Is a Flat Tax Fair?

[Prometheus85]

That's just intellectually dishonest.

It's a metaphor. Here I'll help ya out since you didn't graduate elementary school apparently.

met·a·phor
/ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
noun

1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Perhaps you should educate yourself before trying to tackle the world's problems.

Like I said. The irony is almost always lost on people who used this phrase. Especially if bootstraps argument is almost always made in bad faith, and assumes the absolute worst about the people it’s directed toward.

 

[Jollybear]

Like I said. The irony is almost always lost on people who used this phrase. Especially if bootstraps argument is almost always made in bad faith, and assumes the absolute worst about the people it’s directed toward.

The point is, poor people have the opertunity to rise out of poverty, just like many ritch people USE to be poor, but rose out of it.

FACT!

 

[Enoch07]

Like I said. The irony is almost always lost on people who used this phrase. Especially if bootstraps argument is almost always made in bad faith, and assumes the absolute worst about the people it’s directed toward.

Assumes the worst of people?

You're kidding right?

It's not assuming the worst of someone.

It's expecting the better of someone.

This idea that people can't help themselves. Is a form of bigotry. Here: racism of low expectations - Wiktionary

You expect very little of anyone. By doing this you allow them to stay right where they are. You are oppressing them by coddling them. Basically it's chains used to keep someone down.

You should be lifting them up. Making them aim high. Not for you, for themselves! Encourage them to aim higher, and improve themselves.

 

[sun rise]

Having $9 left after a 10% is better than having $7.50 left from a roughly 25% tax we have now.

With the current tax system, those on the bottom pay nothing or get an EITC.

 

[sun rise]

I would have no problem with a "Flat tax" as long as to balance it out there was a wealth tax. The cost to protect the wealth of the rich is not properly reflected in the tax code. That means that the owner of Amazon would have to pay a percentage of his net worth every year. That would be an indexed tax starting perhaps with people that had a million dollars or more in assets. A simple 1% would be adequate to start, but I would want a real specialist to figure it out.

That's an interesting idea.

 

[sun rise]

The point is, poor people have the opertunity to rise out of poverty, just like many ritch people USE to be poor, but rose out of it.

FACT!

If you dealt with the poor, you'd realize that everything in their environment tells them that they'll always be poor. A few have a mentor or someone who makes a difference in their life, but most don't. FACT.

 

[Enoch07]

With the current tax system, those on the bottom pay nothing or get an EITC.

Depends on what you mean by bottom.

$5,000 or more in earnings either by paycheck or self-employed within the tax year and you have file with the IRS. More than likely they will get a small sum back so long as they claimed 0 throughout the tax period. Self employed will have to set money aside to pay taxes at the end of the year when they file.

Under $5,000 still pay taxes on a paycheck but don't have to file with the IRS.

 

[Salvador]

Conservatives are always pushing for a "flat tax." It sounds so simple: One easy rate, so we all pay the same, easy to calculate... Get rid of deductions and lower the tax rates. But is it really fair?

Since, poor people have a lower percentage of discretionary income than well-to-do privilege class people, then I believe it's only fair low-income people should pay a lower effective tax rate than the effective tax rate of wealthy people. Imho, impoverished people, those living below the poverty level, should be exempt from paying any federal income taxes.

The tax cut and jobs act of 2017 did raise the standard deduction amount to $12,000, which means anybody living in poverty is totally excused from any federal income taxes. ...

 

[Salvador]

I would have no problem with a "Flat tax" as long as to balance it out there was a wealth tax. The cost to protect the wealth of the rich is not properly reflected in the tax code. That means that the owner of Amazon would have to pay a percentage of his net worth every year. That would be an indexed tax starting perhaps with people that had a million dollars or more in assets. A simple 1% would be adequate to start, but I would want a real specialist to figure it out.

In just a few words I can sum up big problems with the implementation of a wealth tax: valuation and liquidity.

The Problem With a Wealth Tax

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Conservatives are always pushing for a "flat tax." It sounds so simple: One easy rate, so we all pay the same, easy to calculate... Get rid of deductions and lower the tax rates. But is it really fair?

What isn't fair is an income tax in the first place.

You work your butt off on a 9 to 5, and people who claim to governing you take a pound of flesh from you without directly helping you at all. It kinda strikes me like a landlord who claims he fixed the electricity so he raises the rent, and you later find he duct taped the power line. I cannot tell you how often our state government has wasted money on repairing roads that don't need it, while a bridge across town still hasn't been fixed. And yet, state government is still more effective than federal government, which has spent money on crackpot studies and when I want them to do basic border security, instead states of Detroit and Michigan are overrun by anti-American interests. Yet they have the gall to tell us that the national debt is ours to pay back, when they spend like spoiled teenagers with a credit card on things that are against the peace of mind of the country.

And what really isn't fair is that income tax is basically a means of controlling the entrepreneur. A small business owner must pay taxes TWICE, as a employer and employee. This basically means that people are induced to stay dependent on controlling employers instead of finding their own dreams.

But yes, a flat tax would be more fair. Lemme show you how.

