The Folly of the Flat Tax

gimmesometruth27 · November 2011

MayDay Malone wrote:

Workin' man, huh? So what grade do you teach?

The "choice between higher deficits or an increased burden for the middle class" is the logical outcome to an individulal, such as yourself, suffering from the mental disorder that prevents the idea of CUTTING SPENDING from entering your brain.

This disorder is known as Liberalism, and impacts millions annually. It seems to most aggresively affect teenagers, minorities, Californians, New Englanders, teachers, and retired Jewish communities in Florida.
(College-educated white women have shown great improvement in overcoming this disease over the last three years, however.)

Symptoms include: confusion, emotional outbursts, laziness or lack of ambition, and an increased sense of entitlement.

Current treatments include: living at home w/ parents, applying for federal assistance, sleeping in the park, shitting on the sidewalk, and demanding the government make Life be "more fair".

Don't worry though, most of these people will leave you alone if you just give them a little change.

(get it? a little "change"?)

keep this up and you probably won't be here too long...

i am a liberal and i am none of those things and i have done none of those things..

mikepegg44 · November 2011

satansbed wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

"Maths clearly isn't your strong point."

That is the best one yet...

Its not my job to educate you, and what's more, you don't want to hear it anyways.

If you work for a living, make money, and pay taxes, then you understand how much is stolen and wasted by this corrupt gov't.

If you don't, then you don't. Get it?

so why are buffet, gates, and bloomberg all advocating higher taxes on themselves when they would be much better off under a flat tax system, It's because they know it makes no sense

actually they are in favor of higher income tax rates, of which they all take very small amounts of "salary" that is taxed at an income tax rate. So effectively they are for raising taxes on other people more than themselves. There is an easy way for people like Warren and Bill to raise their own taxes...it is called over paying. and no one will stop them from paying more in taxes. Also, Warren could simply take a larger salary as opposed to being paid in dividends and stock sales (capital gains)...Captial gains tax rates are tricky and like income taxes raising them doesn't mean automatically that revenue will be raised.

They are in favor of higher tax revenue because they understand what the deficit does to their dollars. It makes them worth less. And they also are smart enough to realize that relying on a system that would require the government to spend less probably isn't a good bet. I cannot speak for them but I would be surprised if they would be saying raise taxes in an environment where the deficit wasn't in the trillions. every god damn year.

satansbed · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

actually they are in favor of higher income tax rates, of which they all take very small amounts of "salary" that is taxed at an income tax rate. So effectively they are for raising taxes on other people more than themselves. There is an easy way for people like Warren and Bill to raise their own taxes...it is called over paying. and no one will stop them from paying more in taxes. Also, Warren could simply take a larger salary as opposed to being paid in dividends and stock sales (capital gains)...Captial gains tax rates are tricky and like income taxes raising them doesn't mean automatically that revenue will be raised.

They are in favor of higher tax revenue because they understand what the deficit does to their dollars. It makes them worth less. And they also are smart enough to realize that relying on a system that would require the government to spend less probably isn't a good bet. I cannot speak for them but I would be surprised if they would be saying raise taxes in an environment where the deficit wasn't in the trillions. every god damn year.

yes but we are in an environment where the deficit is in the trillions, if we weren't i would be all for lower taxes, and yes there should be cuts in expenditure too, but cutting trillions in expenditure alone isn't feasable either, tough decisions have to be made and now is the time to put the national interest ahead of self interest. and gates has been pushing for a financial transaction tax, which would be a tax on him and his dividends and stock sales

Jason P · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

They are in favor of higher tax revenue because they understand what the deficit does to their dollars. It makes them worth less.

That is an interesting point to consider.

MayDay Malone · November 2011

keeponrockin wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

"Maths clearly isn't your strong point."

That is the best one yet...

Its not my job to educate you, and what's more, you don't want to hear it anyways.

If you work for a living, make money, and pay taxes, then you understand how much is stolen and wasted by this corrupt gov't.

If you don't, then you don't. Get it?

I agree.

However, I'd rather people who can afford it get fucked than those who can't afford it.

How about nobody gets fucked? B/c who is going to decide who it is that gets fucked? You? Me?
A President? Some politician?

