10% U.S. Flat Tax Accross the Board!

[Independent]

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.

Basically what is being advocated here is Socialism, is it not?

Doesn't everyone in this country, outside of inheritence (I don't count this because I certainly won't inherit anything), start out with the same opportunities as anybody else? So, because I work harder, or the right opportunities fall my way, or I win the lottery, I'm supposed to share what I have, over-and-above a proportionate tax, to someone who might not be as motivated, or as lucky as I am? That should be my choice to do, not mandated.

Also, there are plenty of people out there who would love to make $24,000 a year, and would live a happy life if they did. I know a few of them myself. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that $24,000 a year makes a person poor compared to someone who makes $240,000 a year? People need to live within their means no matter how much they make, and if they can do that, hey, this is America, life will be good.





Indy

[wintermuted]

Originally Posted by Independent

Basically what is being advocated here is Socialism, is it not?

Actually, no. I can see why you're confused because socialism also aims to modify income for the purpose of social egality. However, I believe that what we're talking about predates socialism. It's one of the fundamental values of western civilization. As Jesus says in Luke 12:41, "From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."

Originally Posted by Independent

Doesn't everyone in this country, outside of inheritence (I don't count this because I certainly won't inherit anything), start out with the same opportunities as anybody else?

Are you saying that inherited wealth is the only benefit to growing up wealthy and that other than that, economic conditions have no impact on equality of opportunity? I'd say that's silly on face.

Originally Posted by Independent

So, because I work harder, or the right opportunities fall my way, or I win the lottery, I'm supposed to share what I have, over-and-above a proportionate tax, to someone who might not be as motivated, or as lucky as I am? That should be my choice to do, not mandated.

No. I make no aspersions as to the work ethic or luck of anyone involved. I'm saying that I think the moneyed should bear a disproportionate amount of the cost of government - that is to say holding the roof up on civilization and maintaining the system that's allowed them to become successful. It's a burden I'm sure many in a lesser position would gladly trade for.

Originally Posted by Independent

Also, there are plenty of people out there who would love to make $24,000 a year, and would live a happy life if they did. I know a few of them myself. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that $24,000 a year makes a person poor compared to someone who makes $240,000 a year? People need to live within their means no matter how much they make, and if they can do that, hey, this is America, life will be good.

Dude, who am I to say that a person who say that a person is poor compared to somebody who makes $240,000 a year? I CAN DO BASIC MATH!!!

Or are you talking about "poverty of the spirit" or some such pap? Take a trip to the poorest part of your town and tell me if you see them behaving with any quiet nobility compared to the ones in the McBurbs. By and large, you won't. Poverty breeds the desperation that leads men to set aside their better moral instincts.

Who am I to say? Well, I'm a guy who's never cracked $24K a year, that's for sure. But hey, as you say, this is America and I'm tryin'.

[spok]

I would be in favor of a flat tax but the word I hear is that 10% would not be enough. It would most likely be in the range of 14-17%

[Independent]

Originally Posted by spok

I would be in favor of a flat tax but the word I hear is that 10% would not be enough. It would most likely be in the range of 14-17%

Okay then, 15%, whatever works. Simple.




Indy

[Negotiableterms]

Uh oh... I'm a tax lawyer and CPA, so my view is probably a little off-center. That said, here goes:

A flat tax won't work for several reasons. The tax system performs three huge functions:

1. Raises revenue for the government.
2. Tool for economic policy.
3. Redistributes wealth.

Believe it or not, the #2 reason is the crucial one. Take the complex tax system away, and the government can't encourage things like building apartments and drilling for oil. Money would flow only to where the yield is highest, and that would leave a lot of folk without homes, and gas would be really, really expensive. In a flat tax, the rich are not encouraged to invest for the long term. Instead, day-trading pays as well as a 20-year commitment. There's no point in starting a business and re-investing for it to grow, so everyone just takes profits in cash where they can. Every time a business sells something at a gain in order to buy a bigger one, like a new plant or a big machine, the government takes its flat cut, so the business has to wait a lot longer before it can afford to grow. The government can't encourage companies to train new employees, or to provide pensions for older ones, or medical expenses. People have to pay the tax before they can afford medical expenses, making the cost of care prohibitive for all but the rich. These are just a few examples.

The flat tax won't work, and it's a long way from fair, for the reasons already stated. It sounds great until you apply the detail facts... then it really and truly sucks.

[kretinus]

Originally Posted by Negotiableterms

Uh oh... I'm a tax lawyer and CPA

And a flat tax would put you out of a job so...

Actually I would argue that the only Consitutionally legitimate function of taxation is to raise revenue to allow the government to perform the duties required under the consitution, the attempts to use it for other purposes are what cause the problems.

It's not the governments job to be architects of the economy, only to make sure those who engage in commerce operate lawfully and ethically. Instead they do the former and ignore the latter.

I understand your point, but i would point out that in making it all so complicated, the unintended consequences have been worse than they would be according to your argument against a flat tax.

This system, in Iowa at has resulted in a situation where the lowest 20% of wage earners pay a higher real tax rate than the top 20%.

There's only one solution to that problem, a flat tax of some form. Any attempt to correct it through alterations to the current tax code I assure you will result in even more complex rules and when it's all said and done, the situation will not have changed.

[soundhound]

Originally Posted by Independent

Doesn't everyone in this country, outside of inheritence (I don't count this because I certainly won't inherit anything), start out with the same opportunities as anybody else? So, because I work harder, or the right opportunities fall my way, or I win the lottery, I'm supposed to share what I have, over-and-above a proportionate tax, to someone who might not be as motivated, or as lucky as I am? That should be my choice to do, not mandated.

unfortunately, we are NOT all created equals. the income level of your parents plays a tremendous role in your ability to get ahead financially. genetics plays a very important role also. some people are just not smart enough to become doctors or lawyers, no matter how hard they work. and "the right opportunities falling your way" is pure luck. some have it, some don't.

what you are implying is that a person born to poor parents, in a poor neighborhood, who attends a low-performing school, is of average or below intelligence and appearance (also plays a tremendous role in success), and is not very fortunate otherwise, should have to pay more (or at least the same)in taxes that you do.

winning the lottery or any other such windfalls is an exception to the rule, not the rule.

[Independent]

Hey, this is simple people, why complicate it. EVERYONE pays 10% federal income tax, NO other exemptions need apply. Nothing to hide behind. Period. Simple.

This is the same problem with Washington and Politicians in general. They complicate things where there should be no complications. Let's all just keep coming up with reasons why we think something won't work, so nothing will ever get done. I guess we all just showed everybody how the two-party system works. Brilliant.




Indy

[wintermuted]

Originally Posted by Independent

Hey, this is simple people, why complicate it. EVERYONE pays 10% federal income tax, NO other exemptions need apply. Nothing to hide behind. Period. Simple.

This is the same problem with Washington and Politicians in general. They complicate things where there should be no complications. Let's all just keep coming up with reasons why we think something won't work, so nothing will ever get done. I guess we all just showed everybody how the two-party system works. Brilliant.

I guess simple solutions satisfy simple minds.

[Independent]

Originally Posted by wintermuted

I guess simple solutions satisfy simple minds.

There's no need for that, if you can't argue a point without personal attacts, your credibility on this board, IMHO, will be severely compromised.

If I've learned anything over my lifetime, there is absolutely nothing wrong with simplifying things, or even oversimplifying things.

Peace!





Indy