Progressive or flat tax?

[Flappycat]

Do you support a progressive or flat tax?

My own ideas deviate from both. I think that the income tax, in particular, should take a progressive curve only as it exceeds the minimum required to sustain frugal spending habits and a thriving economy. I don't court the "rob the rich and give to the poor" mentality, but I honestly think that it's ridiculous to expect our poorest citizens to pay for the government's incompetence when the wealthiest actually have the greatest amount of power, individually, in regard to who does or does not make it into elected office and, thus, take the greatest blame for the government's mistakes. What are everyone else's feelings on this?

 

[Sunstone]

You make a good point, Flappycat, about the wealthy having more say in who gets elected to office, and hence should pay more for the mistakes of government.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

i think we should have tax's tailored to the persons income. A flat tax robs the poor and doesn't scratch the income of a wealthy person.

 

[Sunstone]

Would a tax on consumption be a economic disaster in our credit crazy societies?

 

[Aqualung]

flat tax. everybody should give exactly the same percentage. that's the only fair way

 

[jonny]

Would a tax on consumption be a economic disaster in our credit crazy societies?

It seems to work in Washington. We never had a state income tax when I lived there and the state somehow found money. I would only support a national sales tax if food and other necessities were not included in that tax.

I support a flat tax, but I am worried that it would shift to much of the tax burden down to those who are already having a hard time making ends meet (students for example).

 

[Darkdale]

flat tax. everybody should give exactly the same percentage. that's the only fair way

Well, I'm not sure about that being fair. I prefer a consumption tax. Tax me on what I spend and I can control how and on what I am taxed on. Don't tax my income. The Fair tax is the most equitable system and it also allows people to save money as well. I know a lot of people are envious of the rich and so they want them to pay more, but I think that's shallow. I think the Rich should be taxed on what they spend, not on what they make.

 

[Flappycat]

Actually, I wonder if anyone here would support requiring people to pay a tax whenever they buy stock. It counts as a purchase, investment or not.

 

[nutshell]

Actually, I wonder if anyone here would support requiring people to pay a tax whenever they buy stock. It counts as a purchase, investment or not.

I wouldn't support that. I think all investments should be tax free (but pay tax on the interest as that can be considered income).

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I myself support the Basic Income Guarantee plan, which is an innovation on the flat tax that is also progressive in the sense that the average tax rate goes up as one income rises.

Google search usbig to find the organization that propagates this.

dlw

 

[Aqualung]

Well, I'm not sure about that being fair. I prefer a consumption tax. Tax me on what I spend and I can control how and on what I am taxed on. Don't tax my income. The Fair tax is the most equitable system and it also allows people to save money as well. I know a lot of people are envious of the rich and so they want them to pay more, but I think that's shallow. I think the Rich should be taxed on what they spend, not on what they make.

That wasn't one of the choices...

 

[Flappycat]

Well, the rationale behind raising the income tax at different rates is pretty simple if you stop to think about it. People who are close to the economic bottom rung, referring mainly to people who live paycheck to paycheck, count on a certain percentage being taken out of their income. It doesn't matter if they're paying ten percent or fifty percent; changing how much you take from them in the slightest can decide whether or not they can make the payments on their houses, cover the rent, or keep their kids in college. People who are one rung up from that, however, have a higher tolerance to increases and are more likely to have some cash set aside for a rainy day, so pulling an extra five percent from their income on one particular year isn't likely to put them under. The point of this isn't to make the system "fair," and it's pretty deranged to base anything like this on the ideal of "fairness." Ideals are nothing but a source of trouble. The point is to keep people in lower income ranges from being burnt out on the occassion of a dramatic tax increase, for whatever reason.

 

[Fascist Christ]

Income tax can only serve one purpose: to keep wealth from accumulating into the hands of indivduals and familes and hence out of circulation. Concentrated wealth is not good for the economy.

Only tax the income above some high amount. This way, most people won't have to worry about paying income tax, like the way it used to be. And no deductions.