Then what?

It a dangerous precedent...

MayDay Malone · November 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

how about a progressive flat tax hybrid?

0% for those that make under 1000000
20% for those that make over
national sales tax of 0.25% that can only be used to pay down the national debt and only increased with a national referendum.
balanced budget amendment (with exception for national disaster emergencies and defense spending if American soil is attacked)
only deduction you can have is mortgage interest on primary residence and charitable giving.

sound fair to everyone?

the numbers could be adjusted a little bit I suppose, but something like this would make me happy. I like to think that it would give the feds less money and hold them to what is important, and that is spending less money and that seems like a win for me.

ultimately I like a flat tax, but definitely understand that some think it creates an unfair taxation system.
but this seems like a system that gives an income tax decrease for all and a consumption tax that may make people think twice before spending every cent they have on stuff they don't need.
I don't know. anyone like this idea?

Not a bad start.

What would Capital Gains taxes be?

keeponrockin · November 2011

MayDay Malone wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

"Maths clearly isn't your strong point."

That is the best one yet...

Its not my job to educate you, and what's more, you don't want to hear it anyways.

If you work for a living, make money, and pay taxes, then you understand how much is stolen and wasted by this corrupt gov't.

If you don't, then you don't. Get it?

I agree.

However, I'd rather people who can afford it get fucked than those who can't afford it.

How about nobody gets fucked? B/c who is going to decide who it is that gets fucked? You? Me?
A President? Some politician?

Then what?

It a dangerous precedent...

Sounds excellent.

Howabout we cut by cutting defense spending and corporate subsidies.

catefrances · November 2011

know1 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

know1 wrote:

I'm in favor of a flat tax, but simplicity is only a part of the reason.

and what is the rest of the reason???

I don't feel there should be different tax rates for different people.

considering the hierarchical nature of capitalism, why not??? i dont see why the person who makes his billions from the raping of a countrys natural resources shouldnt give back more (via tax) to society than a check out chick. i imagine 15% of their earnings is more negligible than 15% of hers. or how about those bank CEOs who recieve multi million dollar golden handshakes.. for doing what exactly????

MayDay Malone · November 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

Workin' man, huh? So what grade do you teach?

The "choice between higher deficits or an increased burden for the middle class" is the logical outcome to an individulal, such as yourself, suffering from the mental disorder that prevents the idea of CUTTING SPENDING from entering your brain.

This disorder is known as Liberalism, and impacts millions annually. It seems to most aggresively affect teenagers, minorities, Californians, New Englanders, teachers, and retired Jewish communities in Florida.
(College-educated white women have shown great improvement in overcoming this disease over the last three years, however.)

Symptoms include: confusion, emotional outbursts, laziness or lack of ambition, and an increased sense of entitlement.

Current treatments include: living at home w/ parents, applying for federal assistance, sleeping in the park, shitting on the sidewalk, and demanding the government make Life be "more fair".

Don't worry though, most of these people will leave you alone if you just give them a little change.

(get it? a little "change"?)

keep this up and you probably won't be here too long...

i am a liberal and i am none of those things and i have done none of those things..

So report my funny sarcastic post, you pussy...

Or lighten up and take a toke.

satansbed · November 2011

MayDay Malone wrote:

So report my funny sarcastic post, you pussy...

Or lighten up and take a toke.

well thats debatable

Jason P · November 2011

satansbed wrote:

yes but we are in an environment where the deficit is in the trillions, if we weren't i would be all for lower taxes, and yes there should be cuts in expenditure too, but cutting trillions in expenditure alone isn't feasable either, tough decisions have to be made and now is the time to put the national interest ahead of self interest. and gates has been pushing for a financial transaction tax, which would be a tax on him and his dividends and stock sales

It's a good point, but our elected leaders have yet to produce a plan for cutting the budget in the short term (which I define as in the next two years).

This issue continues to be fought based on liberal / conservative view-points.

I agree that cutting trillions by cutting expenditures isn't feasible. But cutting trillions by raising taxes isn't feasible either. And to trust a group of individuals who are known for being liars with a plan to somehow balance the budget by 2022 is not feasible either.

