What are the pros of a flat tax over a proggessive tax?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Mr. Swedish Guy, Aug 12, 2012.

  1. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL! I identified the empirical reality: using even a mildly restrictive measure of poverty, less than 1/3 of British homeowners are poor.

    Proving you lied.

    Oh, and I am enjoying watching you squirm, Reiver. I'm lovin' it.
    Nope. I already proved that is merely a fabricated artefact of redefining poverty to delete the actual defining characteristic of poverty: lack of assets.

    But I invite you to keep squirming.
    LOL! I'm the one who QUOTED from it, dumpling, while you have been confined to making unsupported claims -- and even claiming support from quotes that self-evidently don't support your claims.
    ROTFL!! Too funny! That table flat-out PROVES YOU LIED. You claimed the 50%-of-poor-are-homeowners relation was robust across poverty measures -- do you want me to increase your humiliation and discomfort by quoting you, to make you squirm even more? -- and the table flat-out PROVES YOU LIED, as only 32% are homeowners when even the most mildly restrictive poverty measure is used. Remember?

    Here's Burrows again, proving you lied:

    "We can also note that, as the definition of
    poverty becomes more and more restricted, the
    proportion of those in poverty who are home
    owners – the focus of our concern here –
    decreases."

    I gave the sources you requested, and I am not going to fall for your time-wasting no-source-is-ever-good-enough trick. Try it on someone who isn't onto you.
    Which you somehow fail to identify....
    <yawn> Speaking of putting feet in it...

    I'm still waiting for you to provide some support for your claim that half of British homeowners are poor.

    And waiting, and waiting...

    Squirm, little boy, squirm.
    You again brazenly lie about what I have plainly written.

    Either provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I say owner occupiers are worse than thieves, or admit you are just lying again, as usual. Failure to do the first will constitute doing the second. And you will not be doing the first.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,129
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How easily you misrepresent! Perhaps you're not even aware you're doing it? It might have become second nature. As quoted, the paper confirms that- using accepted poverty methodology- 50% of the poor are home owners. This of course makes a mockery of your Georgist rant where you are forced to make the cretinous claim that owner occupiers are 'worse than thieves'. That home owners, again through the empirical evidence you doggedly ignore, are 'victims' of lost economic rent just makes your posiion look even more pathetic.

    Your strategy is crass. You constantly fib and then, to try and hide from any come back, you say 'you lie' monotonously. Its childish! We both know that you haven't checked the data mentioned and we both know that, as you pretended otherwise, you made a fool of yourself by posting irrelevant papers.

    I'm not going to let you off the hook dear chap. I will continue to show just how stupid your position really is. You've been forced to make crass remark, applying that ridiculous emotionalism of yours as you play 8 year old 'white hats and black hats'. That has ensured that you cannot make any sense of the owner occupation literature. Sorry chum, I don't want to burst your bubble but home owners aren't the demons that Georgist cultism requires them to be.

    As shown by the quotes from the paper you deliberately ignored in order to misrepresent, poverty analysis cannot make a simple distinction between renters and owners. None of this is surprising given higher home ownership occurs in countries with greater poverty abundance. Its obvious that a country such as Britain will have a high percentage of poor home owners. Its also predicted in modern economic analysis (which of course you are also forced to ignore) in terms of income smoothing (with a greater probability of experiencing periods of severe deprivation leading to owner occupation and financial opportunities such as mortgage equity withdrawal)

    More fibs! As we've seen, you have deliberately misrepresented the paper. Burrows confirms the 50% figure, as illustrated by the quotes from the conclusions.

    I sometimes am unsure about you. I sometimes think you're deliberately misrepresenting; but I also sometimes think that you just don't understand what you're typing. You referred to a table that provides 2 methodologies that confirms the validity of the 50% figure. Note that these are widely accepted methodologies. Note also that they are confirmed in other publication. Can you derive a methodology that finds home ownership and poverty are not linked? Of course! You could, for example, make the cretinous claim that home ownership is sufficient to escape poverty. People would laugh at you though.

