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

An appallingly low brow reply. Its just common sense to refer to economic definitions for economic problems. A dictionary will be useful if you're doing something general like filling in a crossword. To suggest it can provide solutions to economic problems is cretinous.

I'm happy for you to get all Marxison me and refer to the labour theor of value. Wouldn't that just be splendid. Of course, if you do indeed want to get all heterodox on me, you can go ahead and refer to heterodox definitions. Get going!

Haven't you even bothered to check the evidence? Golly! Start with Della and Kaplan (2007, The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 12, pp. 1187-1234). Answer the question I posed. Bet you can't!

It is a law if you want well behaved downward sloping demand curves. Happy for you to suggest otherwise. You'll get yourself in a right pickle!

Not an issue, particularly when you factor in the 'veil of ignorance'

No it isn't. Its a crucial aspect for our understanding of marginal rate of substitution and therefore demand.

There's no political economic link between socialism and progressive tax. You therefore only advertised your knowledge deficiency

I've given you enough rope! I expect you to respond with twaddle as you ignore the econometric evidence.

 

All I am asking for is equality in taxation. Many, including yourself, seem to have a problem the definition of "equality." In that regard, a dictionary is a very sensible tool to use.

This is a non-response.

It was your allegation. Hence, it is up to YOU to provide the evidence.

There are a plethora of problems with this laughable "study", and it indicates absolutely nothing: Is another worthless paper by authors from the liberal UC Berkeley that is clearly biased (the authors refer to Fox News as "conservative" but make absolutely no mention of every other mainstream news media channel as "liberal." They have no basis for their conclusion (poor controls), and they make no comparitive study with other media outlets (how many New York Time readers are convinced to vote Democrat, how many CNN or MSNBC viewers are convinced to vote Democrat).

Even if this idiotic study is somehow true, the results are insignificant (if 3-8% of Fox-News viewers are convinced to vote Republican, that means that 92-97% of Fox News Viewers were not convinced to change their vote).

Also, perhaps this 0.4% of the population was originally leaning Republican, but, before the invention of Fox News, was brainwashed by the liberal media to vote Democratic. With exposure to Fox News in 1996 demonstrating this liberal bias of conventional media, they changed their vote to what it originally should have been.

There are too many exceptions to this theory and variation based on individual sentiments for it to be considered a law. Just face it, this theory purely subjective, and you are using it as an excuse to undermine actual equality.

It's a HUGE issue, and I will always side with an objective measure over a subjective one any day of the week.

Nice try, but it is clear that you are really reaching here.

Wrong. Progessive taxation is a means of wealth redistribution, which is major tenet of Socialism. Try again.

By all means, adhere to your ridiculous (and heavily biased and agenda-driven) UC Berkeley pseudoscience. It is quite fitting.

 

The theory of diminishing marginal utility suggests that as more of a good is consumed, eventually each additional unit of the good provides less additional utility (e.g. satisfaction), hence, marginal utility decreases. Essentially, each subsequent unit of a good is valued less than the previous one. You are trying to extrapolate from this that a rich person's excessive wealth is not providing as much utility to him, and hence should be taxed at a higher rate, right? However, this is a Catch 22, because any excess taxation revenues that the government receives from additional progessive taxation should also be considered as providing less utility (under the same "law of marginal utility"). Herein lies the problem of your argument: You are using a macroeconomics concept (diminishing marginal utility) and incorrectly attributing it to individuals. It was never intended for such a correlation.

 

I meant a microecomonics concept, but my point still stands: The theory of diminishing marginal utility was not intended to be utilized regarding the taxation of individuals.

 

Hardly. Most pay less than the flat that's being proposed once all their deductions are done.

 

the presidential candidates can say they would sign a bill ending loopholes... BUT

the President can't close the loopholes unless Congress gives them a bill to sign, I do not see congress doing that anytime in the near or distant future

 

Do you think that a woman raising two kids should pay the same dollar amount of tax as Warren Buffet? That would be "equality" wouldn't it?

 

I was expecting liberal sensationalism sooner or later. I can sink to your level if you'd like: Do you think that a wealthy neurosurgeon working 80 hours a week should have his money taken from him via increased taxation by politicians so they can use his money to buy votes from deadbeat alcoholics who pay a minimal amount of taxes? From your question, I guess your answer is "yes."