We should be united in demanding that congress presents a budget plan before giving them more money. Instead, the politicians have distracted us by turning us against each other.

MayDay Malone · November 2011

Keep Rockin':

You lost me. I have no idea what cutting the military and corporate blah, blah, has to do with the merits of a flat tax in the context of this discussion...

Why don't you cut your "soft" country's military budget? Since you said your country has never experienced a terorist attack, sounds like you don't need a military...

because you've probably got the UN (USA), or NATO (USA) or just the USA military to protect you.

mikepegg44 · November 2011

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

how about a progressive flat tax hybrid?

0% for those that make under 1000000
20% for those that make over
national sales tax of 0.25% that can only be used to pay down the national debt and only increased with a national referendum.
balanced budget amendment (with exception for national disaster emergencies and defense spending if American soil is attacked)
only deduction you can have is mortgage interest on primary residence and charitable giving.

sound fair to everyone?

the numbers could be adjusted a little bit I suppose, but something like this would make me happy. I like to think that it would give the feds less money and hold them to what is important, and that is spending less money and that seems like a win for me.

ultimately I like a flat tax, but definitely understand that some think it creates an unfair taxation system.
but this seems like a system that gives an income tax decrease for all and a consumption tax that may make people think twice before spending every cent they have on stuff they don't need.
I don't know. anyone like this idea?

thats all well and good but how much revenue would be generated

income tax wise, probably less than the 900 billion or so they get through income tax now, but not by that much. numbers get a little fuzzy but my guess would be based on a 750,000 in salary for every millionaire we have (which isn't exactly right but probably takes into account the differences in salary from the lowest to the highest but is more than likely a gross under representation of the amount) is about 465 billion. about half of what they get now(but like I said it is probably an under representation). Probably a good amount if there is a balanced budget amendment.
based on national sales data I would say roughly 10 billion would be raised through the national sales tax which go to the national debt only, not a great amount, but could help pay down the principle considering the interest payments would still be made through the normal budget as they are now.
It is theory only, but I would say the national sales tax may raise more revenue than that based on people who spend it quickly would have more money. We also may see an increase in revenue above the 465 billion based on my quick preliminary numbers. either way, it would be less than they get now which would be fine considering there would be a balanced budget every year. also to clarify, millionaire status would be based on total wealth not total income.
who knows exactly what would happen, but those are some rough numbers if you were really that interested

Jason P · November 2011

MayDay Malone wrote:

Keep Rockin':

You lost me. I have no idea what cutting the military and corporate blah, blah, has to do with the merits of a flat tax in the context of this discussion...

Why don't you cut your "soft" country's military budget? Since you said your country has never experienced a terorist attack, sounds like you don't need a military...

because you've probably got the UN (USA), or NATO (USA) or just the USA military to protect you.

To be fair, military expenditures will need to be reduced significantly in order to balance the budget. It makes up to big a chunk of the budget. Medicare and Social Security are almost untouchable because of the voter base. Programs like Education, Transportation, etc pale in comparison to the defense budget. In order to make significant cuts and be fiscally responsible, tough decisions will need to be made.

mikepegg44 · November 2011

MayDay Malone wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

how about a progressive flat tax hybrid?

0% for those that make under 1000000
20% for those that make over
national sales tax of 0.25% that can only be used to pay down the national debt and only increased with a national referendum.
balanced budget amendment (with exception for national disaster emergencies and defense spending if American soil is attacked)
only deduction you can have is mortgage interest on primary residence and charitable giving.

sound fair to everyone?

the numbers could be adjusted a little bit I suppose, but something like this would make me happy. I like to think that it would give the feds less money and hold them to what is important, and that is spending less money and that seems like a win for me.

ultimately I like a flat tax, but definitely understand that some think it creates an unfair taxation system.
but this seems like a system that gives an income tax decrease for all and a consumption tax that may make people think twice before spending every cent they have on stuff they don't need.
I don't know. anyone like this idea?

Not a bad start.

