[Brujah]

Well, as I really appreciate the level of respect afforded to me by your one word response, as well as Terez's desire to not even give me that one word, instead repping your singular response, I would still ask you to elaborate further on why you don't like the flat tax?

You believe the wealthy should give a lower percent of earnings because it represents a larger absolute value? The only reason we have slowly taxed the wealthy less and less is because the wealthy have predominately ran our government from behind the scenes for some time, now. Add such notions as Reagans theory of trickle-down economics, and the desire to make it seem as if it behooves us all to tax the wealthy the least in order to create jobs. This is only true under perfect conditions.

Politicians don't care how bad their policies on tax reform and all financial systems destroy our economy. By the time they're out of office, those policies that hurt the low and middle class have netted their own interests enough gain as to no longer care. They just move on to the next slaughter. It can't be argued that corruption in both our government and big business isn't extreme. So once again I'd have to say 'yes.'

The top 1% of the nation controls the flow of wealth. Corrupt, big business are dug into the very framework of our financial system like ticks. They've created an environment where although they are causing great harm, removing them would be far worse.

Rome started sometime around 200bc and lasted until the fall of Romulus Augustus, the last emperor, in 476ad. That's about 600 to 700 years. The United States is past it's prime. It could be argued as to when exactly that was, but at the pace we're on, we could reach economic calamity and a seperation of the various states of the union into many smaller groups. This would take about half the time it took Rome to compete it's rise and fall. If you wanted to say we can't assume nor predict when our government collapses, then the answer wouldn't have been 'no', but an 'I don't know.'

Tldr - how come any of you are opposed to the flat tax?

[Terez]

I'm opposed to a flat tax because, like all percentage-of-income taxes (including but not limited to income tax) it's highly regressive. I agree that loopholes should be closed for the wealthy—a cap has been proposed, and I like that despite the fact that it doesn't simplify the tax code because it preserves breaks that middle class families depend on—but a flat tax implies everyone pays the same rate, which is either going to 1) tax the wealthy too lightly or 2) tax the poor too heavily. And while I agree one can draw certain comparisons to Rome, you took it into bunker territory, there. Which was part of why worry's response seemed appropriate.

[worry]

I genuinely appreciate your desire to have your post afforded a thoughtful response, but on the other hand, I don't have it in me to hit the reset button every time a well worn topic comes up from a new person. It's been litigated to death already, conservative ideas are awful across the board with zero exceptions, and while they're not all equally awful, the "flat tax" is among the worst among them. Going over the ins and outs of it is like re-litigating whether evolution should be taught in schools. Some people still don't think it should be, but does everybody else have to start at the beginning to get them up to speed? Every single time?

[worry]

I kid, I kid. I really meant to say what Terez said! Including the compliment of my post. Especially that part.

[Obdigore]

There are plenty of reasons why a flat tax is stupid. Terez already touched on the biggest one. One of the other main ones is that flat tax is only brought up as a talking point by people who either don't understand taxes and their benefits, or by people who stand to gain a lot from an introduction of the flat tax (ie, the rich who make salaries and not capital gains.) Meanwhile, per standard Republican (And Libertarian) propaganda, they use their media machines to convince people to vote against their best interests because their only other choice is being a pinko commie gay serial killer. With a bad complexion. And possibly a liberal, if you can believe that shit!

Trickle down has never and will never work, and is in fact hurting the economy, and will continue to do so while a large group of American votes are uneducated and rather hateful of anyone more educated than them. Also rather hateful of anyone different than them. So instead of worrying about how the tax code is structured, perhaps you should worry about this cancer of hatred and intolerance.

Meanwhile you put on your tinfoil hat and start claiming states are going to leave the union. Protip: Anonymous thought it was hilarious to run a campaign to get signatures on the secession demands. Ironically, many of the names across all 50 are the exact same, and fake names. I'm not sure why some lady in North Dakota started demanding the New York be allowed to leave the US, but whatever.

Remember that when Republicans win the EC but lose the popular vote, it is a 'mandate to govern'. When the Dems win the EC and the popular vote 'they didn't win by enough!'. The idiocy is strong. Everything the GOP stands for stands in the way of anything that would help anyone except the rich and giant corporations.