Let me be clear: What I want is equality. Equality can be achieved by a consumption tax, better known as a Fair Tax. That's what I want, so please stop with this nonsense with Warren Buffet.

 

lets not forget there is nothing stopping private charity

each democrat is free to move 10 homeless in to end homelessness

 

Why couldn't you answer my question? Please answer it.

Under your proposal, Warren pays a lot more in taxes than the woman making $20k.

Please explain how Warren having to pay millions in tax and the woman paying a few thousand is "equality," since you've claimed that is what you want.

The reason you couldn't answer my question is obvious, isn't it? You don't want equality at all.

 

It's the Republicans who are telling us how much more charitable they are and are arguing that we don't need safety nets because charity will do the job. So they can prove their charity an move 10 homeless people into their homes to prove it.

 

I answered your question. Since I want a consumption tax (a.k.a. Fair Tax), it is very likely that a multi-billionaire, like Buffet, would be paying more than an average woman raising two kids, since he likely spends A LOT MORE money in luxury items than the woman. Hence, the multi-billionaire would likely be taxed more.

Yup. That seems very likely. It would only not be true if Mr. Buffet leads an EXTREMELY modest life and spends the same on luxuries as this lower-class woman. However, since it isn't likely that America's 2nd richest person would lead such a extremely frugal life, he would indeed be paying more in taxes.

The big difference is, at least he has a choice now. Rather that automatically having his money taken from him in the form on income tax, at least via a consumption tax the taxpayer has a choice of what to do with his hard-earned money. If a wealthy person lives a very frugal and modest lifestyle, why should he be subjected to more taxes, just because he makes more? That does not seem fair, and it certainly is not equitable.

It's all about choice. Mr. Buffet CAN pay the same amount of taxes as the woman IF he buys the same amount of luxuries as this woman. Since a weathly man like Mr. Buffet would probably spend much more on luxuries than a poor woman, then that would be a personal choice, and as a consequence of this choice he would have to pay more in taxes.

I do believe in equality: Unfortunately, we do not have equality in reading comprehension here, since I did indeed answer your question, but it is very clear that you didn't understand my extremely simple answer.

 

Well why don't you move 10 homeless in?

They are worse off than you after all.

Your word are just communism. Do you get that communism failed with 100million dead?

 

Well why don't you move 10 homeless in?

They are worse off than you after all.

Your words are just greed. Do you get that greed is a sin?

 

I got it. You claim you are for "equality," but you propose a system where people do not pay equal amounts of tax. As you've just explained, Warren Buffet paying a lot more taxes than a middle class family is "equality" to you.

Good for you. I don't supply people paying the same amount of tax either, and I think Warren should pay a lot more tax as well.

Because they make a lot more money and have the ability to pay from money they have for luxuries. It is therefore both fair and equitable they pay a higher tax rate.

Why is it fair or equitable that a billionaire can choose how much taxes he pays and not a poor person who needs to spend all their income on basic necessities?

That is not "equality."

No, it's a written communication problems you have. It is very clear that you cannot write a simple, direct answer.

 

move 1 homeless in yet?
9 more to go
you have more than homeless you evil capitalist pig!!
lol

 

move 1 homeless in yet?
9 more to go
you have more than homeless you evil capitalist pig!!
lol

 

I believe taxes are a necessary evil and since you can't avoid the pain they bring, they should hurt everybody equally. Herman Cain, in the GOP primaries advocated a 9-9-9 flat income tax. While I believe the exact number is a bit arbitrary, the idea is sound. Why hurt people for doing well? It doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense to have rich people pay a lower % income tax than poor people. 20% of your income (arbitrary number) hurts the same no matter how much you make. Example: try this experiment. Ask somebody who make minimum wage to just throw away 500$, and Ask somebody who makes 7 figures to throw away 500$... which one of them is gonna feel like they just had their spleen taken out with a spoon?

