Argument FOR Flat Tax.

[PlatinumGold]

Why a flat tax?


lets face it, we will pay taxes. Gross government spending (federal, state, Municipal and county spending) / GDP will be close to 40%. if 40% of GDP is spent by the Government, where do you think they are getting that money? the biggest problem i have with our current tax system is, even very moral and ethical people have no qualms about finding cracks in the system in order to avoid taxes. it has become a thing where, those that pay their fair share are just stupid or underprivileged and those in the "KNOW" don't pay their fair share.

the system makes encourages this type of thinking.

i post this because i feel it is not only my responsibility but also a privilege for me to pay my share of taxes.

A good tax system will be 1. equitable (debatable), 2. easy to understand 3. easy to enforce.

#1 is debatable and i'll deal with it last.

2 and 3 just make sense. how much money do we spend maintaining the IRS every year? not only is there an IRS but there are also tax collections and generations departments in ever state, city and municipal governments.

but more importantly. a flat tax system with no tax BREAKS will get rid of this idea that SOME are getting away with something and will encourage everyone to just do their duty.

1. equitable, i also believe that tax systems should be somewhat regressive. it seems unreasonable to require someone making 20k / year to pay the same percentage as someone making 90k / year. if for no other reason than because it keeps them passive.

 

[Dissipate]

I disagree

 

[EatSpam]

I'd only support a flat tax on three conditions:

1. All income was taxed, including stock dividends, capital gains, etc. No Forbes-style shift all the taxation on the wage earners crap.

2. All income below 50K for singles and 100K for couples was tax-free.

3. All corporate profit below 100K was tax-free. Small businesses need to grow!

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'd only support a flat tax on three conditions:

1. All income was taxed, including stock dividends, capital gains, etc. No Forbes-style shift all the taxation on the wage earners crap.

2. All income below 50K for singles and 100K for couples was tax-free.

3. All corporate profit below 100K was tax-free. Small businesses need to grow!

i could live with those conditions. but i think i might lower the income level a bit.

2a. all income below 30K for singles and 60k for couples.

leave small business one alone.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

weren't you the one that started a thread that advocated a
"head" tax?
can't go much flater than a flat fee.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'd only support a flat tax on three conditions:

1. All income was taxed, including stock dividends, capital gains, etc. No Forbes-style shift all the taxation on the wage earners crap.

2. All income below 50K for singles and 100K for couples was tax-free.

3. All corporate profit below 100K was tax-free. Small businesses need to grow!

Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'd only support a flat tax on three conditions:

1. All income was taxed, including stock dividends, capital gains, etc. No Forbes-style shift all the taxation on the wage earners crap.

2. All income below 50K for singles and 100K for couples was tax-free.

3. All corporate profit below 100K was tax-free. Small businesses need to grow!

Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

Do you think 10% would be enough? We have a massive deficit, corporate welfare, wars and a whole lot of other expensive things to think about.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

weren't you the one that started a thread that advocated a
"head" tax?
can't go much flater than a flat fee.

Wow, you remember my essay on the head tax? Jeebus.

That was written prior to when I was fully de-programmed of my authoritarian views (it happened in stages). In fact, even prior to that, I had advocated the Fair Tax on these very forums *shivers*.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

No, I have thought about a flat tax. Awhile ago I would have probably advocated it. Now, I would never advocate it. One thing about our tax code is that it has loopholes. Loopholes are wonderful because they let people keep more of their money. Eliminate the loopholes and increase your tax slavery. It is as simple as that.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'd only support a flat tax on three conditions:

1. All income was taxed, including stock dividends, capital gains, etc. No Forbes-style shift all the taxation on the wage earners crap.

2. All income below 50K for singles and 100K for couples was tax-free.

3. All corporate profit below 100K was tax-free. Small businesses need to grow!

Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

hehehehe. 10%, you are dreaming.

what is the federal budget for this year? 3 trillion dollars? gross gdp is what 12 billion?

do you honestly think 10% would cover that? never mind the state, municipal and county taxes.

 

[compuwiz1]

I'm in favor of 10% across the board. Simplify it, thats it. You make $100k per year, you pay $10,000.
I don't believe in being penalized because you either worked harder, or were more innovative, hence made more money, so all of a sudden you should have a larger % of tax burden. IMO, that is not a fair system. :|

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'd only support a flat tax on three conditions:

1. All income was taxed, including stock dividends, capital gains, etc. No Forbes-style shift all the taxation on the wage earners crap.

