The Folly of the Flat Tax

satansbed wrote:

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

It is very strange that they would advocate it. Couldn't they just donate money to the government of their own free will if they do not feel they are paying enough? Odd that they feel they need to be self policed to pay more.

keeponrockin wrote:

Sounds excellent.

Howabout we cut by cutting defense spending and corporate subsidies.

Half right.

Cutting defense is a great idea.

Cutting subsidies for corporations - which means raising taxes on them - just gives the government more money to line their own pockets and interests.

We need solutions that reduce the amount of money that the government can mismanage.

know1 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

well know some one who earns milllions wouldn't even notice it while some one on 30000 would,

That is totally your opinion and not based in fact. 25% of $30,000 is $7500.

25% of $2Million is $500,000.

How does someone paying $500,000 in taxes "not even notice"?

cause $1.5m is more than enough for someone to live on more than comfortably.

satansbed wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

A flat tax is not "regressive". That said, it's not "progressive" either. It's flat. Hence the name: flat or "proportional" tax.

that doesn't take into account that people who earn more feel it less when taxed compared to people who earn less

Once again, by it's very definition a flat tax is not regressive, it is proportional. Even Alan Blinder, a known Keynesian who's article you cited, wouldn't argue with me on this one. It's a definition. He may argue that a "change" to a flat tax would make the system "more" regressive (because we have a progressive system right now and by adopting a flat tax we would be moving from a progressive to a proportional system, in doing so we'd move "towards" the regressive side of the scale). But, on net, he would not argue that a flat tax would make the income tax system regressive in and of itself because he knows that's intellectually dishonest... a flat tax is by definition a proportional tax. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't like definitions if they don't fit their agenda.

End of story.

Jason P wrote:

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.

Hello.

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

The flat tax would have a negative effect on more industries then you could imagine.

There would be much less incentive to make charitable donations, so all sorts of charities would see their donations dwindle. The beneficiaries of these charities would suffer.

What if people had more money on net in their pockets? Let's assume that those in the 25% and above bracket (or those making $34,500 or more) give the most to charity - which I'm quite sure is the case. Under most flat tax plans, they would pay less in taxes and therefore have more money to give to charity. The "incentives" may change, but would donations decline? I'm pretty sure they'd actually increase. I'll speak for myself... I'd give more if I was taxed less regardless of tax deductions. I don't base charitable donations on taxes. I base them on the charity itself and my own feelings regarding giving. I don't think I'm alone.

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

If the deduction for mortgage interest was taken away, there would be less demand for homes. Current homeowners, especially the ones with any other assets, would lose a huge portion of their net worth. Homebuilders and realtors would lose a huge portion of their business. With a lowered demand for houses, everyone across the socio-economic scale would suffer.

Once again, I disagree. If people who could afford to purchase home, like those paying 25% or more bracket (or those making 34K or more) , had their taxes lowered... on net, I'd bet they'd have more money than what they get credited in mortgage interest deductions. So, I would disagree. I think you're really off here.

A more proportional income tax would actually help the housing market, not hurt it.

bgivens33 wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

The flat tax would have a negative effect on more industries then you could imagine.

There would be much less incentive to make charitable donations, so all sorts of charities would see their donations dwindle. The beneficiaries of these charities would suffer.

If the deduction for mortgage interest was taken away, there would be less demand for homes. Current homeowners, especially the ones with any other assets, would lose a huge portion of their net worth. Homebuilders and realtors would lose a huge portion of their business.

With a lowered demand for houses, everyone across the socio-economic scale would suffer.

What percentage of homeowners do you think purchased a home just for the mortgage interest write-off?

dunno, but as a CPA whose client base has many people coming into "new money", we always highlight the tax benefit of home ownership. On a $1,000,000 mortgage, someone in a high tax state such as CA or NY can save nearly $22,500 in taxes every year as a result of the mortgage interest deduction.

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.

how much help would come from raising taxes on everyone? So what good would come from going back to clinton era tax rates? why is that the solution? why is giving more candy and soda to a diabetic the solution?


as for the end rant...that's the best you got? the whole regurgitating X commentator is a pretty silly comment all things considered

shadowcast wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

how much help would come from raising taxes on everyone? So what good would come from going back to clinton era tax rates? why is that the solution? why is giving more candy and soda to a diabetic the solution?


as for the end rant...that's the best you got? the whole regurgitating X commentator is a pretty silly comment all things considered

Never mind if you cannot take a little smart ass humor at the end. Your making it sound like the taxes would jump to 50%. It only raises them 3-4%. That little extra money would help things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, being able to rebuild after natural disasters and not end up being broke by it. Don’t give me that by raising taxes the rich will not create jobs story as well. The Corporations and their owners have seen record profits the past 5 years and haven’t been creating jobs. I work for Marriott and we have seen record profits the past 3 years and are not hiring any additional front desk, housekeepers or engineers. We are running what we call lean & mean. Like I said before for how many people do not deserve welfare because they are lazy there are as much more that do really need and have fell on hard times that do need. It’s called the common good of man.

smart ass humor is all well and good, and obviously my little joke didn't land (all things considered being a national public radio show)

no I am making it sound like taxes would raise on every American in a recession. That money is like giving junk food to a diabetic on the verge of a coma...like trying to put out a fire with gasoline...Deficit spending isn't always a bad thing, but unfortunately irresponsible deficit spending is a killer and that is what we have.
Why is 900 billion in income taxes not enough? the moment you can show me a government that acts responsibly I will be the first in line to say they can handle more money for new or better programs.
Also because someone thinks differently doesn't mean they were fed their ideas by a commentator. I am a libertarian...I am not fed my ideas. Through life experience and education I have come to the conclusion that large bodies of government have long gotten in the way of human beings. A lot of the good that has been done in the world seems to be in spite of them and very rarely is it because of them. Just as I am sure that all of your life experiences have led you to believe what you believe. I get sick and tired every time I read how dumb tea partiers vote against themselves...no they don't...i cannot speak for everyone, but I have no interest in allowing a government with such massive inherent problems to take more money. Giving them more isn't in mine or anyone else's best interest. how much is enough? when will those interested in raising tax revenue finally say enough.


also for those that don't realize it, YOU CAN RAISE REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT RAISING TAXES

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 .