[Brujah]

Terez, on 26 November 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

I'm opposed to a flat tax because, like all percentage-of-income taxes (including but not limited to income tax) it's highly regressive. I agree that loopholes should be closed for the wealthy—a cap has been proposed, and I like that despite the fact that it doesn't simplify the tax code because it preserves breaks that middle class families depend on—but a flat tax implies everyone pays the same rate, which is either going to 1) tax the wealthy too lightly or 2) tax the poor too heavily. And while I agree one can draw certain comparisons to Rome, you took it into bunker territory, there. Which was part of why worry's response seemed appropriate.

I guess it depends on what you think is too high for the poor. When I was single, I paid about 28 percent in taxes every year, while the top paid less than 2%. I could easily go for a flat 18% to 24% flat rate. One model served to show that even at 20% flat, with no loop holes for the wealthy or large corporations, we could easily begin to reverse the national debt, AND it would be simpler on a scale through the roof.

25% of all your income feels probably the same to everyone. If you made $20,000 one year, you'd pay $5000 in taxes total. If you made 100 million you paid 25 million. IMO, that $5000 bucks feels about the same in importance to the guy who only made $20,000 as the 25 million does to the other guy.

Under the tiered system you advocate, the wealthy have been the ones to most abuse and take advantage of the tax code. If Big Dollars are backing these politicians'.campaign funds, and are the ones tossing millions of dollars in the form of lobbyists at DC to push their own agenda, then no wonder the wealthy have easily influenced the current tax systems in their favor. Lastly, imagine this simplified scenario. A group of wealthy individuals all in the X Business are paying 10 million a year in taxes. They convince certain govt official to write addendums to the tax code that cuts that 10 million in half, to 5 million, and promises to kick 2.5 million each year to their campaign fund. Who gains? Well the Big Business pay 25% less in taxes, saving 2.5 million a year, and those politicians net 2.5 million collectively in campaign donations. Sounds like a win-win. The only loser once this is done across the board but on large-scale is the tax-payer. And its the poor and middle class who depend more heavily on tax- payer entitlements and many other services. The wealthy are affected far less. They'll be fine when certain areas are at 20% unemployment, there is food shortage, infrastructure failure, etc.

I also just can't believe the republican party is advocating increasing the retirement age to help fix a money problem that was in large part due to years of their monetary policy. They soak up funds over time through special interest groups, kick backs, favors, creation of bylaws, removal of safety systems there to prevent abuse, etc..and turn around and won't the low and middle class to shoulder the burden of fixing it.

Someone made a point about why the wealthy would want to pay taxes towards entitlements they would never have need of, and that's a truely mad philosophy. That is akin to saying that the richer states like New York shouldn't turnover their share of federal taxes because they go predominantly to all the poorer states like Mississippi. It would be like the European Union turning their back on Greece instead of having bailed them out, or President Obama having allowed our largest car manufacturers to go under. A country is built on a foundation of labor provided by the poor and middle class.


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadowsof life;thesick,theneedy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest." ~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life

[Terez]

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

I guess it depends on what you think is too high for the poor. When I was single, I paid about 28 percent in taxes every year, while the top paid less than 2%. I could easily go for a flat 18% to 24% flat rate.

Then either a) you weren't anything close to poor or 2) you lived with your parents or, if you were lucky, a generous girlfriend.

Quote

25% of all your income feels probably the same to everyone. If you made $20,000 one year, you'd pay $5000 in taxes total. If you made 100 million you paid 25 million. IMO, that $5000 bucks feels about the same in importance to the guy who only made $20,000 as the 25 million does to the other guy.

This is what worry was talking about. It's like you've never read an argument against flat tax or something. No matter how much the rich guy hates to lose that 25 million, he's still got more than enough left over to put a roof over his head and feed himself. That makes all the difference in the world.

[Brujah]

Obdigore, on 26 November 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

There are plenty of reasons why a flat tax is stupid. Terez already touched on the biggest one. One of the other main ones is that flat tax is only brought up as a talking point by people who either don't understand taxes and their benefits, or by people who stand to gain a lot from an introduction of the flat tax (ie, the rich who make salaries and not capital gains.) Meanwhile, per standard Republican (And Libertarian) propaganda, they use their media machines to convince people to vote against their best interests because their only other choice is being a pinko commie gay serial killer. With a bad complexion. And possibly a liberal, if you can believe that shit!

