what is wrong with a flat tax?

2

Comments

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    RainDog wrote:
    While numbers and math are cold and factual, money and wealth are relative. If you believe in the flat tax, you believe in taking the "burden" (with quotes) off the rich (who benefit most from our society) and placing that burden (no quotes) on the poor (who benefit least from our society). And, if you incorporate some sort of exemption for the poor, all you've done is reduce government funding, which will in turn reduce social programs that benefit the poor you've exempted - far more than a $10 rebate.

    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?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    The poor aren't going to want to start paying taxes.

    Nobody wants to pay taxes.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    surferdude wrote:
    There's nothin gwrong with a personal flat tax, especially if there's a decent income threshold before it kicks in. Say a flat tax rate of 15% but your first $25,000 is tax excempt but zero deductions after that. This ultimately makes the tax a little progressive which I believe taxes should be but it also makes taxes easy eneough that you don't need an acountant. As good an idea as it may be it will never happen as it does not pander to special interest groups. I don't think a flat tax is feasible for business though.


    People could get a credit for "food, clothing, & shelter" based upon number of dependents, and after that the flat rate kicks in.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    know1 wrote:
    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?


    Security, Protection of Commerce, Fire, Police, transportation etc.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    Security, Protection of Commerce, Fire, Police, transportation etc.

    I didn't realize those weren't offered to the poor... ;)
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    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?
    In addition to what Pacomc79 said, there's also the structure of our society itself. It's markets, it's wares, the fact that it's reasonably open, makes it very benefitial to those who have money, and those who have the means to make money. What the rich recieve aren't so much the social programs themselves, but the stable society that social programs help keep a float - a society where the rich (and just about anybody - within reason, of course) can make and continue to make money.
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    know1 wrote:
    I didn't realize those weren't offered to the poor... ;)


    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.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • DCGARDEN
    DCGARDEN Posts: 515
    If you're talking about a rate of tax in which the millionaire motherfuckers should be taxed to help out the minimum wagers, then tax Eddie Vedder and Sean Penn untill they vote Republican

    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.
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    DCGARDEN wrote:
    If you're talking about a rate of tax in which the millionaire motherfuckers should be taxed to help out the minimum wagers, then tax Eddie Vedder and Sean Penn untill they vote Republican

    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.
    So people making 65-70k a year should be exempt from taxes? We'll have to disagree.

    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    RainDog wrote:
    In addition to what Pacomc79 said, there's also the structure of our society itself. It's markets, it's wares, the fact that it's reasonably open, makes it very benefitial to those who have money, and those who have the means to make money. What the rich recieve aren't so much the social programs themselves, but the stable society that social programs help keep a float - a society where the rich (and just about anybody - within reason, of course) can make and continue to make money.

    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.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    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.
    Private industry is their benefit. It exists - and exists quite well - because of our society. Private industry is the individual, and society the oxygen he or she breathes. Or, more simply, you can't run a train without a track.

    It makes sense. Without structure - and a structure where everyone has something - then all your claims of personal initiative mean nothing and earn nothing.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    RainDog wrote:
    Private industry is their benefit. It exists - and exists quite well - because of our society. Private industry is the individual, and society the oxygen he or she breathes. Or, more simply, you can't run a train without a track.

    It makes sense. Without structure - and a structure where everyone has something - then all your claims of personal initiative mean nothing and earn nothing.

    And this is justification for taxing people at higher rates?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    And this is justification for taxing people at higher rates?
    Yes.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    RainDog wrote:
    Yes.

    I disagree completely and I think they are two different things.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    I disagree completely and I think they are two different things.
    Fair enough. Everyone has an opinion.

    But my society (the West - the one with the progressive tax structure) is the most powerful and affluent the world has ever known. Where's yours?
    ;)
  • DCGARDEN
    DCGARDEN Posts: 515
    RainDog wrote:
    So people making 65-70k a year should be exempt from taxes? We'll have to disagree.

    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.

    Not quite what I was saying, but it was probably my fault for not being clear -

    I don't have a problem with taxes for government to function, but I do have a problem with taxing middle class for other people who have no desire to improve themselves to function...or even worse.. for government to act as a middle-man in this transaction.
    I'll keep taking punches
    Untill their will grows tired
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Whether or not a person is successful is determined by fate.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Whether or not a person is successful is determined by fate.
    False. Scientific study has shown that the number one determining factor in being successful is not fate but persistence.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,829
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    because of the endless reforms and codes that will inevitably be dumped in in the later years winding up with a tax code that looks remarkably like the one we have now. Lobbiests, corporations, special interest groups all want exemptions etc etc.

    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.

    EVERYONE should use an accountant to do their taxes!

    Sincerely,

    Joe F, CPA
  • JOEJOEJOE
    JOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,829
    Bu2 wrote:
    What if we put higher taxes on the income (salaries) of the rich, and gave tax breaks to the people with lower incomes (salaries), and put a flat tax on their respective inheritances and windfalls and other means of investment income?

    There is already a reduced tax rate for qualified dividends and long-term capital gains.

    Also, there are estate and gift taxes that apply to those who wish to transfer (either voluntarily, or due to their death) their wealth, however, those taxes are being greatly reduced over the next few years.

Categories