Flat Tax

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: 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?

In a pay per use sense, it's absolutely arbitrary.

People who can accumulate more stuff have more to lose in the absence of a DOD to keep us from getting invaded, police to keep us from getting robbed, DOJ to enforce contracts, and prisons to lock down the riff-raff.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


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?

Then you could make the argument that all taxes are theft and we shouldn't have a military, courts, police, etc. etc. etc.

And i know you don't believe that because you're not an anarchist.

Please explain to us why YOUR ideal world doesn't involve 'theft' when ours does (or why YOUR thieving ideal is ok but ours isn't)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


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?

Then you could make the argument that all taxes are theft and we shouldn't have a military, courts, police, etc. etc. etc.

And i know you don't believe that because you're not an anarchist.

Please explain to us why YOUR ideal world doesn't involve 'theft' when ours does (or why YOUR thieving ideal is ok but ours isn't)

Sure, you could make that argument - and many do regarding income tax. A consumption tax would not be theft as you do not pay the tax if you don't choose to buy.

BTW, if you haven't figured it out - I support a consumption based tax(with a floor) rather than an income based tax - progressive or flat. I just think the liberal argument against a flat tax is weak so it's an easy target.

 

[gingermeggs]

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

Well, it could work!
If you had flat incomes.......do you still want it?
I'll support it then.
Regardless my ass!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


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?

Then you could make the argument that all taxes are theft and we shouldn't have a military, courts, police, etc. etc. etc.

And i know you don't believe that because you're not an anarchist.

Please explain to us why YOUR ideal world doesn't involve 'theft' when ours does (or why YOUR thieving ideal is ok but ours isn't)

Sure, you could make that argument - and many do regarding income tax. A consumption tax would not be theft as you do not pay the tax if you don't choose to buy.

BTW, if you haven't figured it out - I support a consumption based tax(with a floor) rather than an income based tax - progressive or flat. I just think the liberal argument against a flat tax is weak so it's an easy target.

Ahahaha, yeah, i'm sure if there was no income tax that you could get through life without ever having to pay a consumption tax.

The only 'weak' thing is your intellect when you can't even acknowledge that the founder of modern capitalism and those schooled in learning how the economy functions support progressive taxation and you have to rail against 'liberals'.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


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?

Then you could make the argument that all taxes are theft and we shouldn't have a military, courts, police, etc. etc. etc.

And i know you don't believe that because you're not an anarchist.

Please explain to us why YOUR ideal world doesn't involve 'theft' when ours does (or why YOUR thieving ideal is ok but ours isn't)

Sure, you could make that argument - and many do regarding income tax. A consumption tax would not be theft as you do not pay the tax if you don't choose to buy.

BTW, if you haven't figured it out - I support a consumption based tax(with a floor) rather than an income based tax - progressive or flat. I just think the liberal argument against a flat tax is weak so it's an easy target.

Ahahaha, yeah, i'm sure if there was no income tax that you could get through life without ever having to pay a consumption tax.

The only 'weak' thing is your intellect when you can't even acknowledge that the founder of modern capitalism and those schooled in learning how the economy functions support progressive taxation and you have to rail against 'liberals'.

"Like" if you chose not to buy bread, milk and sugar.

captain cook discovered australia!
and found people there!
wrote on a piece of paper and their land belonged to the brutish sovereignty!
edit;I mean british

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


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.

So the government is nothing but a bunch of felons? Sorry, but the government IS the law of the land so using the word "stealing' is arbitrary.



A selfish man is a thief.

Jose Marti

 

[gingermeggs]

incomes under the poverty line- the amount require to exist- should not be tax at all.
brackets should be set to guarantee a fair distribution of money to the whole of a society.
brackets levels should also be set and pegged to the cpi, to maintain that balance and not allow capital to control the means of production at "every level".
More family owned cafes and deli's not subway and maccas!

A flat income tax would lead to inflation of basic necessity and would only truly benefit the venture capitalists in the long term.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Sure, you could make that argument - and many do regarding income tax. A consumption tax would not be theft as you do not pay the tax if you don't choose to buy.

BTW, if you haven't figured it out - I support a consumption based tax(with a floor) rather than an income based tax - progressive or flat. I just think the liberal argument against a flat tax is weak so it's an easy target.

I'd support a consumption tax if you exempt what poor folks buy or use. You could make up the funds by increasing the consumption tax on the items that carry the tax.. IF they can afford to buy that stuff they can afford to pay the tax. Maybe like a VAT.

 

[b0mbrman]

Great. So no (or indifferent to) a flat tax, but for a regressive consumption tax...