Trickle down has never and will never work, and is in fact hurting the economy, and will continue to do so while a large group of American votes are uneducated and rather hateful of anyone more educated than them. Also rather hateful of anyone different than them. So instead of worrying about how the tax code is structured, perhaps you should worry about this cancer of hatred and intolerance.

Meanwhile you put on your tinfoil hat and start claiming states are going to leave the union. Protip: Anonymous thought it was hilarious to run a campaign to get signatures on the secession demands. Ironically, many of the names across all 50 are the exact same, and fake names. I'm not sure why some lady in North Dakota started demanding the New York be allowed to leave the US, but whatever.

Remember that when Republicans win the EC but lose the popular vote, it is a 'mandate to govern'. When the Dems win the EC and the popular vote 'they didn't win by enough!'. The idiocy is strong. Everything the GOP stands for stands in the way of anything that would help anyone except the rich and giant corporations.

States leaving the Union on their own, or one at a time is not the idea. The idea, most discussed by Russian Economist Igor Panarin, suggests that as our economy gradually gets worse, the Union will break into 4 to 8 smaller groups, as many rich northern states will no longer feel they should have to shoulder a larger burden than the other poorer states. Mr Panarin predicted this collapse would occur in 2010, and is a widely discussed and well researched topic. Although no model can be precise, some have us falling apart much like the U.S.S.R. did, except it wouldn't be each state on its own, but groups that band together based on geography.

[worry]

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

25% of all your income feels probably the same to everyone. If you made $20,000 one year, you'd pay $5000 in taxes total. If you made 100 million you paid 25 million. IMO, that $5000 bucks feels about the same in importance to the guy who only made $20,000 as the 25 million does to the other guy.

Here's where you're wrong. Those two things feel nothing alike. Living on $75 million feels nothing like living on $15,000, and I have no idea why you'd even suggest that was the case. The vast majority of people -- especially those with dependents but not even necessarily that -- feel every bit of that $5000, whereas the $25,000,000 would only be "felt" in the ego department by anyone who is not actually a Bond villain who needs that 25 for his lasers. If the rest of your argument rests on this comparison, then it is already moot.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 26 November 2012 - 05:02 AM

[Obdigore]

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 26 November 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

There are plenty of reasons why a flat tax is stupid. Terez already touched on the biggest one. One of the other main ones is that flat tax is only brought up as a talking point by people who either don't understand taxes and their benefits, or by people who stand to gain a lot from an introduction of the flat tax (ie, the rich who make salaries and not capital gains.) Meanwhile, per standard Republican (And Libertarian) propaganda, they use their media machines to convince people to vote against their best interests because their only other choice is being a pinko commie gay serial killer. With a bad complexion. And possibly a liberal, if you can believe that shit!

Trickle down has never and will never work, and is in fact hurting the economy, and will continue to do so while a large group of American votes are uneducated and rather hateful of anyone more educated than them. Also rather hateful of anyone different than them. So instead of worrying about how the tax code is structured, perhaps you should worry about this cancer of hatred and intolerance.

Meanwhile you put on your tinfoil hat and start claiming states are going to leave the union. Protip: Anonymous thought it was hilarious to run a campaign to get signatures on the secession demands. Ironically, many of the names across all 50 are the exact same, and fake names. I'm not sure why some lady in North Dakota started demanding the New York be allowed to leave the US, but whatever.

Remember that when Republicans win the EC but lose the popular vote, it is a 'mandate to govern'. When the Dems win the EC and the popular vote 'they didn't win by enough!'. The idiocy is strong. Everything the GOP stands for stands in the way of anything that would help anyone except the rich and giant corporations.

States leaving the Union on their own, or one at a time is not the idea. The idea, most discussed by Russian Economist Igor Panarin, suggests that as our economy gradually gets worse, the Union will break into 4 to 8 smaller groups, as many rich northern states will no longer feel they should have to shoulder a larger burden than the other poorer states. Mr Panarin predicted this collapse would occur in 2010, and is a widely discussed and well researched topic. Although no model can be precise, some have us falling apart much like the U.S.S.R. did, except it wouldn't be each state on its own, but groups that band together based on geography.

