Flat tax vs. Progressive tax

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Distraff, Apr 17, 2015.

  1. Munster

    Munster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have a hard time putting percentages of how I would delegate taxation.

    Flat tax ideas concern me. The last(not even last to be honest, it is something I don't even consider to be honest) thing I think is good would be to make it the same tax rate that a millionaire would be under that a family in poverty would be under.
    Progressive taxation seems to be the only realistic manner in my opinion. Theoretically a persons' contribution to society increases as more income comes. Makes at least 'sense' to me.

    The best I can say is until Citizens United is over ruled, I have to say I wouldn't change the way it is. It is one thing to say that corporations aren't people when they either have low taxation/no taxation(I am not arguing that the tax rate for wealthy corporations/wealthy in general is too high or too low. I am not arguing that point with this point). Taxation to me is the real concrete of democracy. Our military protects us from foreign oppression(and may I say our vets and men and women currently in active service do/have done a damn good job). Taxation finances democratic realities that we deal with/enjoy/take for granted every day. So if we as a country(due to the Supreme Court decision) going to allow unlimited spending from corporations and unions in regards on political issues than there is no real reason to cry out for taxation reform.
     
  2. willburroughs

    willburroughs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,273
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well, this is bizarre. 3 pages in and none of the childish partisan hackery that seems to dominate every thread. Kudos.
     
  3. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    18,282
    Likes Received:
    3,427
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mine would be 10% on all consumed products. No income tax.
     
  4. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    18,282
    Likes Received:
    3,427
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure where you live, but nearly all the farms around me in Illinois are family owned.

    They might have incorporated the business for legal and liability reasons, but they are family owned.
     
  5. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So you totally support marxism/communism?

    - - - Updated - - -

    This is still as bad an idea as the last thread on Land Value tax.
     
  6. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Just what does income tax and a balanced budget have to do with each other?
     
  7. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Have you really stopped to examine these tenets in any manner other than they seem to sound politically correct? It would seem not or one would understand the total inequality of a consumption tax that penalizes in a inverse manner to earnings, the less you earn the more painful the tax. And then you want savings, for what? Have you ever actually looked at the concept of savings and the inherent impact of a fiat money system on that concept? Seems not.

    Oh yeah, a strong estate tax as a reduction in equality, not likely. That is the concept of the theft of a families heritage, their prosperity. The result of this thievery is the very essence of today's dilemma, those having to sell the family homestead of their parents in order that others may benefit from that which is stolen from them.

    Corporate taxes, the only valid tax there is and you want that eliminated. No, corporate taxes should be so high little remains. A corporation is a fiction of government and therefore totally under government control. The price should be high to receive permission to do what would otherwise be illegal.

    Other ideas, not really, just the same tired methodology of thievery with different names. The same old tired ideas that it is ok to do a bad behavior so long as one pays a tax.
     
  8. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,613
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no point even having taxes if they are not intended to do something like pay for government spending.
     
  9. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Seems like someone has a total misconception of the entire tax scheme of the federal government. You could start with the Articles of Confederation and then look at the overcorrection causation of the original constitution followed by the slavery rules of the 1910s, especially the periods of 1913 to 1916.

    "Income taxes have nothing to do with paying for government", the bold statement that will be the culmination of a diligent search and comprehension of the material. But then most people would rather understand than comprehend.
     
  10. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,613
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Says the person who thinks that the police have no right to arrest you unless they have a warrant so you do not have to do anything they say....:roll:

    The Articles of Confederation are not US law and have nothing to do with income taxes....
     
  11. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, [unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken].", remains to be the 'fairest' system of taxation providing funding for the operation of our Federal Government, while providing both the people and the States a much more substantive means of control over their respective representatives elected to serve in their interests at the Federal level of government. Repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way towards repairing our system of government, not to mention the debt it continues to rapidly acquire.
    As for tax methods and rates, each State should/would be free to apply methods and rates they and their citizens are willing to accept. States would have to produce their share of the Federal budget by taxing or borrowing, thereby assuring a balanced Federal budget, while also taxing their citizens to fund their State government, its' operations and Federally mandated spending programs. Therefore, representatives of the people in both their State level of government and those elected or appointed to serve 'them' in the Federal level of government would be much more closely held accountable for their actions in government relative to the cost-benefit imposed upon 'them'.
    Currently it would appear that a $3.8 billion 2015 U.S. budget is being sought, which would under our original Constitutional tax system result in California being taxed the highest, $458,516,854,096.20 and Wyoming taxed the least $6,937,035,637.42, based on the 2010 census. In 2014 $369,200,000,000 in Business, Individual and Employment taxes were collected from California, and $4,900,000,000 from Wyoming. The Federal government alone is spending around $1,200 per month per person trying to redistribute earned income more equally among all the population. A large number of persons are/have travelled great distances to illegally enter the U.S. and find work while a growing number of legal citizens remain where there are no jobs available and our Federal government feels duty bound to provide their support, in return for their vote.
     
  12. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Amen to that!!!

    The only thing I would add would be the total repeal of the 12th Amendment also. The way the President and Vice President were elected was a key part in the preventation of tyranny and usurpation on the limit of powers for the federal government. It was not mean to be a popularity contest between the ill-bred and ill-fed.
     
  13. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What an idiotic comment when it is very clearly spelled out in Amendment IV, to wit:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Failure to stand on one's rights effectively negates what one thought to be a right, and most idiots do not stand, they understand.

