Flat Tax

[Zstream]

So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

 

[Phokus]

because the poor/middle class have a higher utility for each dollar they earn than the rich do.

Here's Chris Rock's take on rich people and poor people paying alimony, i think it's a great analogy to flat taxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAmeW8bq08k

"If you're making 20 million, your wife want 10, big deal, you ain't starving. But if you're making 30 thousand and your wife want 15, you just might have to kill her!"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

Because flat tax is neither effective nor particularly fair.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

A dollar is always a dollar, but it doesn't always mean the same thing.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

Adam Smith (and roughly 80% of economists) are liberals apparently

The idea of a progressive tax has garnered support from economists and political scientists of many different ideologies - ranging from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, although there are differences of opinion about the optimal level of progressivity. Some economists[15] trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[16]

This is kind of like how conservatives say they're christians, but pretty much ignore all the parts about jesus christ railing against the rich.

In most western European countries and the United States, advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists, many of whom believe that completely proportional taxation is not a possibility.[18][19] In the U.S., an overwhelming majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.[18][19]

Who supports progressive taxation? People with common sense.

 

[Schmide]

I know it's wikipedia, but an interesting image.

Countries with flat tax

So lets be more like an Eastern Block or Mother Russia. Better yet Iceland <- the best comical economical model.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

A dollar is always a dollar, but it doesn't always mean the same thing.

Which turns it from an objective figure to a subjective figure. Just because someone FEELS like someone else doesn't "need" it doesn't make it fair game to steal it from them under the guise of an emotional "fairness"

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Schmide
I know it's wikipedia, but an interesting image.

Countries with flat tax

So lets be more like an Eastern Block or Mother Russia. Better yet Iceland <- the best comical economical model.

Progressive taxation: supported by developed western countries, adam smith, and most economists

Flat taxation: supported by former communist states and idiots

 

[TruePaige]

Wow, I'm glad we have a flat tax thread, this way I can revise and update my P&N morons list.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

A dollar is always a dollar, but it doesn't always mean the same thing.

Which turns it from an objective figure to a subjective figure. Just because someone FEELS like someone else doesn't "need" it doesn't make it fair game to steal it from them under the guise of an emotional "fairness"

You can't live in a society and not have value judgements and subjectiveness affect you. You're right though, a couple making 200K with 36 children would probably be close to the poverty line. Then again, there are tax credits to offset that.

It's not 'fair' to take the first tax dollar from any citizen when you think about it.

Go find a desert island already - you won't be unfairly taxed there

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

A dollar is always a dollar, but it doesn't always mean the same thing.

Which turns it from an objective figure to a subjective figure. Just because someone FEELS like someone else doesn't "need" it doesn't make it fair game to steal it from them under the guise of an emotional "fairness"

Ahh the politics of class warfare. That's why the Republicans are in the boat they are in. You're going to have to learn some new tricks. That shouldn't be a problem for a smart guy like you, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

A dollar is always a dollar, but it doesn't always mean the same thing.

Which turns it from an objective figure to a subjective figure. Just because someone FEELS like someone else doesn't "need" it doesn't make it fair game to steal it from them under the guise of an emotional "fairness"

You can't live in a society and not have value judgements and subjectiveness affect you. You're right though, a couple making 200K with 36 children would probably be close to the poverty line. Then again, there are tax credits to offset that.

It's not 'fair' to take the first tax dollar from any citizen when you think about it.

Go find a desert island already - you won't be unfairly taxed there

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

Oh the poor 'producers'. Move your factory to China already.

How does rejecting a flat tax suggest that your taxes (or anyone else's) should be raised.

I'd be happy with getting a handle on military and corporate welfare spending, and I think it's ridiculous that developed nations spend ~50% of their production at the public level. Then again, rules and roads are worth more than we allow in our mental calculations.

 

[waggy]

the idea of a flat tax is great. to bad its not possible.

The poor get hit far harder with it then the rich. wich politicians won't allow.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Zstream

So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

Because, in an economic system where the wealthiest 1% of the people control more wealth
than the lowest 95%, a flat tax is inherently unfair to the point of betraying our own humanity.

A flat tax is regressive because it takes far more of the money the poor need for their basic survival while the wealthy gain the same benefits as the poor from public uses of our taxes, such as infrastructure, public services such as police, schools, etc. and defense.

There is no excuse or justification for allowing the wealthiest of our people to take so much more from the economy than they can every use in their lifetimes while the poorest of our citizens, including those working full time, can't earn enough to meet their basic requirements for survival.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Schmide
I know it's wikipedia, but an interesting image.

Countries with flat tax

So lets be more like an Eastern Block or Mother Russia. Better yet Iceland <- the best comical economical model.

Progressive taxation: supported by developed western countries, adam smith, and most economists

Flat taxation: supported by former communist states and idiots

:thumbsup:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

Oh the poor 'producers'. Move your factory to China already.

How does rejecting a flat tax suggest that your taxes (or anyone else's) should be raised.