Except us rich northern states don't really mind shouldering the burden, we just wish you ignorant southerners would try to get educated.

Meanwhile our economy is getting better and Mr Panarin has been proven wrong numerous times. I've debated his work and theories a couple times now, and every time it comes out to Igor wanting the US to break up to prove that the USSR couldn't sustain itself had they been smarter.

[worry]

Now I'm no economics expert like Terez and a few other folks, but here's a good summation of how people are actually taxed (not limited to the income tax). It even has bullet points to help out folks like you and me: http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3505

If you want a picture of how these taxes rank as a share of income here's a few solid charts:



And if you want to skip right to the meat of the "flat tax" issue it's covered (with other lower income tax raise ideas) in the section called:
Policy Options to Force People with Low Incomes to Pay Federal Income Tax Are Unsound

[Brujah]

Terez, on 26 November 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

I guess it depends on what you think is too high for the poor. When I was single, I paid about 28 percent in taxes every year, while the top paid less than 2%. I could easily go for a flat 18% to 24% flat rate.

Then either a) you weren't anything close to poor or 2) you lived with your parents or, if you were lucky, a generous girlfriend.

Quote

25% of all your income feels probably the same to everyone. If you made $20,000 one year, you'd pay $5000 in taxes total. If you made 100 million you paid 25 million. IMO, that $5000 bucks feels about the same in importance to the guy who only made $20,000 as the 25 million does to the other guy.

This is what worry was talking about. It's like you've never read an argument against flat tax or something. No matter how much the rich guy hates to lose that 25 million, he's still got more than enough left over to put a roof over his head and feed himself. That makes all the difference in the world.

Well I thought you were trying to say that the wealthy guy in the scenario was the one who opposes this system, and felt it was unfair to have to pay so much more in absolute value. I was assuming the poor guy was content in your scenario.

As for what worry said about responses to disagreeing with the flat tax - well i wasn't asking for a regurgitation of all that is out there. As an Econ Major it was quite normal for everyone in the room to have a different stance as to why THEY opposed a specific economic policy. I was more interested in personal beliefs.

I see a large difference in how many of the people in this forum stand on larger issues, but I wouldn't have thought there would be much opposition to a flat tax by anyone outside the monetary elite, but I respect your opinion and stance. It's just unusual from my experience. I expected quite the opposite. I would agree to the lower end of that flat tax model of 18%. I think that wouldn't cripple the lower or middle class too much, yet would still provide near to most or all of our monetary need.

Anything is better than what we have now with a huge chunk of the very, very poor living off entitlements when they could be working, and on the other end, the top 10% of the wealthiest not paying nearly as much as they should via loop holes and all manor of shady negotiations. It puts the most stress on the middle. The ones who don't have the financial cushion that the wealthy enjoy, and aren't quite poor enough to receive the help the poor have.

[Obdigore]

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Terez, on 26 November 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

I guess it depends on what you think is too high for the poor. When I was single, I paid about 28 percent in taxes every year, while the top paid less than 2%. I could easily go for a flat 18% to 24% flat rate.

Then either a) you weren't anything close to poor or 2) you lived with your parents or, if you were lucky, a generous girlfriend.

Quote

25% of all your income feels probably the same to everyone. If you made $20,000 one year, you'd pay $5000 in taxes total. If you made 100 million you paid 25 million. IMO, that $5000 bucks feels about the same in importance to the guy who only made $20,000 as the 25 million does to the other guy.

This is what worry was talking about. It's like you've never read an argument against flat tax or something. No matter how much the rich guy hates to lose that 25 million, he's still got more than enough left over to put a roof over his head and feed himself. That makes all the difference in the world.

Well I thought you were trying to say that the wealthy guy in the scenario was the one who opposes this system, and felt it was unfair to have to pay so much more in absolute value. I was assuming the poor guy was content in your scenario.

As for what worry said about responses to disagreeing with the flat tax - well i wasn't asking for a regurgitation of all that is out there. As an Econ Major it was quite normal for everyone in the room to have a different stance as to why THEY opposed a specific economic policy. I was more interested in personal beliefs.