First, income tax being flat (which they wrongly call regressive, despite the fact that the flat tax is all percent while the progressive actually includes monetary amounts):

$9000 = (if exempt due to minimums, nothing otherwise) $900
$39,000 = $3900
$160k = $16k
$510k = $51k
And so on...

If you cut the very poor out of this and get rid of property taxes (which are unethical, because if you own a lease to land the government should not be able to tell you that you're "renting it" and they want the land back), yes it's very fair. Just set aside a 1/10 of your yearly income and you can manage. Now let's look at "progressive tax."

$0 to $9,700 = 10% of taxable income
$9,701 to $39,475 = $970 plus 12% of the amount over $9,700
$39,476 to $84,200 = $4,543 plus 22% of the amount over $39,475
$84,201 to $160,725 = $14,382.50 plus 24% of the amount over $84,200
$160,726 to $204,100 = $32,748.50 plus 32% of the amount over $160,725
$204,101 to $510,300 = $46,628.50 plus 35% of the amount over $204,100
$510,301 or more = $153,798.50 plus 37% of the amount over $510,300

They added a monetary amount in addition to percent taxes. Let's compare.

$9701 = $970 (flat, though I wouldn't even charge at this level) vs $970 (progressive)
$39,476 = $3947.6 (flat) vs $4,543 (progressive, as you can see, you're already pay $546 more because the amount from the percent leads each time to next bracket)
$84,201 = $8420.1 (flat) vs $14,382 ("progressive", it went up $5962)
$160,726 = $16,072 (flat) vs $32,748.50 ("progressive" it's now double)
$204,101 = $20,410.1 (flat) vs $46,628.50 ("progressive" nearly 2.5x)
$510,301 = $51,030.1 (flat) vs $153,798.50 ("progressive", three times as much)

I quoted "progressive", because taxes that keep rising don't actually encourage progress. Instead, they help hard workers quit, since their efforts are rewarded by more penalties. The taxes progress, creating more suffering as the "rich" never get ahead. Btw, I don't even pay taxes, because I earn so little as to be exempt from much of it in my state. In fact, I overdeclared my income (my actual income right now is about $500, but I said I earn btwn $1500 and $3000, mainly to pay into social security).

Not only does this system create annoying math (hiring a tax preparer which in turn mean refund gets a chunk cut out) but you get slammed with extra money each bracket. Proponents of this plan like to convince people that it's "fair" because it's taxing the "rich" but what they're really doing is playing off of people's envy. What happens though when you start to earn more money, and get hit by nearly 1/4 of your earnings? Payback isn't fair, it's petty. Stop thinking about other people, and you yourself will be able to keep more of what you earn to instead get a humanitarian guilt complex (or whatever kick liberals get from high taxes) another way. Heifer.org is always looking for money.

 

[Salvador]

An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that under the Tax Cut and Jobs Act bill enacted by the Republican controlled congress and President Trump , high-income Americans will pay an even larger percentage of the country’s overall income taxes in 2018 than they did before, while people in lower brackets will pay a smaller amount.

Specifically, the TPC estimates that the 20 percent of Americans that earn $150,000 or more will account for 52 percent of the country’s income, unchanged from last year, but will pay about 87 percent of total income taxes, up from 84 percent in 2017. It's nice to see the wealthy pay our “fair share”.

 

[Salvador]

What isn't fair is an income tax in the first place.

You work your butt off on a 9 to 5, and people who claim to governing you take a pound of flesh from you without directly helping you at all. It kinda strikes me like a landlord who claims he fixed the electricity so he raises the rent, and you later find he duct taped the power line. I cannot tell you how often our state government has wasted money on repairing roads that don't need it, while a bridge across town still hasn't been fixed. And yet, state government is still more effective than federal government, which has spent money on crackpot studies and when I want them to do basic border security, instead states of Detroit and Michigan are overrun by anti-American interests. Yet they have the gall to tell us that the national debt is ours to pay back, when they spend like spoiled teenagers with a credit card on things that are against the peace of mind of the country.

And what really isn't fair is that income tax is basically a means of controlling the entrepreneur. A small business owner must pay taxes TWICE, as a employer and employee. This basically means that people are induced to stay dependent on controlling employers instead of finding their own

But yes, a flat tax would be more fair. Lemme show you how.

Suppose I have 10% flat taxes. We exempt below a threshold, say $15k. The average poor person doesn't need to worry. At $15,001, I pay $1500. I have to set aside some (I hate income taxes because I have trouble saving money, and would prefer just a direct cut from my paycheck and to do absolutely nothing on tax day). And $2 million is $200k. If it were just flat taxes and no property taxes (hate even more), you would have an extremely large amount of money left over at any level of income. Now, let's talk about the progressive tax.

Progressive tax isn't percent of income but % of money over the last income level. What this means, is that the percent for quite awhile starts kinda close to 10% when you compare it, even though it says a higher percent. But it does manage to skew gradually until the middle class (the "rich") are basically paying in effect all of the previous income levels.

First, income tax being flat (which they wrongly call regressive, despite the fact that the flat tax is all percent while the progressive actually includes monetary amounts):

$9000 = (if exempt due to minimums, nothing otherwise) $900
$39,000 = $3900
$160k = $16k
$510k = $51k
And so on...