I'd be happy with getting a handle on military and corporate welfare spending, and I think it's ridiculous that developed nations spend ~50% of their production at the public level. Then again, rules and roads are worth more than we allow in our mental calculations.

My statement wasn't about rejecting a flat tax = xyz. However, the whole argument over taxation comes down to the socialists want to take more from the haves (producers).

Spending is a whole different subject.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Schmide
I know it's wikipedia, but an interesting image.

Countries with flat tax

So lets be more like an Eastern Block or Mother Russia. Better yet Iceland <- the best comical economical model.

Can you re-do that map using red please?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

Oh the poor 'producers'. Move your factory to China already.

How does rejecting a flat tax suggest that your taxes (or anyone else's) should be raised.

I'd be happy with getting a handle on military and corporate welfare spending, and I think it's ridiculous that developed nations spend ~50% of their production at the public level. Then again, rules and roads are worth more than we allow in our mental calculations.

My statement wasn't about rejecting a flat tax = xyz. However, the whole argument over taxation comes down to the socialists want to take more from the haves (producers).

Spending is a whole different subject.

Adam Smith and 81% of economists are socialists now.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

Oh the poor 'producers'. Move your factory to China already.

How does rejecting a flat tax suggest that your taxes (or anyone else's) should be raised.

I'd be happy with getting a handle on military and corporate welfare spending, and I think it's ridiculous that developed nations spend ~50% of their production at the public level. Then again, rules and roads are worth more than we allow in our mental calculations.

My statement wasn't about rejecting a flat tax = xyz. However, the whole argument over taxation comes down to the socialists want to take more from the haves (producers).

Spending is a whole different subject.

Not really - even in a completely stripped down public service ('rules and roads') you still have to consider progressive taxation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

Oh the poor 'producers'. Move your factory to China already.

How does rejecting a flat tax suggest that your taxes (or anyone else's) should be raised.

I'd be happy with getting a handle on military and corporate welfare spending, and I think it's ridiculous that developed nations spend ~50% of their production at the public level. Then again, rules and roads are worth more than we allow in our mental calculations.

My statement wasn't about rejecting a flat tax = xyz. However, the whole argument over taxation comes down to the socialists want to take more from the haves (producers).

Spending is a whole different subject.

Adam Smith and 81% of economists are socialists now.

Even John Stuart Mill in his sane years described it as a "mild form of robbery"

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

A dollar is always a dollar, but it doesn't always mean the same thing.

Which turns it from an objective figure to a subjective figure. Just because someone FEELS like someone else doesn't "need" it doesn't make it fair game to steal it from them under the guise of an emotional "fairness"

You can't live in a society and not have value judgements and subjectiveness affect you. You're right though, a couple making 200K with 36 children would probably be close to the poverty line. Then again, there are tax credits to offset that.

It's not 'fair' to take the first tax dollar from any citizen when you think about it.

Go find a desert island already - you won't be unfairly taxed there

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

The word "steal" implies that you've also picked an arbitrary set of points past which more taxation isn't "fair."

That out of the way, who's to say that the point that we've "whim[sically]" arrived at isn't progressive enough?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

Oh the poor 'producers'. Move your factory to China already.

How does rejecting a flat tax suggest that your taxes (or anyone else's) should be raised.

I'd be happy with getting a handle on military and corporate welfare spending, and I think it's ridiculous that developed nations spend ~50% of their production at the public level. Then again, rules and roads are worth more than we allow in our mental calculations.

My statement wasn't about rejecting a flat tax = xyz. However, the whole argument over taxation comes down to the socialists want to take more from the haves (producers).

Spending is a whole different subject.

Not really - even in a completely stripped down public service ('rules and roads') you still have to consider progressive taxation.

Not really. It only seems that way since it's all that's been taught and indoctrinated. "progressive taxation" is not a necessity for a gov't, especially one with our original intent.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zstream
So why are people against a flat tax regardless of income?

because liberals don't think a dollar = $1 if you make over a certain amount of money (note - "certain amount" is subject to their whim of the day)

A dollar is always a dollar, but it doesn't always mean the same thing.

Which turns it from an objective figure to a subjective figure. Just because someone FEELS like someone else doesn't "need" it doesn't make it fair game to steal it from them under the guise of an emotional "fairness"

You can't live in a society and not have value judgements and subjectiveness affect you. You're right though, a couple making 200K with 36 children would probably be close to the poverty line. Then again, there are tax credits to offset that.

It's not 'fair' to take the first tax dollar from any citizen when you think about it.

Go find a desert island already - you won't be unfairly taxed there

The issue is, I and most others aren't saying we are "unfairly taxed" but rather fighting against the libs who wish to foist even more taxes on people because they don't think it's "fair" as it is now - they want it to steal more from the producers.

The word "steal" implies that you've also picked an arbitrary set of points past which more taxation isn't "fair."

That out of the way, who's to say that the point that we've "whim[sically]" arrived at isn't progressive enough?

Theft is defined as: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" So no, "steal" is not arbitrary.
And the second part - that's the whole problem - it's entirely subjective. How much of your liberty and freedom are you willing to give up(or make other give up) for progressivism?