2. All income below 50K for singles and 100K for couples was tax-free.

3. All corporate profit below 100K was tax-free. Small businesses need to grow!

Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

hehehehe. 10%, you are dreaming.

what is the federal budget for this year? 3 trillion dollars? gross gdp is what 12 billion?

do you honestly think 10% would cover that? never mind the state, municipal and county taxes.

a flat tax of around 10% on all income would be enough to replace the revenues from the current income tax code.

 

[techs]

The flat tax is the worst thing that will ever happen to anyone who is not in the top 20 percent of earners.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

No, I have thought about a flat tax. Awhile ago I would have probably advocated it. Now, I would never advocate it. One thing about our tax code is that it has loopholes. Loopholes are wonderful because they let people keep more of their money. Eliminate the loopholes and increase your tax slavery. It is as simple as that.

:roll:

tax slavery? :roll:

we are part of a democracy. we choose to remain a part of it. as parts of that democracy, we have certain obligations.

sure loopholes allow some people to keep more of their money but others pay more.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

No, I have thought about a flat tax. Awhile ago I would have probably advocated it. Now, I would never advocate it. One thing about our tax code is that it has loopholes. Loopholes are wonderful because they let people keep more of their money. Eliminate the loopholes and increase your tax slavery. It is as simple as that.

:roll:

tax slavery? :roll:

we are part of a democracy. we choose to remain a part of it. as parts of that democracy, we have certain obligations.

sure loopholes allow some people to keep more of their money but others pay more.

people like Dissipate want all the benefits from living in a civilized, well-ordered society funded by tax payers, but they don't want to have to pay their share.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I'm in favor of 10% across the board. Simplify it, thats it. You make $100k per year, you pay $10,000.
I don't believe in being penalized because you either worked harder, or were more innovative, hence made more money, so all of a sudden you should have a larger % of tax burden. IMO, that is not a fair system. :|

Heh, it isn't me that overexpended our budgets and put us into 3 trillion dollar deficit. Thank some of the lazy tards on this planet who don't want to pull their load, abuse welfare and govt aid, etc. Crooks, cheats and others, who cost us untold billions, are part of why are taxes are so high too.

Taking 30+ % from me, actually closer to 35 this year, is robbery!

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I'm in favor of 10% across the board. Simplify it, thats it. You make $100k per year, you pay $10,000.
I don't believe in being penalized because you either worked harder, or were more innovative, hence made more money, so all of a sudden you should have a larger % of tax burden. IMO, that is not a fair system. :|

Heh, it isn't me that overexpended our budgets and put us into 3 trillion dollar deficit. Thank some of the lazy tards on this planet who don't want to pull their load, abuse welfare and govt aid, etc. Crooks, cheats and others, who cost us untold billions, are part of why are taxes are so high too.

Taking 30+ % from me, actually closer to 35 this year, is robbery!

huh?? where are you pulling these numbers from. We have crossed the 8 trillion dollar mark for the national debt. This president and the Republican Congress is on pace to DOUBLE the national debt in 8 years. Why stop at 10%, let's cut our taxes to 0% and let the revenues roll in :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I'm in favor of 10% across the board. Simplify it, thats it. You make $100k per year, you pay $10,000.
I don't believe in being penalized because you either worked harder, or were more innovative, hence made more money, so all of a sudden you should have a larger % of tax burden. IMO, that is not a fair system. :|

Heh, it isn't me that overexpended our budgets and put us into 3 trillion dollar deficit. Thank some of the lazy tards on this planet who don't want to pull their load, abuse welfare and govt aid, etc. Crooks, cheats and others, who cost us untold billions, are part of why are taxes are so high too.

Taking 30+ % from me, actually closer to 35 this year, is robbery!

While you're at it, you might also want to blame a federal government that apparently is totally incapable of following the simple principle of spending what you take in. It's very simple, and if we weren't hugely in debt, perhaps we could do more with lower taxes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I'm in favor of 10% across the board. Simplify it, thats it. You make $100k per year, you pay $10,000.
I don't believe in being penalized because you either worked harder, or were more innovative, hence made more money, so all of a sudden you should have a larger % of tax burden. IMO, that is not a fair system. :|

Heh, it isn't me that overexpended our budgets and put us into 3 trillion dollar deficit. Thank some of the lazy tards on this planet who don't want to pull their load, abuse welfare and govt aid, etc. Crooks, cheats and others, who cost us untold billions, are part of why are taxes are so high too.

