If a flat tax (at ~35%) with all other deductions removed was proposed, would you vote for it?

[yllus]

While I understand that a flat tax is regressive, I continue to wonder if a flat tax paired with absolutely every deduction and loophole removed would still benefit society - there'd be no place to hide money and everyone would pay the same percentage. No deductions for having a family, or for living in a particular area, or for being an investor who's taken losses. Everyone pays 35% on what they've brought in that year.

Aside from ensuring constant, predictable revenue to the state, I think it'd also improve politics by excluding politicians from one favourite lever to pull to give money to special interests. Would this not help, or am I completely wrong?

 

[JSt0rm]

no

 

[FIVR]

35% of what? Your salary/wage?


That would be retarded. Billionaires and multimillionaires do not get payed in salary. They earn money through stock options and dividends which would not be taxed under your idiotic tax plan.


You could have a situation where McDonalds workers are paying more as a % of their $10/hr wage than Mark Zuckerberg.

 

[Genx87]

Even Adam Smith said a progressive tax system is necessary.

 

[Maxima1]

Yeah, no. Flat tax in no way prevents BS. Russia has a flat tax. And 35% is way too high for a flat tax.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

no

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

absolutely every deduction and loophole removed would still benefit society

That certainly would help in promoting the destruction of the middle class. Mortgage, health care, almost all necessities that are required to live and tax deductible aren't any more resulting in disproportionate harm to all but the wealthiest.

Nope.

 

[FIVR]

A flat tax has been the dream of the super rich since the late 1800s

 

[ImpulsE69]

I think I get where he's going, but he's going about it all wrong.

The idea is to remove the overwhelming 1% loopholes. I personally would be for not making the rich pay more taxes than the lower/middle class, if they didn't have all those avenues to hide money the 'normal' people don't have. It's not exactly an easy feat though.

The rules made by the rich for the rich. They are too far disconnected from the people to really care.

 

[snoopy7548]

35% would be prohibitively high. The lower and middle classes would suffer the most, especially when all deductions are removed. This is simply a horrible idea.

 

[HomerJS]

35% too high.

Let's say 20% on ALL income of any type with exemptions for food, housing (capped), clothing(capped), maybe costs for working and medical.

I don't want someone making only 20K giving up 20%.

Perhaps the way to go is consumption tax with same rules.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The concept of a flat tax with no loopholes is one of those simple sounding ideas that have no chance at actually working. It does not even address the really complex question of what is income and when have I made it.
There is rarely ever a simple solution to a complex problem.

 

[soulcougher73]

That is way to high if you are eliminating all loopholes as you propose. 15% at best. For 35% id have to receive UHC and SS is in that also. Id want something for my high ass taxes lol

 

[Brainonska511]

This is a terrible idea.

 

[brycejones]

Yes, people making $20k a year should pay $7K in taxes.

WTF is the OP smoking?

 

[crashtech]

The tax code is far too complicated. There could be incremental and relatively revenue-neutral (or slightly positive, if that's your thing) steps taken to simplify things, but politicians are not in the business of repealing law, they're in the business of making laws that benefit themselves and perhaps their constituents.

 

[brandonbull]

We need to have the government stop handing out billions like it grows on trees. Revenue isn't the problem.

 

[brycejones]

We need to have the government stop handing out billions like it grows on trees. Revenue isn't the problem.

You mean like transferring billions to the already rich in the form of tax cuts that are paid for by borrowing?

What do you cut, be specific.

 

[SMOGZINN]

We need to have the government stop handing out billions like it grows on trees. Revenue isn't the problem.

Everyone agrees on that, no one agrees on what needs to be cut.

 

[brandonbull]

Everyone agrees on that, no one agrees on what needs to be cut.

Because only a few items consume almost 90% of the money. Military, SS, Medicare, and interest payments.

 

[Jhhnn]

Everyone agrees on that, no one agrees on what needs to be cut.

Not really. The notion that smaller govt is better doesn't stand up to honest scrutiny at all. It's astroturfing financed by right wing billionaires who set themselves in opposition to the govt of the People. They don't want democracy telling them how to wield the great power they hold at all. They don't want to pay taxes for anything that doesn't benefit them directly, either. They actually don't want to pay taxes at all. Taxes are for little people, like when the serfs paid taxes to the Lords.

People who live in Wyoming, for example, vote to kick their own economy in the nuts voting for smaller govt. It's the same in a lot of other places, too-

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjour...2012/05/governments-employ-20-percent-of.html

Given the way profit motive & automation work, if we want more jobs we want more govt jobs, not less. We can use that to make life better for the 99.9% in a myriad of ways.

 

[brandonbull]

Not really. The notion that smaller govt is better doesn't stand up to honest scrutiny at all. It's astroturfing financed by right wing billionaires who set themselves in opposition to the govt of the People. They don't want democracy telling them how to wield the great power they hold at all. They don't want to pay taxes for anything that doesn't benefit them directly, either. They actually don't want to pay taxes at all. Taxes are for little people, like when the serfs paid taxes to the Lords.

People who live in Wyoming, for example, vote to kick their own economy in the nuts voting for smaller govt. It's the same in a lot of other places, too-

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjour...2012/05/governments-employ-20-percent-of.html

Given the way profit motive & automation work, if we want more jobs we want more govt jobs, not less. We can use that to make life better for the 99.9% in a myriad of ways.

Welcome to Jhhnn's plantation and indentured servitude of tomorrow. We hope you decide to stay because we hate chasing our slaves down and cutting off a foot.

 

[DaveSimmons]

No deductions? What about for businesses?

Company A has $1 million in income, but it cost $900,000 in expenses to earn that income. It pays $350,000 in taxes and now has lost $250,000 for the year. It shuts down and all employees are out of work. Success!

 

[Jhhnn]

Welcome to Jhhnn's plantation and indentured servitude of tomorrow. We hope you decide to stay because we hate chasing our slaves down and cutting off a foot.

Pure denial & obfuscation. Govt jobs are decent jobs, quite by design. Compare that to beating the last penny out of the help as practiced by corporate greed & hedge fund ownership.

 

[yllus]

The concept of a flat tax with no loopholes is one of those simple sounding ideas that have no chance at actually working. It does not even address the really complex question of what is income and when have I made it.
There is rarely ever a simple solution to a complex problem.

Yeah, I was thinking that as I wrote up the first post, but figured I'd post and see what comes of it anyways. The problem is just too complex for a simple solution.

No deductions? What about for businesses?

Company A has $1 million in income, but it cost $900,000 in expenses to earn that income. It pays $350,000 in taxes and now has lost $250,000 for the year. It shuts down and all employees are out of work. Success!

I think it'd have to be actual take-home profit, not just revenue. Even if something as (apparently) ludicrous as a flat tax was installed it doesn't mean simple mistakes like this would be made.