 

[Slew Foot]

If by flat you mean taxing all forms of income the same, then yeah Im for that.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If by flat you mean taxing all forms of income the same, then yeah Im for that.

Flat as in EVERY dollar earned is taxed the same with no deductions (at least that's what I get out of the OP).

Rich tax would go down (except the top .1% which might already be paying lower than the rest of the upper and the middle classes)
Middle class tax would go up
Poor tax would go up

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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.

One with your original intent would be a useless dinosaur in a world as complex and connected as we have now.

Even if it weren't, you'll have a bad time taxing everyone the same when 20% of the populaton can't afford to eat on what they make.

 

[her209]

Does an hour of labor = an hour of labor?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If by flat you mean taxing all forms of income the same, then yeah Im for that.

Flat as in EVERY dollar earned is taxed the same with no deductions (at least that's what I get out of the OP).

Rich tax would go down (except the top .1% which might already be paying lower than the rest of the upper and the middle classes)
Middle class tax would go up
Poor tax would go up

HO! HO! HO! Got to get your mind on how a flat tax should work. 90% on all income, 100% deduction at the bottom tapering to 0% at the first million.

All income; salary, bonuses, company perks, stocks, rents, golden parachutes, retirement comp., etc.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

 

[Schmide]

The only way to favor a flat tax is to make everybody equal with equal capital and earning? Oh that's socialism. Darn.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

It's not the same, because you throw the concept of marginal utility out the window when you take such a simplistic view. Marginal utility of every dollar is much higher to someone in the middle class than it is to Bill Gates.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

Do you actually believe that? It sounds like a talking point regurgitated.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

It's not the same, because you throw the concept of marginal utility out the window when you take such a simplistic view. Marginal utility of every dollar is much higher to someone in the middle class than it is to Bill Gates.

So taxes are now based on marginal utility? That's really fair and balanced... oh wait, it's not because utility is decided individually.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

It's not the same, because you throw the concept of marginal utility out the window when you take such a simplistic view. Marginal utility of every dollar is much higher to someone in the middle class than it is to Bill Gates.

So taxes are now based on marginal utility? That's really fair and balanced... oh wait, it's not because utility is decided individually.

People have to eat. Heat their homes, get to work, do laundry...these are not options and take up a much larger % of a poor persons income than a rich persons.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

It's not the same, because you throw the concept of marginal utility out the window when you take such a simplistic view. Marginal utility of every dollar is much higher to someone in the middle class than it is to Bill Gates.

So taxes are now based on marginal utility? That's really fair and balanced... oh wait, it's not because utility is decided individually.

We want to talk about fairness, you need to account for marginal utility.

There is a certain amoount of universal utility - like TruePaige states - food, laundry, heat, electricity, legitimate shelter, etc...

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

It's not the same, because you throw the concept of marginal utility out the window when you take such a simplistic view. Marginal utility of every dollar is much higher to someone in the middle class than it is to Bill Gates.

So taxes are now based on marginal utility? That's really fair and balanced... oh wait, it's not because utility is decided individually.

People have to eat. Heat their homes, get to work, do laundry...these are not options and take up a much larger % of a poor persons income than a rich persons.

Sure, but if you tax on marginal utility then everyone's income after taxes should be similar depending on living costs if we are to equalize marginal utility. Also utility in itself is often not able to be quantized, thereby it is not an objective measure and flawed.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

It's not the same, because you throw the concept of marginal utility out the window when you take such a simplistic view. Marginal utility of every dollar is much higher to someone in the middle class than it is to Bill Gates.

So taxes are now based on marginal utility? That's really fair and balanced... oh wait, it's not because utility is decided individually.

People have to eat. Heat their homes, get to work, do laundry...these are not options and take up a much larger % of a poor persons income than a rich persons.

What about cell phones, satellites, children, internet, computer(library)....

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

No, the poor get hit exactly the same as the rich. The same percentage of every dollar is taken. Complex tax laws favor the rich, and always will. Only a flat tax truly makes everyone equal financially.

It's not the same, because you throw the concept of marginal utility out the window when you take such a simplistic view. Marginal utility of every dollar is much higher to someone in the middle class than it is to Bill Gates.

So taxes are now based on marginal utility? That's really fair and balanced... oh wait, it's not because utility is decided individually.

People have to eat. Heat their homes, get to work, do laundry...these are not options and take up a much larger % of a poor persons income than a rich persons.

What about cell phones, satellites, children, internet, computer(library)....

Simple math.

If you make 20k a year everything takes up a higher percentage of your income than if you make 200k a year.