    Does Burrows conclude that approximately half of the poor are home owners? Yes, as seen in the quote I provided. Does Burrows conclude that simple distinction between renters and owners in poverty analysis isn't going to be much cop? Yes, as seen in the quote I provided. You've been found out, again!

    Another fib! I asked you to check data sources. You gave a paper that didn't even use BSA data and you gave an introduction source for BHPS data. You didn't just blindly google, you made yourself look completely ignorant of the literature.

    Get it right now. Your efforts at misrepresentation continue to be low powered. As already shown in the papers by Burrows, 50% of the poor are home owners. Sorry chum but Georgist cultisim and economic reality just don't mix.

    "homeowners have life much easier than thieves"; "[Home ownership is] used as a way to become one of the thieves rather than one of the victims"
     
  3. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    3,558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd like to see how wealth would be created in a trickle-up economy.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,129
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trickle-up economy? Silly vocab! We do know the wonders of equality of opportunity and how that can allow individualism to thrive.
     
  5. endfedthe

    endfedthe Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    www.fairtax.org lays it out

    what is important is what you tax

    right now you tax work and paying workers and dying and investing not squandering

    you want to tax consuming, thus rich guy buys jet great, pay up, poor guy saves great pays little

    hong kong had flat tax and grew very fast and ranks among top in history

    the simplicity of flat tax is awesome, all money spent on acountatns and irs is wasted and coudl go toward food etc.
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,129
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it isn't! It seems awesome, but once we factor in the complexities of labour markets (e.g. the need to integrate tax and benefits systems), it is overly simplistic and therefore damaging
     
  7. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of all the people who have ever lived, there is exactly one who cannot say that to anyone, and that person is you.
    You claimed that lie was robust across methodologies. I proved you lied. You know this.
    Disgraceful.
    I proved you lied.
    ROTFL!! You're the one on the hook, dumpling, wriggling and twisting and squirming to evade the fact that I proved you lied.
    Content = 0.
    Your stupid, phony and dishonest poverty "analysis" cannot make a simple distinction between the poor and their landlords.
    If you follow a fraudulent methodology.
    blah, blah, blah....
    Lie.
    I already quoted where the Burrows paper proves you lied.
    And one that refutes it, proving you lied when you claimed it was confirmed across methodologies.
    By the same lying cretins.
    Can you concoct a fraudulent methodology that shows home ownership is linked to poverty? Of course! You could, for example, make the cretinous claim that although most people become homeowners by shouldering mountainous debts, it is not the debt that makes them poor, but owning a home.

    But no: even you could not be that dishonest.
    No, dumpling you are just lying again. I provided the direct quote from Burrows that proves you lied. Here it is again:

    "We can also note that, as the definition of
    poverty becomes more and more restricted, the
    proportion of those in poverty who are home
    owners – the focus of our concern here –
    decreases."

    Stop lying.
    And I gave them, so STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I HAVE PLAINLY WRITTEN.
    Another flat-out lie. Readers are invited to check the sources themselves.
    Oh, I did, dumpling. And I'm still waiting for you to provide some kind of support, ANY kind of support, for your idiotic claim in post #96 of this thread that 50% of British homeowners are poor.
    You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself.
    So I STILL await your evidence -- ANY evidence -- that 50% of British homeowners are poor.
    As readers can see for themselves, neither of those quotes says that homeowners are worse than thieves, so I have to thank you for posting the proof that you again just flat-out LIED about what I plainly wrote.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,129
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your usual one-liner routine? Terribly predictable, given you've been caught out again! Your silly views over home ownership have put you into a corner where all you can do is advertise just how churlish Georgism has become.