What would Capital Gains taxes be?

same as they are now. possibly another lower tier added in if the investment is owned for longer than 10 years

mikepegg44 · November 2011

satansbed wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

actually they are in favor of higher income tax rates, of which they all take very small amounts of "salary" that is taxed at an income tax rate. So effectively they are for raising taxes on other people more than themselves. There is an easy way for people like Warren and Bill to raise their own taxes...it is called over paying. and no one will stop them from paying more in taxes. Also, Warren could simply take a larger salary as opposed to being paid in dividends and stock sales (capital gains)...Captial gains tax rates are tricky and like income taxes raising them doesn't mean automatically that revenue will be raised.

They are in favor of higher tax revenue because they understand what the deficit does to their dollars. It makes them worth less. And they also are smart enough to realize that relying on a system that would require the government to spend less probably isn't a good bet. I cannot speak for them but I would be surprised if they would be saying raise taxes in an environment where the deficit wasn't in the trillions. every god damn year.

yes but we are in an environment where the deficit is in the trillions, if we weren't i would be all for lower taxes, and yes there should be cuts in expenditure too, but cutting trillions in expenditure alone isn't feasable either, tough decisions have to be made and now is the time to put the national interest ahead of self interest. and gates has been pushing for a financial transaction tax, which would be a tax on him and his dividends and stock sales

hadn't read that about gates and the financial transaction tax. Would be interested to see what that is like. I am hesitant to create a tax on investments that isn't there currently because of the unpredictable nature with which that would affect overall investing. Could raise revenue, but it could also simply offset the revenue lost to a capital gains revenue decrease.
either way, I believe it better to attempt to raise revenue by getting the economy going not by raising tax rates while doing nothing to curb a lagging recessed economy...

gimmesometruth27 · November 2011

MayDay Malone wrote:

So report my funny sarcastic post, you pussy...

Or lighten up and take a toke.

i didn't report you. the mods will see it sooner or later on their own.

i'm a pussy? how about sticking to the topic instead of namecalling?

shadowcast · November 2011

All you righties watch too much Glenn Beck and Mike Savage. You had know idea what socialism was until it became a buzz word in 2008. What needs to be done is to bring back taxes back to what they were before GW got a hold of them. What was Bush thinking starting 2 wars and cutting taxes? No country has ever cut taxes during a war let alone 2 wars. Also, healthcare is a human right and should be offered to everybody. Obama pussied out when he extended the Bush tax cuts and he pussied out by not pushing things through when he first got into office. But a flat tax is a terrible idea because even most of the rich people are like tax me I don't give a shit. But it's the stupid Tea Baggers that think they are going to be rich one day "and by golly when I am I do not want Uncle Sam taking my money." Well you dumb ass, you’re not going to be rich so live your simple life, cheer your sports team and shoot some tin cans...... and stop voting against yourself.

BTW Malone, I am not a teacher. I'm a Director of Sales of a hotel.

Go Beavers · November 2011

MayDay Malone wrote:

shadowcast 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...

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not a "Birther" but after this "ramble"...you Mayday are indeed a Birther.

Ugh.

Somehow, I just know you are a teacher.

Why am I not surprised that you would associate something negative with teacher?

Jason P · November 2011

shadowcast wrote:

All you righties watch too much Glenn Beck and Mike Savage. You had know idea what socialism was until it became a buzz word in 2008. What needs to be done is to bring back taxes back to what they were before GW got a hold of them. What was Bush thinking starting 2 wars and cutting taxes? No country has ever cut taxes during a war let alone 2 wars. Also, healthcare is a human right and should be offered to everybody. Obama pussied out when he extended the Bush tax cuts and he pussied out by not pushing things through when he first got into office. But a flat tax is a terrible idea because even most of the rich people are like tax me I don't give a shit. But it's the stupid Tea Baggers that think they are going to be rich one day "and by golly when I am I do not want Uncle Sam taking my money." Well you dumb ass, you’re not going to be rich so live your simple life, cheer your sports team and shoot some tin cans...... and stop voting against yourself.

BTW Malone, I am not a teacher. I'm a Director of Sales of a hotel.

Ragging on people for having stereotypes and then closing by making a stereotypical comment about the same group is so stereotypical.

The Folly of the Flat Tax

Comments

Categories