I see a large difference in how many of the people in this forum stand on larger issues, but I wouldn't have thought there would be much opposition to a flat tax by anyone outside the monetary elite, but I respect your opinion and stance. It's just unusual from my experience. I expected quite the opposite. I would agree to the lower end of that flat tax model of 18%. I think that wouldn't cripple the lower or middle class too much, yet would still provide near to most or all of our monetary need.

Anything is better than what we have now with a huge chunk of the very, very poor living off entitlements when they could be working, and on the other end, the top 10% of the wealthiest not paying nearly as much as they should via loop holes and all manor of shady negotiations. It puts the most stress on the middle. The ones who don't have the financial cushion that the wealthy enjoy, and aren't quite poor enough to receive the help the poor have.

So tell me, how is the 'flat tax' system going to fix the 'poor living off entitlements instead of working'?

[Terez]

worrywort, on 26 November 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

Now I'm no economics expert like Terez...

lol. I learn a little more every day, but I'm far from an expert. Sad thing is, one could say the same for a lot of people working in business and finance.

There's a girl on Theoryland who is from Estonia and now lives in the Netherlands who argues for a flat tax with a floor well above the poverty line, like maybe 20,000 for individuals and 30,000 for families or something. So you pay no taxes at all up to that point. So an individual making 30,000 would only pay taxes on 10,000 of her income and a family making 40,000 would likewise only pay taxes on 10,000 of their income, and so on upward. I could go for that; it's stupid to make people below those lines pay taxes when they'll likely get it back in benefits at the cost of so much bureaucracy. Anyway, that seems to be a more common proposal where she is from than it is in the US.

[Brujah]

Obdigore, on 26 November 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Terez, on 26 November 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

I guess it depends on what you think is too high for the poor. When I was single, I paid about 28 percent in taxes every year, while the top paid less than 2%. I could easily go for a flat 18% to 24% flat rate.

Then either a) you weren't anything close to poor or 2) you lived with your parents or, if you were lucky, a generous girlfriend.

Quote

25% of all your income feels probably the same to everyone. If you made $20,000 one year, you'd pay $5000 in taxes total. If you made 100 million you paid 25 million. IMO, that $5000 bucks feels about the same in importance to the guy who only made $20,000 as the 25 million does to the other guy.

This is what worry was talking about. It's like you've never read an argument against flat tax or something. No matter how much the rich guy hates to lose that 25 million, he's still got more than enough left over to put a roof over his head and feed himself. That makes all the difference in the world.

Well I thought you were trying to say that the wealthy guy in the scenario was the one who opposes this system, and felt it was unfair to have to pay so much more in absolute value. I was assuming the poor guy was content in your scenario.

As for what worry said about responses to disagreeing with the flat tax - well i wasn't asking for a regurgitation of all that is out there. As an Econ Major it was quite normal for everyone in the room to have a different stance as to why THEY opposed a specific economic policy. I was more interested in personal beliefs.

I see a large difference in how many of the people in this forum stand on larger issues, but I wouldn't have thought there would be much opposition to a flat tax by anyone outside the monetary elite, but I respect your opinion and stance. It's just unusual from my experience. I expected quite the opposite. I would agree to the lower end of that flat tax model of 18%. I think that wouldn't cripple the lower or middle class too much, yet would still provide near to most or all of our monetary need.

Anything is better than what we have now with a huge chunk of the very, very poor living off entitlements when they could be working, and on the other end, the top 10% of the wealthiest not paying nearly as much as they should via loop holes and all manor of shady negotiations. It puts the most stress on the middle. The ones who don't have the financial cushion that the wealthy enjoy, and aren't quite poor enough to receive the help the poor have.

So tell me, how is the 'flat tax' system going to fix the 'poor living off entitlements instead of working'?

For the record, as things come across differently on forums as opposed to in person, I wasn't lumping all poor people together, nor suggesting they all abused the system. I was talking about the fact that there is a small percent of people who aren't using the entitlements as intended, which is to help negotiate tougher times while you seek to remedy the income situation. Some people will never be able to, of course, but some have no intention of trying to fix anything. This, as said, is a small percent, but as a whole, it adds up to big dollars that could be used more efficiently. I used this case from the poor scenario to counter balance the discussion of the wealthy abusing the tax code.