Taking 30+ % from me, actually closer to 35 this year, is robbery!

huh?? where are you pulling these numbers from. We have crossed the 8 trillion dollar mark for the national debt. This president and the Republican Congress is on pace to DOUBLE the national debt in 8 years. Why stop at 10%, let's cut our taxes to 0% and let the revenues roll in :roll:

And yet the debt to gdp ratio has barely gone up. While our debt has gone up, our ability to pay has gone up as well.

 

[compuwiz1]

A reduction in taxes would bolster business growth, which I feel is an expense our gov't should allow, at least temporarilly. If business and employment increase in huge proportions, then the taxes could be eased back in, once a good economic recovery has happened. Let's just give all US citizens a tax free year. Woot!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
A reduction in taxes would bolster business growth, which I feel is an expense our gov't should allow, at least temporarilly. If business and employment increase in huge proportions, then the taxes could be eased back in, once a good economic recovery has happened. Let's just give all US citizens a tax free year. Woot!

Before we can even talk about lowering taxes, the budget has to be under control. It's easy to be for low taxes, it's harder to actually decrease spending.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I'm in favor of 10% across the board. Simplify it, thats it. You make $100k per year, you pay $10,000.
I don't believe in being penalized because you either worked harder, or were more innovative, hence made more money, so all of a sudden you should have a larger % of tax burden. IMO, that is not a fair system. :|

Heh, it isn't me that overexpended our budgets and put us into 3 trillion dollar deficit. Thank some of the lazy tards on this planet who don't want to pull their load, abuse welfare and govt aid, etc. Crooks, cheats and others, who cost us untold billions, are part of why are taxes are so high too.

Taking 30+ % from me, actually closer to 35 this year, is robbery!

huh?? where are you pulling these numbers from. We have crossed the 8 trillion dollar mark for the national debt. This president and the Republican Congress is on pace to DOUBLE the national debt in 8 years. Why stop at 10%, let's cut our taxes to 0% and let the revenues roll in :roll:

And yet the debt to gdp ratio has barely gone up. While our debt has gone up, our ability to pay has gone up as well.

I would argue that GDP is not government income. There is no ability to pay up. We've always had to ability to cut the taxes but never the decipline to cut the spending. NEVER.

GDP is $11,750,000,000,000 for 2004. National debt in Sept. 2004 was $7,379,052,696,330.
Let's have a flat tax of 64% to pay off the debt.
The problem is borrowing AND spending by this President and the Republican Congress.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: chowderhead


I would argue that GDP is not government income. There is no ability to pay up. We've always had to ability to cut the taxes but never the decipline to cut the spending. NEVER.

GDP is $11,750,000,000,000 for 2004. National debt in Sept. 2004 was $7,379,052,696,330.
Let's have a flat tax of 64% to pay off the debt.
The problem is borrowing AND spending by this President and the Republican Congress.[/quote]

And we all pay for this.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I'm in favor of 10% across the board. Simplify it, thats it. You make $100k per year, you pay $10,000.
I don't believe in being penalized because you either worked harder, or were more innovative, hence made more money, so all of a sudden you should have a larger % of tax burden. IMO, that is not a fair system. :|

Heh, it isn't me that overexpended our budgets and put us into 3 trillion dollar deficit. Thank some of the lazy tards on this planet who don't want to pull their load, abuse welfare and govt aid, etc. Crooks, cheats and others, who cost us untold billions, are part of why are taxes are so high too.

Taking 30+ % from me, actually closer to 35 this year, is robbery!

huh?? where are you pulling these numbers from. We have crossed the 8 trillion dollar mark for the national debt. This president and the Republican Congress is on pace to DOUBLE the national debt in 8 years. Why stop at 10%, let's cut our taxes to 0% and let the revenues roll in :roll:

And yet the debt to gdp ratio has barely gone up. While our debt has gone up, our ability to pay has gone up as well.

I would argue that GDP is not government income. There is no ability to pay up. We've always had to ability to cut the taxes but never the decipline to cut the spending. NEVER.

GDP is $11,750,000,000,000 for 2004. National debt in Sept. 2004 was $7,379,052,696,330.
Let's have a flat tax of 64% to pay off the debt.
The problem is borrowing AND spending by this President and the Republican Congress.

one of the great ironies of the last 25 yrs. republicans claiming they will reduce govt spending. just hasn't happened. they have increased our debt more each time they have been in office.