projecting your 'single college educated guy' experience on others and saying if it worked for me, then it can work for you. $30k gets used up pretty quick if someone is a single parent, pays $400/mo for healthcare and $500/mo for childcare..

I agree that for some it's harder to live comfortably on $30K. I never said that it wouldn't be that way. But, where we disagree is that it's possible or not. I am very aware that everyone has their own circumstances. Regardless, I think it's possible for pretty much everyone to get by easily on $30K with "basic necessities". You don't. You want to make this into an endless debate. I don't. I don't agree with you and I'm not "projecting" anything other than my opinion on the subject.

Go Beavers wrote:

You also seem to adhere to conservative themes and myths about welfare and the 'if you work hard you'll get ahead' notions. What about people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, or even just get laid off. There aren't even jobs for everyone when the economy is in good shape. What's the typical consensus ideal unemployment rate? Usually around 5%.

I'm not adhering to any myths, bro. I'm adhering to facts. If you work hard you will in fact be more likely to get ahead. So, anyone who says "if you work hard you'll get ahead" is right in my mind. Anyone who disagrees with that is saying that if you slack off you'll get ahead. Do you think that MJ would have been a good bball player had he not practiced? Do you think Obama would have been a good public speaker had he not learned and worked on it? Do you think Eddie Vedder would have been successful had he not worked hard to get where he is? Seriously? You're arguing that it's a conservative theme and A MYTH that working hard gets people ahead? ha ha... It not conservative and it's not a myth... it's a common known fact. If you study hard, you're more likely to pass. If you sit on your ass at work and don't do anything, you're more likely to get fired... if you work hard at work, you're more likely to get promoted.

Let's toss out a scenario. Who's more "likely" to get ahead: a guy who takes a welfare check each month, or a guy who works hard at a low-paying job? I'd say the latter... you on the other, I believe, are saying the former. Why, I have no idea... ask yourself. It's literally probably one of the dumbest arguments I've read on this portion of the board, where there are a ton of psuedo-intellectuals tossing out dumb ideas. So, please take pride in that.

For people who bust their hump and don't get promoted, perhaps they aren't in the right field. So, perhaps, in the grand scheme of things they aren't busting their hump hard enough outside of work, looking for another opportunity. If they aren't happy in their job and know they can't get promoted, they should continue to work hard at the job they have and figure out another method (a new job, increased education, etc) to find a smart way to another job that would make them happier. Government doesn't do this, they do.

When the economy is in good shape and the unemployment is near it's natural rate (about 4%), there pretty much are jobs for everyone. Look up the term - frictional unemployment, for example. Certain forms of unemployment will always exist because people change careers, etc.

Go Beavers wrote:

You response also reveals the common conservative belief regarding welfare; that there should be some form of punishment involved (i.e. the analogy of the government in the role of parent). You should also show evidence of how welfare breeds dependence and sloth other than I think it and therefore it's true.

Dude, you crack me up. I don't need to "show you" anything. You know very well that I'm not alone in the thought process that welfare breeds dependence and sloth. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of the country would agree with me if presented the question in that manner. If you want to disprove what I said, go search around and find some data. Have fun with it. Maybe I'll even read it.

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying in several areas. I never said the guy on welfare was more likely to get ahead. People can work hard and get ahead, I'm just not as sold on it being the case for everyone like you might be. People work hard and don't get ahead for a wide range of reasons depending on a lot of variables. When someone isn't getting ahead, my first and only response isn't just to blame the individual and move on. A lot of conservatives think that we're all given the same opportunities at birth, I just don't think that's the case. It's not a "fact" that if you work hard you get ahead. Some get ahead by doing the minimum. Some get ahead by hard work, combined with several other factors, some of which aren't even in their control.

It's a flawed argument to pick successful people and then go in reverse to see how they worked hard to get there. Pick a group of unsuccessful people, and then go in reverse and see how hard they worked, but for whatever reasons, didn't end up successful.

Just because other people agree with you that public assistance breeds dependency and sloth doesn't mean you're right. People believe a lot of myths about human psychology.

blueandwhite

inlet13 wrote:

One can survive off a hell of a lot less than $30,000 in the average state/city. That salary is a reasonable starting salary. Any argument stating that one would struggle to survive on $30,000 is absolutely wrong. I live in Philly and I made $30,000 out of college working as a financial analyst about 10 years ago. That was beyond do-able... I had a lot of money to spend on renting a great place in manayunk (a fun under age city), my car, insurance, a water bed (why I bought that I still don't know), a flat screen TV, a new stereo system, going out and drinking every weekend and some week days, a cell phone, a computer, fantasy football dues, and more...