    Really and just where did that lack of knowledge come from? The Articles of Confederation was the second testament for the start of what once was a great nation.
     
  14. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So let me get this right, what you are saying is that you haven't a clue of what is happening and you are hoping that what you want to happen is somehow magically true?
     
  15. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,201
    Likes Received:
    1,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I prefer "no tax".
     
  16. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the idea is to gain tax revenues from the economy we should consider a tax that would be the same across the economy so as to not discriminate.
    Consumption taxes miss over 90% of economic transactions. Income taxes tax an even smaller a part of of economic activity. Both of these types of taxes skew the economy towards activities that avoid and reduce them.

    I believe that the best way to extract revenue from the economy without the sort of discrimination that creates winners and losers and skews economic behaviour is to tax all economic activity exactly the same.

    The only way to accomplish that is through a universal transaction tax. In the past this was impossible but these days it is easier to collect than any other tax because almost all economic transactions are electronic and there are only a few firms that handle them. It has been estimated that a tax of 2 cents on every $100 that changes hands electronically would be enough to fully fund the government at all levels, federal state and local, pay off all government debt and generate a massive surplus within ten years, money that is sorely needed to rebuild out crumbling infrastructure. Collection of the tax would be fully automatic, collected at the time of the transaction by the electronic transaction processors and transferred directly to the government.

    Think about it. No one else has to do anything. No IRS, no tax bills for anything ever. Elimination of the sales tax and property taxes and income taxes would increase consumer incomes and consumer spending by 15-30%. It would also entirely remove all influence over taxes and the accompanying corruption from politics.

    This was first proposed a number of years ago by some economists who gained access to the raw transaction data from one of the nations largest electronic transaction processors. The only objection was in the form of a Wall Street Journal editorial which claimed that paying a 0.0002% tax on a $1,000,000,000 bank transfer would prevent all interbank transfers and grind the entire world economy to a halt, which is completely ludicrous, especially considering the broker fees.

    If the OECD moved together on this for international transfers it would establish a reasonable and predictable global tax regime that other nations would rush to join. It could also provide a huge permanent fund for economic development and establish a level playing field for nations competing for investment.
     
  17. learis

    learis New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the fairest way to balance taxes is to tax based on how much it will affect one's way of living. To me, a flat tax has a more significant affect on a poor person's way of living than it does on a rich person, so it's not really fair to me. I support taxing more to the rich and less to the poor, but I don't know at all to what degree.
     
  18. papabear

    papabear Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The basic premise of this post is wrong.

    Suggesting that people earning big incomes have less capacity to pay tax then those who own land. Or those who own land are in a better capacity to pay tax then those with big incomes.

    All of a sudden you marginalise:-
    - The old
    - Anybody who has inherited property young
    - The people who use land banks instead of shares/bank accounts for savings.

    And you help, those who are earning massive amounts of cash with the most capacity to pay.

    IMO this post isn't economically progressive, it is economically destructive and I can only assume that it either comes from ignorance or self interest. Thus you should probably amend your footer.
     
  19. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So you are all for being unfair so long as the unfairness is aimed at a direction away from yourself?
     
  20. learis

    learis New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A flat tax will cause poor people to suffer significantly more compared to rich people. It's like punishing someone for being poor. A huge chunk of the necessary jobs in this country don't pay much. So basically a flat tax is saying the huge amount of people who do those necessary jobs deserve to suffer more under taxes than rich people. A progressive tax balances out this issue by taxing people in a way that minimizes the effects on their standard of living, no matter their income amount. It's a much fairer solution than a flat tax, but for people whose IQ only allows them to look at a number to judge fairness, it may seem unfair.
     
  21. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh yes, low IQ's abound and then they start talking on the fairness and unfairness of taxation. What is so fair about slavery?

    But I love the "progressive" tax theorem, now where have I seen that before?


    But hey, let's not forget Plank number one:


    If you haven't read the other eight, I would strongly suggest it. May sound so familiar to life as we know it today.
     
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interstate highways should be funded by tolls (cash or ezpass).

    Post offices should be funded by postage charges.

    Salaries for president, vice-president, congresspersons, and supreme court judges and maintenance of courtrooms and legislative chambers should be draw from a fund composed of anonymous donations.

    Military should be funded by via a national lottery plus a fund composed of anonymous donations.

    US mints could charge a service fee for minting people's silver and gold into US coin.

    That should about cover it.
     
  23. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    My perfect tax would be a simple consumption tax with one rate. If it were too high for a low earner to afford it would mean we have too much government.
     
  24. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why would a consumption tax be a perfect tax, slavery at any point along the spectrum is still slavery. However, the closest thing to a perfect system to pay for government is in the constitution, first as an excise tax to pay for the luxury of denying a fellow citizen a market by using cheap imports and then the direct tax levied against the state by capitation to pay for the expense of an administrative agency, government.
     
  25. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Progressive taxation is fraught with corruption, its nothing but the government picking favorites and doing favors and buying votes. And the end result of progressive taxation is the tyranny of the majority, a point the USA has almost reached with the bottom half paying no tax.

    Everyone should have a stake in the game, and a single rate flat tax is the only process which minimizes corruption.

    And the poor donate a higher percentage of their income than wealthier groups http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24538864.html The idea that poor people are helpless and need a handout from the government - and need direction from people who think they are better because they have more money - is "progressive" BS.
     

Share This Page