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

[Independent]

Why, or why not?




Indy

[Grumpy]

I would probably be in favor of it but doubt we will ever see it happen..

[Independent]

Yeah, you're right, it's probably not complicated enough.



And what the hell would we do with all those unemployed IRS agents and tax accountants?






Indy

[wintermuted]

The current tax code is an abomination, no question, that could do with a thorough streamlining.

I dislike arguments for a flat tax that frame it in terms of simplifying the tax code as if it was the most important result of the change.

I believe that the "flat" tax is actually a benefit to the wealthy. Think of a person paying $2400 of their $24000 yearly salary and a person paying $24000 of their $240000 salary. Which one is more burdoned by this new "simple and fair" taxation scheme?

Tax them who can afford it.

[Independent]

Originally Posted by wintermuted

I believe that the "flat" tax is actually a benefit to the wealthy. Think of a person paying $2400 of their $24000 yearly salary and a person paying $24000 of their $240000 salary. Which one is more burdoned by this new "simple and fair" taxation scheme?

In your example, I guess I'm failing to see when both parties pay 10% that it favors the rich?

Can someone else clue me in here?





Indy

[wintermuted]

Originally Posted by Independent

In your example, I guess I'm failing to see when both parties pay 10% that it favors the rich?

Can someone else clue me in here?

Let me elaborate, Indy.

When you're barely getting by, every dollar counts for things like housing, food, healthcare, insurance, car, gasoline, etc.

For somebody making $24000 a year, $2400 isn't just a significant chunk of change, it's a difference in their quality of life.

For the person making $240000 a year, the $24000 is an inconvenience. Furthermore, this person could be charged even more without putting too serious a crimp on their lifestyle. Charging them $30000 not only wouldn't really put the hurt on them, but it would pay for lower taxes on several people making $24000 - people for whom paying, say, 7% instead of 10% might make a big difference.

[kretinus]

Originally Posted by wintermuted

...I believe that the "flat" tax is actually a benefit to the wealthy. Think of a person paying $2400 of their $24000 yearly salary and a person paying $24000 of their $240000 salary. Which one is more burdoned by this new "simple and fair" taxation scheme? Tax them who can afford it.

The flat tax is the simplest, fairest proposal out there, the idea that someone should pay a higher percentage just because they make more is ludicrous.

[wintermuted]

Originally Posted by kretinus

The flat tax is the simplest, fairest proposal out there, the idea that someone should pay a higher percentage just because they make more is ludicrous.

It's the simplest plan out there, I'll give you that.

I've outlined above why I think its fairness is in doubt. Adam Smith presented the idea nicely in 1789 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.

You can feel free to disagree with me, but I think dismissing my point as "ludicrous" is shortsighted - especially as this philosophy is the bedrock of our current tax code.

[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'.