As for your question, I don't think any type of tax system will fix this issue, but the flat tax in most models nets us a higher total inflow of tax dollars, so at the very least we would be able to absorb these types of money holes better.

[Obdigore]

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 26 November 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Terez, on 26 November 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

I guess it depends on what you think is too high for the poor. When I was single, I paid about 28 percent in taxes every year, while the top paid less than 2%. I could easily go for a flat 18% to 24% flat rate.

Then either a) you weren't anything close to poor or 2) you lived with your parents or, if you were lucky, a generous girlfriend.

Quote

25% of all your income feels probably the same to everyone. If you made $20,000 one year, you'd pay $5000 in taxes total. If you made 100 million you paid 25 million. IMO, that $5000 bucks feels about the same in importance to the guy who only made $20,000 as the 25 million does to the other guy.

This is what worry was talking about. It's like you've never read an argument against flat tax or something. No matter how much the rich guy hates to lose that 25 million, he's still got more than enough left over to put a roof over his head and feed himself. That makes all the difference in the world.

Well I thought you were trying to say that the wealthy guy in the scenario was the one who opposes this system, and felt it was unfair to have to pay so much more in absolute value. I was assuming the poor guy was content in your scenario.

As for what worry said about responses to disagreeing with the flat tax - well i wasn't asking for a regurgitation of all that is out there. As an Econ Major it was quite normal for everyone in the room to have a different stance as to why THEY opposed a specific economic policy. I was more interested in personal beliefs.

I see a large difference in how many of the people in this forum stand on larger issues, but I wouldn't have thought there would be much opposition to a flat tax by anyone outside the monetary elite, but I respect your opinion and stance. It's just unusual from my experience. I expected quite the opposite. I would agree to the lower end of that flat tax model of 18%. I think that wouldn't cripple the lower or middle class too much, yet would still provide near to most or all of our monetary need.

Anything is better than what we have now with a huge chunk of the very, very poor living off entitlements when they could be working, and on the other end, the top 10% of the wealthiest not paying nearly as much as they should via loop holes and all manor of shady negotiations. It puts the most stress on the middle. The ones who don't have the financial cushion that the wealthy enjoy, and aren't quite poor enough to receive the help the poor have.

So tell me, how is the 'flat tax' system going to fix the 'poor living off entitlements instead of working'?

For the record, as things come across differently on forums as opposed to in person, I wasn't lumping all poor people together, nor suggesting they all abused the system. I was talking about the fact that there is a small percent of people who aren't using the entitlements as intended, which is to help negotiate tougher times while you seek to remedy the income situation. Some people will never be able to, of course, but some have no intention of trying to fix anything. This, as said, is a small percent, but as a whole, it adds up to big dollars that could be used more efficiently. I used this case from the poor scenario to counter balance the discussion of the wealthy abusing the tax code.

As for your question, I don't think any type of tax system will fix this issue, but the flat tax in most models nets us a higher total inflow of tax dollars, so at the very least we would be able to absorb these types of money holes better.

And yet you would be taxing the poor and middle incomes more and the rich less than if you did something like eliminate the stipulation that capital gains are anything other than normal income, and subject to related taxes.

Problem solved.

Meanwhile you listed poor people on 'entitlements' as something that your flat tax is going to fix, then you back off it and say that flat tax will make the US Federal Government more money. So would letting the Bush Era tax cuts expire. So would eliminating churches as charities for charitable giving. So would ending the occupation of Afghanistan and the financing of private military forces in Iraq.

There is a ton the US Federal Government could do to address the debt, which is where I assume you are going with this. Flat Tax is not a good solution to anything. Just like full on socialism or full on capitalism are not good solutions.

[Brujah]

Obdigore, on 26 November 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 26 November 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Terez, on 26 November 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Brujah, on 26 November 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

I guess it depends on what you think is too high for the poor. When I was single, I paid about 28 percent in taxes every year, while the top paid less than 2%. I could easily go for a flat 18% to 24% flat rate.

Then either a) you weren't anything close to poor or 2) you lived with your parents or, if you were lucky, a generous girlfriend.

