what is wrong with a flat tax?
michaelcassio
Posts: 72
could someone make it perfectly clear to me what is wrong with a flat tax? not only is it simple, it's entirely fair. are any of the candidates proposing or supporting this system? i can't remember any of them discussing it specifically.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I don't think the flat tax is going to take off any time soon because most either want to keep the tax approximately as is or they want a national sales tax. In 20 years I will not be stunned if there is a national sales tax
A minimum wage worker. We'll make up numbers for ease of calculation, please know that I realize a minimum wage worker doesn't make 10.00 per hour.. but I will use that figure for ease.
A business executive. Let's give him 100.00 per hour.
Let's say the flat tax is 10 percent of the income.
The minimum wage worker, who desperately needs every penny he can get his hands on, has a take home pay of 9.00 per hour.
The business exec has a take home pay of 90.00 per hour.
Does it seem more fair than a progressive tax?
I think what really needs to be looked at is the tax breaks that our government gives to huge corporations. There have been stories of some actually paying a negative tax after all the write offs.
It absolutely does. That's the point. Everyone pays the same percentage, and success isn't penalized.
I can't say what is wrong with a flat tax, because I've seen many different proposals and I don't know which one we're talking about. I have seen some that I do think are worthy of serious consideration. I definitely agree that our tax system needs a major overhaul, so I'm not willing to rule out any form of a flat tax. It could quite well turn out to be much better than what we have now.
What I'd really like to see is a tax that everyone has to actually PAY, rather than having it disappear from their check, or in the case of a national sales tax be an invisible mark-up on the goods we buy (much as the gas tax is now). If people had to actually send their tax payment in themselves, maybe they'd start paying more attention to how our money is spent.
A flat tax just steals even more money from the poor, and i really don't see that as a good thing.
Over here they have 10% for the lowest payed and the next bracket is 22% now they are going to change it to a flat 20% so all those people in part time jobs or whatever have effectively had there tax doubled. Now explain to me how that is a good thing.
In your idea success isn't penlised but being poor is.
I personally am happy to pay more tax, then have the poorest better off on benefits than working, it's just plain wrong.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Ah so true, lets tax the rich. We need a revolution.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
implementation of a flat tax is the repeal of billions in social programs. It is not simple at all. A flat tax would serve to shine a light on those progrms - and that is perhaps a good thing.. but very difficult politically. Our current government is just not up to such a task
Yes - it does seem more fair. The business exec is making 10 times as much and is paying 10X as much taxes.
The government collects too much tax money anyway.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Exactly.
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
That's why I'm not a big fan of the Flat Tax, it works for all of maybe one year before it's "reformed" Then we have the same issue, a big hulking complicated pile of gobbledy gook.
I think a simpler system would be be for the benefit of all.
No one should need an accountant to do taxes.
The poor aren't going to want to start paying taxes.
Then I would lose my job. I could go for this.
I'm not really sure what that means. If I make a million dollars this year, it's because I earned every penny of it.
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I understand what some of you are saying, generally speaking anytime something is sold to the public as being fair it's because someone is getting screwed over.
I think the biggest advantage to it is that we could effectively dissolve the IRS. Everyone who wants a progressive tax must also understand that, that requires policies and procedures that must be overseen by some governing body because some one has to decide what income is considered poor, whats middle class, and what's wealthy which is what the IRS does now. So I definietly see that an arguement can be made on either side.
There are plenty of better uses for your skills than fussing with taxes and tax codes. I'm sure you would do very well investing money.
How do the rich benefit most from society if they're paying more in taxes and receiving none (or very little) of the social programs?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Nobody wants to pay taxes.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
People could get a credit for "food, clothing, & shelter" based upon number of dependents, and after that the flat rate kicks in.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Security, Protection of Commerce, Fire, Police, transportation etc.
I didn't realize those weren't offered to the poor...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
indeed, I meant, if you're destitute, you maybe don't care so much about property rights because you have none to protect or value life...etc.
The money we pay in taxes creates that structure that makes society safe for people to operate.
If you're talking about taxing someone who makes 65-70K a year to help out the less fortunate, then that is where it gets difficult for me to support. People making this amount are not rich. People making this amount may have 4 or 5 children that they want to send to college and are working their asses off, owning a restaurant or deli, to do so. To have the government come in and take their dough to help out someone who needs it too, is a fucking disgrace.
Untill their will grows tired
Besides, in a society that has a progressive tax structure, millionaires like Eddie Vedder and Sean Penn pay a higher tax rate than the restaurant owner anyway. In fact, if that 65-70K per year restaurant owner has 4 or 5 kids, chances are he or she is getting a tax break in addition to paying a lower rate overall. Sure, that leads to complications like the IRS, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here.
But what does that have to do with taxes? Are you saying the rich should pay more taxes because they get more benefit from private industry? That makes no sense.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.