And this is fair. Everybody's first dollar is taxed the same. Everybody's second dollar is taxed the same. Everybody's millionth dollar is taxed the same. It's not like one class of citizens would be paying tax on their entire income. That would be unfair.

Treat everything as income, especially inheritance (for the reason stated above). Capital gains are not income, it is the liquification of an asset. Such sales ought to be treated no different than any other sale under a sales tax. Dividends are income for the individual, and should be treated the same by the company as salaries and wages.

Social Security and Medicare taxes should be eliminated. These should not be paid for separately.

 

[Fluffy]

At the moment I am toying with a tax scale based on hours worked. As people work more hours, their taxation should drop. Why? Because if tax allows the government to provide benefits to the people, those people who work more, and therefore contribute more to society, should recieve these benefits at a lower monetary cost.

One of the big problems I can see with such a system is the diverse nature of jobs. Not everyone has a 9-5 office job and so their may be many ways of working lots whilst evading the recording of the hours. Still this probably is no larger a problem than the system we have at the moment. Plus it prevents people from living off of benefits, inheritance or getting lucky breaks into cushy jobs.

 

[Aqualung]

Fluffy, that is a good idea. The only other problem I can see, is that instead of living off benefits like that, people might fudge their hours, and purposefully go a bit slower than they need to, but still fast enough to keep there job, in order to do more work. Another thing is that certain jobs you just have to work longer, but they aren't doing more for society. For example, cops have a steady 8 hr per day job. They do a lot for our society. Somebody who produces television shows probably has to work longer, but I wouldn't consider thier job as doing more for our society.

 

[Fluffy]

The only other problem I can see, is that instead of living off benefits like that, people might fudge their hours, and purposefully go a bit slower than they need to, but still fast enough to keep there job, in order to do more work.

I considered this but just think about when you are doing a task which you don't find enjoyable. You deliberately work faster and keep yourself busy so the hours go past quicker. A person who wanted to have more hours will simply do more work to get those hours. He will be too bored to drag less work out over a longer period of time.

For example, cops have a steady 8 hr per day job. They do a lot for our society. Somebody who produces television shows probably has to work longer, but I wouldn't consider thier job as doing more for our society.

That is debateable. I would have to rate what benefits society based on what society wants. Yes society will often want things which isn't necessarily beneficial, such as continuous TV, but this will create a demand for jobs nonetheless. Such a demand equates to less people out of work and therefore a better economy and this is therefore the ultimate benefit.

The main problem I can see is what we tax people on. People who work less, earn less and so a percentage tax will take away less. On the other hand, this will hurt these people more so it will force them to work more, lowering their tax percentage. Could work.

 

[jonny]

At the moment I am toying with a tax scale based on hours worked. As people work more hours, their taxation should drop. Why? Because if tax allows the government to provide benefits to the people, those people who work more, and therefore contribute more to society, should recieve these benefits at a lower monetary cost.

One of the big problems I can see with such a system is the diverse nature of jobs. Not everyone has a 9-5 office job and so their may be many ways of working lots whilst evading the recording of the hours. Still this probably is no larger a problem than the system we have at the moment. Plus it prevents people from living off of benefits, inheritance or getting lucky breaks into cushy jobs.

So much for my plans to retire at 30. My taxes would go through the roof!!!

 

[Fluffy]

So much for my plans to retire at 30. My taxes would go through the roof!!!

Hehe actually they wouldn't. You would be taxed on your income and if you don't work then you don't get taxed.... hmmmm oh dear my idea is all crumbling down.

 

[Valjean]

Let's hear from some of our international members who live in countries where some of these alternative tax strategies are actually in effect. No sense speculating when there's actual empirical data out there.

 

[jonny]

Hehe actually they wouldn't. You would be taxed on your income and if you don't work then you don't get taxed.... hmmmm oh dear my idea is all crumbling down.

FLUFFY FOR PRESIDENT!!! :jam::bounce:woohoo:

Dang it, you're in England. You weren't born in the States by chance, were you?