Quote

25% of all your income feels probably the same to everyone. If you made $20,000 one year, you'd pay $5000 in taxes total. If you made 100 million you paid 25 million. IMO, that $5000 bucks feels about the same in importance to the guy who only made $20,000 as the 25 million does to the other guy.

This is what worry was talking about. It's like you've never read an argument against flat tax or something. No matter how much the rich guy hates to lose that 25 million, he's still got more than enough left over to put a roof over his head and feed himself. That makes all the difference in the world.

Well I thought you were trying to say that the wealthy guy in the scenario was the one who opposes this system, and felt it was unfair to have to pay so much more in absolute value. I was assuming the poor guy was content in your scenario.

As for what worry said about responses to disagreeing with the flat tax - well i wasn't asking for a regurgitation of all that is out there. As an Econ Major it was quite normal for everyone in the room to have a different stance as to why THEY opposed a specific economic policy. I was more interested in personal beliefs.

I see a large difference in how many of the people in this forum stand on larger issues, but I wouldn't have thought there would be much opposition to a flat tax by anyone outside the monetary elite, but I respect your opinion and stance. It's just unusual from my experience. I expected quite the opposite. I would agree to the lower end of that flat tax model of 18%. I think that wouldn't cripple the lower or middle class too much, yet would still provide near to most or all of our monetary need.

Anything is better than what we have now with a huge chunk of the very, very poor living off entitlements when they could be working, and on the other end, the top 10% of the wealthiest not paying nearly as much as they should via loop holes and all manor of shady negotiations. It puts the most stress on the middle. The ones who don't have the financial cushion that the wealthy enjoy, and aren't quite poor enough to receive the help the poor have.

So tell me, how is the 'flat tax' system going to fix the 'poor living off entitlements instead of working'?

For the record, as things come across differently on forums as opposed to in person, I wasn't lumping all poor people together, nor suggesting they all abused the system. I was talking about the fact that there is a small percent of people who aren't using the entitlements as intended, which is to help negotiate tougher times while you seek to remedy the income situation. Some people will never be able to, of course, but some have no intention of trying to fix anything. This, as said, is a small percent, but as a whole, it adds up to big dollars that could be used more efficiently. I used this case from the poor scenario to counter balance the discussion of the wealthy abusing the tax code.

As for your question, I don't think any type of tax system will fix this issue, but the flat tax in most models nets us a higher total inflow of tax dollars, so at the very least we would be able to absorb these types of money holes better.

And yet you would be taxing the poor and middle incomes more and the rich less than if you did something like eliminate the stipulation that capital gains are anything other than normal income, and subject to related taxes.

Problem solved.

Meanwhile you listed poor people on 'entitlements' as something that your flat tax is going to fix, then you back off it and say that flat tax will make the US Federal Government more money. So would letting the Bush Era tax cuts expire. So would eliminating churches as charities for charitable giving. So would ending the occupation of Afghanistan and the financing of private military forces in Iraq.

There is a ton the US Federal Government could do to address the debt, which is where I assume you are going with this. Flat Tax is not a good solution to anything. Just like full on socialism or full on capitalism are not good solutions.

Well, let me address a couple points, because I'm not trying to imply a few of the things you said, and will not lay the fault on you. I will try to come across clearer, because it seems we are more in agreement on things than not. I too believe that extreme capitalism or extreme socialism is a recipe for failure. While we're on this subject, I believe in a system that incorporates both. I'd like to have a floor, where no citizen's way of life would fall below. This is where the socialist system would come into play, and would focus on helping people rise back into the middle class, but still allow capitalism to flourish without issuing a ceiling on earnings.

Ron Paul believed that it is best for an economy to step over a poor person in need. He believes that, although tragic, this must be allowed to insure stability. I disagree, mainly because it's been shown that an economy with a strong foundation, aka, the poor and middle class, creates a better system for potential earnings, and that if the percentage of the nation's poor rises too much, and their economic stability is in constant turmoil, the entire system will begin to slow down, and falter.

Secondly, I wouldn't dare alter the stipulation that capital gains are anything other than normal income. In no model of the flat tax I've studied did we run across a system that was tailored towards helping the wealthy. We focused on a solution for the opposite.