If you cut the very poor out of this and get rid of property taxes (which are unethical, because if you own a lease to land the government should not be able to tell you that you're "renting it" and they want the land back), yes it's very fair. Just set aside a 1/10 of your yearly income and you can manage. Now let's look at "progressive tax."

$0 to $9,700 = 10% of taxable income
$9,701 to $39,475 = $970 plus 12% of the amount over $9,700
$39,476 to $84,200 = $4,543 plus 22% of the amount over $39,475
$84,201 to $160,725 = $14,382.50 plus 24% of the amount over $84,200
$160,726 to $204,100 = $32,748.50 plus 32% of the amount over $160,725
$204,101 to $510,300 = $46,628.50 plus 35% of the amount over $204,100
$510,301 or more = $153,798.50 plus 37% of the amount over $510,300

One, they added a monetary amount in addition to flat taxes. Let's compare.

$9701 = $970 (flat, though I wouldn't even charge at this level) vs $970 (progressive)
$39,476 = $3947.6 (flat) vs $4,543 (progressive, as you can see, you're already pay $546 more because the amount from the percent leads each time to next bracket)
$84,201 = $8420.1 (flat) vs $14,382 ("progressive", it went up $5962)
$160,726 = $16,072 (flat) vs $32,748.50 ("progressive" it's now double)
$204,101 = $20,410.1 (flat) vs $46,628.50 ("progressive" nearly 2.5x)
$510,301 = $51,030.1 (flat) vs $153,798.50 ("progressive", three times as much)

I quoted "progressive", because taxes that keep rising don't actually encourage progress. Instead, they help hard workers quit, since their efforts are rewarded by more penalties. The taxes progress, creating more suffering as the "rich" never get ahead. Btw, I don't even pay taxes, because I earn so little as to be exempt from much of it in my state. In fact, I overdeclared my income (my actual income right now is about $500, but I said I earn btwn $1500 and $3000, mainly to pay into social security).

Not only does this system create annoying math (hiring a tax preparer which in turn mean refund gets a chunk cut out) but you get slammed with extra money each bracket. Proponents of this plan like to convince people that it's "fair" because it's taxing the "rich" but what they're really doing is playing off of people's envy. What happens though when you start to earn more money, and get hit by nearly 1/4 of your earnings? Payback isn't fair, it's petty. Stop thinking about other people, and you yourself will be able to keep more of what you earn to instead get a humanitarian guilt complex (or whatever kick liberals get from high taxes) another way. Heifer.org is always looking for money.

I don't mind paying a 20 percent capital gains tax on the money I've made from trading stocks. ...Most of the income earned by us privilege class folk is from investments rather than from hard labor. ....

 

[Salvador]

No it wouldnt. If the government would stop wasteful spending and subsidies. And drain there bearacratic swamp.

Tariffs should be paid to subsidize working class American farmers who've lost sales to the unfair trade practitioner Chinese

 

[Subduction Zone]

In just a few words I can sum up big problems with the implementation of a wealth tax: valuation and liquidity.

The Problem With a Wealth Tax

So an income tax it is then.

 

[Salvador]

So an income tax it is then.

Please let us not forget about a value-added-tax, which taxes consumption rather than productivity. Fairtax.org proposes how this could be done progressively.

Other well-developed advanced economy have a value-added tax system, so should our nation have a VAT.

Yang: Amazon needs to pay their fair share

 

[Mudramoksha]

Conservatives are always pushing for a "flat tax." It sounds so simple: One easy rate, so we all pay the same, easy to calculate... Get rid of deductions and lower the tax rates. But is it really fair?

I misread the thread title as something to do with Tuxedos and I thought it was gonna be fun, oh well

 

[Kenny]

Please let us not forget about a value-added-tax, which taxes consumption rather than productivity. Fairtax.org proposes how this could be done progressively.

Other well-developed advanced economy have a value-added tax system, so should our nation have a VAT.

Yang: Amazon needs to pay their fair share

Great thought.

 

[Jollybear]

If you dealt with the poor, you'd realize that everything in their environment tells them that they'll always be poor. A few have a mentor or someone who makes a difference in their life, but most don't. FACT.

Let me say this, we all have a life story. As do i. And ill admit, ive had my shar of discouragements and still do. My brain lots of times tells me itle not get better.....but then....i sink my feet into the dirt, hold tight and press on harder and keep the course of my goals, despite any setbacks. Ill work harder.....then harder. I wont give up, even if i FEEL like it.

I wont drag on telling you my story, but if i did not choose this, i know id be in a worser situation then current.

If government made a flat tax, thus incentivizing hard work, then my hard work would come with less discouragement!

Think about it.

Fact.

 

[Jollybear]

Tariffs should be paid to subsidize working class American farmers who've lost sales to the unfair trade practitioner Chinese

I dont understand much about terriffs. But whats wrong with free trade?

 

[Salvador]

I dont understand much about terriffs. But whats wrong with free trade?

There's nothing wrong with free trade, but that's not what China does when she steals the intellectual property of foreign businesses for them to be able to do business in China.