    Either dissonance or deliberate fibbing again! The paper provides 3 definitions and concludes that we can indeed accept the 50% figure, as found in a previous paper. The poor don't behave like you want them to do? Diddums! Get over it and, whilst you do that, teach yourself some modern economics. Long Dead George doesn't have any answers!

    Given its a jolly summary, let's have it again: This of course makes a mockery of your Georgist rant where you are forced to make the cretinous claim that owner occupiers are 'worse than thieves'. That home owners, again through the empirical evidence you doggedly ignore, are 'victims' of lost economic rent just makes your posiion look even more pathetic.

    You proved that, despite Burrows showing how cretinous your position is, you'll dig your heels in and give incessant bobbins in order to hide from the truth.

    You won't succeed with the prattle tactics. We have the life cycle model predicting the self-insurance role of home ownership. We have the unemployment equilibria approaches showing that home ownership increases underpayment (i.e. economic rents that you cannot understand as your Georgist rant is irrelevant to modern economics). And we have Burrows showing, in repeated articles, that 50% of the poor are home owners. Each aspect destroys your position and forces you to come back with empty rant.

    Dissonance at play! Home owners aren't "worse than thieves". Clearly your emotionalism requires that result. But we can't forget reality, not even when communicating to the Georgist ridiculous!

    'My' analysis? No chum, that would be accepted poverty analysis using modern economic techniques. Given the role of home ownership in countries with high poverty risk, it doesn't surprise me that we cannot make a simple distinction between renters and owners. Your position is therefore irrelevant to the modern world. Unless you can make yourself a time machine, you will continue to find your position is cretinous and incompatible with reality. I nearly feel sorry for you! Perhaps I should lend you a few bob so you can go to night school? You could come back and wow us all with some relevancy!

    If you follow a relative poverty analysis accepted since Smith and Marx. An analysis that produces similar results when compared to consensus definitions that avoid ad hoc decision-making by the researcher.

    The evidence doesn't support your drivel? Diddums!


    I won't be tolerating your anti-intellectualism. Try responding with a valid counter for a change: Its obvious that a country such as Britain will have a high percentage of poor home owners. Its also predicted in modern economic analysis (which of course you are also forced to ignore) in terms of income smoothing (with a greater probability of experiencing periods of severe deprivation leading to owner occupation and financial opportunities such as mortgage equity withdrawal)

    Given the paper's conclusion ("The report concludes that we can be confident in following Burrows and Wilcox (2000) in claiming that home owners constitute about half the poor in Britain"), your deliberate misrepresentation is unquestionable.

    See above! You've been found out again. You have to misrepresent because your position is ridiculous.

    Not just across methodologies. Across papers too!

    So Burrows, a respected researcher into poverty and home ownership, is a "lying cretin" because he refuses to find results consistent with your "[home owners] are worse than thieves" ridiculousness? Internet Georgism and anti-intellectualism go hand in hand!

    The nasty ole poverty researchers keep tripping you up and deriving results inconsistent with your rant? Get used to it! Georgism will always be irrelevant. Even the paper you manage to reference (one I struggled to get out of you as you know that, once you present anything but the rant, you put your foot in it) noted that Georgists see themselves as obscure.

    No, you misrepresented and you misrepresented deliberately. I find such tactics abhorrent. You've been given Burrow's conclusion: The report concludes that we can be confident in following Burrows and Wilcox (2000) in claiming that home owners constitute about half the poor in Britain.

    You googled and you googled appallingly! I asked you to refer to the datasets directly. Instead you gave random offering that only illustrated the anti-intellectualism that inflicts your core. This was neatly advertised by you referencing a paper that doesn't even use any of the mentioned datasets (i.e. it just makes a passing reference to the BSA and your internet searching was so poor you didn't pick up on that).

    I won't let you off the hook. You referenced a paper that just makes this statement:

    Even the 1989 British Social Attitudes survey, conducted at the height of the “Economic Miracle” found that 63% of people thought that “there
    is quite a lot of real poverty in Britain today” (Brook et al, 1992). The 1986 British Social Attitudes survey found that 87% of people thought that the government ‘definitely should’ or ‘probably should spend more money to get rid of poverty’.