Your other point about not renewing the Bush Tax cuts to increase tax inflow doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with a flat tax. The Bush Tax cuts are the prime example of what is and can go wrong with a tax system written such as ours. The cease to permitting donations to churches to be considered charitable donations is minute in scale to all the rest, and a waste of time to having even brought up.

I'm all for leaving Afganistan, and the entire middle east, to save money. I'm not for it. But there's no reason we can't focus on a better tax code just because you find ways to increase tax revenue or cut spending. I also don't think you're familiar with the various flat tax systems, because many of them are intended to gain the additional revenues from the wealthy, by preventing things like the Bush era tax cuts, capital gains loop holes, false financial statements, shady business negotiations between big business and politicians, etc..

The poor and middle class could still benefit from certain govt programs to be reimbursed some of the taxes paid, while preventing corruption by the most wealthy.

Lastly, I wasn't trying to insinuate that I felt the flat tax would stifle the abuse of our entitlements system. I even cleared this up and you called it backing off. This isn't mafia. It's not a contest. It's a sharing of ideas. You seem more interested in the way I worded something than anything I'm actually saying. I can understand confusion, but once clarified the need for further prodding isn't getting us anywhere, nor accomplishing anything. I'm sharing my views, while you seem more concerned by trying to impose your views through forceful rhetoric and the general debasing of opposing ideas either by their method of delivery or the content itself.

[Obdigore]

Your ideas are insubstantial and you have yet to share which 'flat tax' system you wish to implement. I'm not sure how you think we can have any kind of discussion when you refuse to extrapolate on your points. If you are going to claim there is more than a single flat tax system (I suggest you examine the definition of flat tax if you are going to go to a steppe system or something).

I'm also unclear why you think a regressive tax system is best for the US.

Thirdly, I couldn't give two shits what Ron Paul thinks. The man is a horrible human being and a symptom of a problem of our culture.

Fourth, in regards to churches being charitable contributions, you are the one whining that the wealthy pay too little in taxes, and you feel vengeful. Many wealthy donate to churches (not money, but property) to alleviate tax burdens, and claim that they donated to charity to help the poor when in reality most churches do nothing of the sort.

If you don't like holes being shot in your theories because you refuse to explain what you mean and use actual data and points we can discuss, and then tell people that they are reading your rather short suggestion regarding something extremely complicated as a lack of understanding on your part, then you can either expound on whatever points you think you have, or you can leave. If your skin is so thin that someone asking for explanations is a problem for you, then that is just too bad.

[Morgoth]

I'm not diving deeper into this than to point out that if you have come across only a few people opposing flat tax, Brujah, you might benefit from expanding your reading some. A flat tax rate is not something given serious consideration in the world of politics, and it's hardly a popular idea in the world of economics either.

Additionally, considering your comments on entitlements you might like to have a peek at the benefits thread.

[Brujah]

Morgoth, on 26 November 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

I'm not diving deeper into this than to point out that if you have come across only a few people opposing flat tax, Brujah, you might benefit from expanding your reading some. A flat tax rate is not something given serious consideration in the world of politics, and it's hardly a popular idea in the world of economics either.

Additionally, considering your comments on entitlements you might like to have a peek at the benefits thread.

No, I wasn't saying it was odd to have people oppose a flat tax system. I was saying that most of the people who have opposed it seemed to represent the more wealthy side. What surprised me was that so many people from this forum were opposed to it, as for the most part, my views on many to most things on this forum usually coincide with the general, or more popular views of this thread. I was just surprised. I believe the flat tax when implemented correctly, actually draws a larger portion of total tax income from the wealthy, usually starting around $250k/yr, and up. I will admit that the $100k to $200k range will also see a small increase, yet those under $100k, $75 to $80k to be safe, would experience some tax relief.

One of the bigger reasons why I personally am for a 'pre' flat tax, is that it makes it much harder for large corporations and the wealthy to find ways to pay less.

I admit that we'll never see a flat tax, because the republicans would never go for it for one, but it really irritates me that they're pushing so hard to renew these Bush Tax Cuts that they're willing to risk further economic turmoil to achieve their goals. They're like, well we're rich. We'll be ok. Too bad for those poor 'victims,' er, people.