And I do think taxes should be lowered, but not at the expense of weakening programs like Education or Social Security. The difference can be made up with Tariffs and trade agreements. (Tariffs were the #1 source of gov income before the industrial revolution and that was only changed because we began to produce everything and it became more profitable to generate revenue by income taxes over tariffs. But these days we make very little, so the old system helps manufacturers we do have compete locally and provide a huge increase in gov revenue that can lessen the tax burden on individuals)

 

Well this comes down to beliefs.
Do you believe that social security is not a scam when 5 dollars go out for 1 in?
Do you believe education is done best by government burocrats or free market products?
Do you think private non forced charity will disappear?
I agree you should not penalize paying people aka payroll tax.
not penalize making money aka income tax
not penalize investing capital so there is more for expansion of succesful business aka capital gains
not make employers or emplyees pay into unemplymetn which is a tax to give people money for sitting on butt
if government got outa of way be huge win
if everyone only paid when worked then huge gain = everyone in the game not 23,000,000 idle or hek 50mil idle because some people simply stop looking and move back with mom or partner
government makes rent overly high and prices for everything inflated
get gov outa way and everthing become cheap and plentiful
its really that simple
but forces of cronyism working against that nonstop

 

The US has had a progressive tax system through thick and thin. Your argument is weak in the logic department.

 

Here's what I gotta say about social security. Even if you get out of it more than you put in, It means that you've been a productive member of society by the very fact that you put into it. If we were stripping the gov of every benefit program, that'd be one of the last ones i'd want to see gone.

I don't even know where I stand on Education because it's a rock and a hard place. The gov can't administer it, that's evident by our falling place in the world's education. But privatize it and how do you ensure that 100% of Americans receive a primary education? Any baron von whoever that thinks otherwise needs to go back to the dark ages where they came from.

My idea on Gov programs is to put it in a crosshair, "does this program help Americans get a competitive edge?"

I think charity is a personal issue, should remain so. No tax breaks on being charitable.

Don't pen(penalize) people for paying employees, don't penalize people for making more money, and as for the "Capital gains" tax... If you invest and make money doing so, it's income. fair and simple.

Here's the thing I see about Unemployment, as i've had to use it before... Go ahead and get rid of it, if you can get the unemployment rate down to 0. But if you are on it, at the very longest, 6 months, You aren't hustling at all and there is no question if you deserve whatever happens to you. Repeaters should also get diminishing returns.

I think as a society, we have an obligation to try to raise up the weak of us, but not hold their hand. And Instead of making the Gov just disappear, it needs to work for us. We need a new Imperial Age to generate resources for this country through economic hegemony with developing nations. No matter if you want to put the rich out front or the middle class out front, when our economy is based around risk differment through a service economy and not generating new wealth. We don't get ahead when all you do is pass the dollar around in circles.

 

no you aren't educated

hong kong had falt 15% tax and had one of fastest economic grwoths ever
taxes are penalty and keeping them simple makes life easier and more productive which means everyone richer
progressive taxes are silly
why should someone who worked 3x the hours u do pay 7x the taxes? stupid as hell
look up word incentives and read up

 

Why should a guy work 3x the hours when he doesn't need to because of low tax rates?

look up word incentives and read up

 

Unfortunately, you still don't get it.

On the contrary, the system that I am proposing (a Fair Tax) is the ONLY system where people are taxed in an equal fashion.

It's about choice: Mr. Buffet can choose to pay the same amount of taxes as a middle class family, if his is willing to purchase the same amount of luxuries as the middle class family. Why can't you comprehend this simple concept?

The government doesn't have the right to decide which citizens should have to pay more based upon their conceived "ability" to pay for luxuries, which is extrapolated from their income. Rich people do not benefit more from the government's services than poor people: The army protects the country as a whole, interstate highways give all classes of citizens equal benefit, and the NIH researches diseases that benefit the country as a whole. Thus, it is illogical and the epitome of inequality to tax people different based on their income. By doing so, we allow politicians to steal money away from individual citzens who they arbitrarily deem "wealthy" so they can buy votes from poor citzens via making them promises of more handouts and entitlements. A Fair Tax system would effectively eliminate this disgusting epidemic of politicians bribing people with the conficated hard-earned money of other citizens.

No. Equitable means that Person A and Person B pay the same amount for the same service. Thus, the system that you are advocating is the heigh of inequality.

Because they are both benefiting the same from the federal government. Thus, they should pay the same in taxes if they own the same amount of luxuries. Also, if the poor person is truly spending all of his money on necessities (and nothing on luxuries), then under a Fair Tax system he would be paying no taxes.

Wrong. It is dictionary definition of "equality."

No. I have restated myself many times, but you still fail to comprehend my repeated answers, which have been directly illustrated in very simple terms.

 

Endfedthe's question was legitmate, so why not at least try to answer it?