I'd say one may struggle to survive on less than $10,000. Yet, if one made $5 an hour (which is below our minimum wage) and worked only 40 hours a week, they'd still make more than $10,000 a year.

From what I've seen the average welfare recipient receives anywhere from 18K to 60K. According to this link (which you can take or dismiss)... they earn $55K on average:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/On_average_ho ... ts_receive
Is this "fair"? Does this also provide any incentive to "get off" welfare? Hell no!
At one point, in graduate school, my graduate stipend was the poverty level. I was able to live off of that. Yet, someone can't live off of $30K.... I say, bull shit.

I think we already established in another thread that you think I'm a lazy, ignorant, sycophant living on the public purse and utterly clueless to the complexities of the real world so I very much doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on any socioeconomic issues anytime soon, but in what world can you live on anything close to $10,000 per year? Now perhaps it's different in America, but where I live it's virtually impossible to find a one-bedroom apartment for under $800 a month. How on earth could anybody live on $10,000 per year if they spend at least $9,600 of that on rent? Factor in food costs, medical and dental costs (which you probably don't have coverage for if your living in poverty), transportation, basic phone bills, the cost of any dependents (children), possibly electricity and water along with other intangible costs and how do you figure somebody can make it on $10,000.

I'm not going to even bother with responding to a rant from WikiAnswers. Quoting an anecdotal generalization doesn't really bring anything new to a forum where everybody makes anecdotal generalizations about each and every issue. As for your budgeting skills; could you really have managed to live so freely if you didn't expect your finances to improve down the road? Not everybody has your good fortune.

inlet13

blueandwhite wrote:

I think we already established in another thread that you think I'm a lazy, ignorant, sycophant living on the public purse and utterly clueless to the complexities of the real world so I very much doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on any socioeconomic issues anytime soon,

I'd really like to see where I said any of negatives about you that you listed above, you liar.

blueandwhite wrote:

but in what world can you live on anything close to $10,000 per year?

This one

blueandwhite wrote:

Now perhaps it's different in America, but where I live it's virtually impossible to find a one-bedroom apartment for under $800 a month.

Then move. We're talking about America.

blueandwhite wrote:

How on earth could anybody live on $10,000 per year if they spend at least $9,600 of that on rent?

They don't have to pay that.

blueandwhite wrote:

Factor in food costs, medical and dental costs (which you probably don't have coverage for if your living in poverty), transportation, basic phone bills, the cost of any dependents (children), possibly electricity and water along with other intangible costs and how do you figure somebody can make it on $10,000.

No, I won't factor in dental costs. If you read what I wrote, I was talking about "basic necessities".... dental costs are not a necessity. I'd argue even medical costs (if they aren't life-saving) isn't a necessity. Regardless, let's move on to more of non-necessities. Phone bill? Not necessity. Children, electricity and water could be (if the person has kids). Electricity may be.

blueandwhite wrote:

I'm not going to even bother with responding to a rant from WikiAnswers. Quoting an anecdotal generalization doesn't really bring anything new to a forum where everybody makes anecdotal generalizations about each and every issue. As for your budgeting skills; could you really have managed to live so freely if you didn't expect your finances to improve down the road? Not everybody has your good fortune.

Yes, I could have lived so freely because I worked hard for my finances to improve down the road. At times, my finances worsened, and I'm sure they may again. During those times, I made and will make adjustments. In my opinion, everyone has the good fortune to make adjustments in order to maximize their finances and well-being. No one is incapable of such.

satansbed

[quote="inlet13"[/quote]
No, I won't factor in dental costs. If you read what I wrote, I was talking about "basic necessities".... dental costs are not a necessity. I'd argue even medical costs (if they aren't life-saving) isn't a necessity. Regardless, let's move on to more of non-necessities. Phone bill? Not necessity. Children, electricity and water could be (if the person has kids). Electricity may be.
[/quote]


"The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."


"2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines Persons
in Family 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $10,890 $13,600 $12,540
2 14,710 18,380 16,930
3 18,530 23,160 21,320
4 22,350 27,940 25,710
5 26,170 32,720 30,100
6 29,990 37,500 34,490
7 33,810 42,280 38,880
8 37,630 47,060 43,270
For each additional
person, add 3,820 4,780 4,390"

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

your 10000 is the absolute minimum for one person if you have dependends you need alot more