    Given I asked something specific to the thread ("I've referred to the empirical evidence directly. It is fact that half of the British poor are home owners. Burrows also shows that this finding is resistant to poverty methodology changes (i.e. its not reliant on a simple income-based relative poverty measure). You could check it yourself. BSA, BHPS, LFS data? Three of numerous datasets freely available used in poverty analysis"), you've put your foot in it again and only illustrated the folly of the Georgist!

    Given 50% of the poor are home owners, will you now reject your ridiculous "[home owners] are worse than thieves" position?

    I like the fact that you hate your own comments. Given 50% of the poor are homeowners, please try and support ridiculous comments like "homeowners have life much easier than thieves" and "[Home ownership is] used as a way to become one of the thieves rather than one of the victims". Try not to rant!
     
  9. skeptic-f

    skeptic-f New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is only ONE upside to a Flat Tax - a simplified tax system. Since it is inarguable that the poorer you are the higher the percentage of your income you have to pay for necessities (although the goalposts tend to get higher as you get richer), a flat tax is a regressive tax since you are reducing the disposable income of the poorer half of the nation and increasing the disposable income of the richer half (with the possible exception of the very rich, who have so many tax loopholes that they might end up paying the same amount).

    This assumes that state taxes like payroll taxes and property taxes do not unfairly distort the system, that Congress will somehow be barred from re-introducing the banished tax loopholes at some later date (and if you don't banish ALL tax loopholes when you introduce a flat tax you are defeating the whole purpose of the exercise) and that other forms of subsidies and/or levies don't unfairly distort the system.

    Good luck with that!
     
  10. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've heard that one pro of a flat tax is that everytime people vote for raising the taxes they'll feel it in their own pockets as well. I can buy that one.
     
  11. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The flat tax and fair tax are the only taxes of equality, while progressive taxes are inherently taxes of inequality. If you are an advocate for inequality, then, by all means, support our current unjust system where politicians utilize a corrupt progressive tax code to wage class warfare and steal money from those who work hard and live within their means to buy votes from government-dependent leeches who contribute nothing to society.
     
  12. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Exactly. That's why the flat tax is an more equitable tax.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,129
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An economic definition of equity cannot be used. As long as flat tax worlders acknowledge they are peddling political bias then all is fun and fluffy!
     
  14. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I don't care about the "economic definition" (whatever that is). I care about the ACTUAL definition of equality.

    And as long as progressive tax worlders acknowledge that they are giving corrupt politicians the power to steal hard-earned money from one class of citzens to pay for votes from another class of citizens...
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,129
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rather than appropriate definition, you just want to feed your bias. That's even less convincing than a Fox News version of reality

    There isn't a movement in favour of progressive tax like the flat tax worlders. There is just economic sense
     
  16. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A progressive tax apportions the tax burden more among those who can afford it.

    A flat tax apportio0ns the tax burden more among the poorest who cannot afford it.

    Simple as that.
     
  17. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gator is right. "Trickle down" has in fact been proven. Proven to redistribute more of the nation's income and wealth to the 1%.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The vast bulk of that debt was run up as our tax system got a heck of a lot less progressive.
     
  19. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The definition of "equality" that I utilized IS the appropriate defintion. Maybe you will retort by stating that Webster's Dictionary is biased.

    LOL! Why do progressives have this knee-jerk reaction to include Fox News in all of their responses. Why are you so quick to point out Fox News' bias, but neglect the existence of bias in CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC America, PBS, ABC, Current TV, and just about every major printed media in this country?

    Of course not. There's nobody out there claiming that the "rich should pay their fair share." I guess you must have missed the Occupy Wall Street rallies as well as the election of Barack Obama, who has echoed this statement on a weekly basis. :roll:
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,129
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In terms of political bias where objectivity is deliberately shunned? Indeed. An objective approach, however, would take an economics definition. Its basic sense after all.

    The 'Fox News Effect' has been empirically demonstrated. We don't have the same effects from the other resources.

    There are those able to refer to basic economic sense. After all we only need to refer to the law of diminishing marginal utility of income. There is no movement, like the flat tax worlders, deliberately pursuing an irrational policy inconsistent with economic reality
     
  21. CharlieChalk

    CharlieChalk Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    rich people would pay less tax. thats the only reason you ever even hear about a flat tax.
     
  22. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    0
    right. And I mean, I can buy that; that a flat tax is fair, that it should pay to be rich, why should you pay more just because you're richer. But also, the other side is that rich people can easily afford the extra cost, it's still profitable to become rich (must always be so, otherwise the tax code is idiotic), and it brings in more revenue. So I think I favour a progressive tax for those reasons, I honestly don't find the arguments against it very convincing. And funnily I though I was a libertarian some time ago..
     
  23. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No, in the terms of the Webster's Dictionary definition of the word "equality." I'd love for you to further elaborate Fox News' Right Wing stronghold over Webster's Dictionary.

    An objective approach would be an approach that treats people equally, regardless of what your "economics definition" of "objective" is.

    And I am sure (as always) that you will give links to free sources of unbiased studies that prove this Fox News Effect.

    Indeed. I'm sure all of those peaceful Occupy Wall Street people were all simple referring to "basic economic sense" (whatever that is). :roll:

    There is no "law," merely a theory. Since utility, by definition, is a subjective measure, then I really do not hold it in very high regard. Equality, on the other hand, is an objective measure, and this is what we should be striving for.

    Wrong. The Progessive Tax Worlder movement is the one pushing more and more towards socialism, which has failed in every attempt that it was implemented. I believe it was Albert Einstein that said, "Repeatly trying the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity." Yet, this is exactly what Progessive Tax Worlders are trying to do in America. Talk about pushing an "irrational policy."
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,129
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keep up! This is an economics issue and therefore one requires economic definitions. Only a Fox News type would think a dictionary is sufficient to understand political economy!

    Its the economic analysis into equity that allows us to make objective conclusion. Bit obvious really!

    One doesn't prove; one rejects or fails to reject. Why do you think a Fox News effect exists but such effects aren't found in 'liberal perceived' outlet?

    If you don't believe in the law of diminishing marginal utility of income you're also going to reject supply & demand analysis. Go ahead!

    An ignorant comment. Progressive tax has nothing to do with socialism. You merely advertise the consequences of a Fox News Effect when it comes to understanding of political economy
     
  25. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The above statement is nothing but more jargon that you are utilizing to sidestep the issue that you are against equality. And a dictionary IS sufficient to understand what the term "equality" means.

    There are different schools of economic theory, each with conflicting views. This is why I like to rely on a more basic philosphy: Politicians should treat (and tax) all citizens equally and not ulitize wealthy citizens as piggybacks to bribe the lazy and indigent to vote for them.

    Classic Reiver dodge. All I am asking is for you to provide a free nonbiased source that demonstrates this "Fox News effect." If such an effect is so obvious, then it should be quite easy for you to show me such sources.

    First of all, it's a theory, not a concrete law. Second of all, even if one were to consider this theory to be "law," it still involves a subjective measure (e.g. utility). Third, the theory of diminishing marginal utility is easily distinguishable from supply and demand analysis.

    I stated that the "Progessive Tax Worlder movement" is pushing towards socialism, and they clearly are. They demand for more and more inequality of taxation, hence stealing money from the wealthy to provide perks for themselves, which is a socialist tenet.

    I am still waiting for you to establish this fantastic "Fox News Effect" with legitimate nonbiased sources. From your history, you can understand that I have some doubts.
     

Share This Page