Flat tax support, arguments for or against it?

[Endus]

Personally I've known dozens of people that have done exactly that. I completely disagree with it. But I see it ALL the time.

One of the following statements (at least) is therefore true;

1> You're not actually telling the truth, for whatever reason
2> Those people are idiots who don't understand how tax brackets work, and are basing their decisions on that gross ignorance, and refusing to learn how things actually work, or
3> They'd be losing money due to loss of support programs, which is admittedly an issue in the USA as incomes climb, but is an issue entirely separate from taxation.

[Deleted]

For it 100% cause I think individuals should always come before the greater good with only one exception which is if choosing those rights would destroy the society thus removing them anyway. This is why taxation is needed to support the army, basic infrastructure and minimal government. And unfair taxes arent needed for that.

[Tyrianth]

For it 100% cause I think individuals should always come before the greater good with only one exception which is if choosing those rights would destroy the society thus removing them anyway. This is why taxation is needed to support the army, basic infrastructure and minimal government. And unfair taxes arent needed for that.

Taxing someone who makes 10k a year 10% of their income is fair?

[Deleted]

Taxing someone who makes 10k a year 10% of their income is fair?

What do you mean by "fair"? Taxes should be kept minimal cause they're essentially a business transaction with the government. You should only pay for what you get, same as going to the mall.

[Flurryfang]

I can find very little to support it, but here is a good one for against it:

The reason why most states have a tax system, which is flexible, is because you want to speed up the slow and slow down the fast. By that i mean, that you should help the poor getting into a better situation and you want to tax down the rich, so they don't get all the money in the end. If a person know anything about stat-economy, they will know that money breeds money. If you don't slow down the rich, they will end up with nearly all the money in no time. This is pretty much what is happening in the US and that is even with a flexible tax system. You have to control money or else things go way out of hand.

[Tyrianth]

What do you mean by "fair"? Taxes should be kept minimal cause they're essentially a business transaction with the government. You should only pay for what you get, same as going to the mall.

Except people can choose not to go to the mall if they can't afford it.

How is it fair for the government to forcibly take money from people who are already barely able to get by? And who says 10% would be enough to fund the government? What if 20% was the amount required?

[Endus]

What do you mean by "fair"? Taxes should be kept minimal cause they're essentially a business transaction with the government.

This is just completely and fundamentally incorrect. Paying your taxes is a duty of citizenship, like obeying the law. It is not, in any respect, like a business transaction.

You should only pay for what you get, same as going to the mall.

"What you get" is evaluated on the societal level, not the individual. Otherwise, why are you mooching off roads you didn't personally pay the entire cost for?

[Kanegasi]

If the brackets are 100k+ at 10%, and 1 million at 40%. So e.g. you make 1.1 million, the 100k over the tax bracket is taxed at 40% instead of 10%. You are still making more money, you never reduce your income.

No, the whole 1.1mil would be taxed at 40%. Another example, the tax at $400k would be 20%, and that's 20% of all $400k. If you made $400,000.01 that year, the tax would be 20.0000003333333333333333%. The final figure of how much tax owed would be rounded up to the nearest cent. No tax brackets, just one figure based on what you made.

[Garnier Fructis]

No, the whole 1.1mil would be taxed at 40%. Another example, the tax at $400k would be 20%, and that's 20% of all $400k. If you made $400,000.01 that year, the tax would be 20.0000003333333333333333%. The final figure of how much tax owed would be rounded up to the nearest cent. No tax brackets, just one figure based on what you made.

This is not how our current tax system works.

[Kanegasi]

This is not how our current tax system works.

I know, I am explaining the "flat tax" I was suggesting in my first post. Sorry for the confusion.

[Garnier Fructis]

I know, I am explaining the "flat tax" I was suggesting in my first post. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, that makes more sense.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Or we could stop encouraging people who can't afford kids to have more.

OR even better we could make it FAIR across the board and give that credit to everyone, regardless of income and encourage people who CAN afford to have kids to have kids.

Stop digging in my picket to give money to people who didn't earn it.

Unless you're in the top tax bracket, you're getting more out of the government than you're paying in, meaning that all of your cushy military benefits are paid for by those better off than you.

I see people make this whine fit all the time, that because others see some benefits directly, like food stamps or tax credits or rebates, that it's somehow digging into the pockets of hard working americans, meanwhile everyone but those in the top marginal bracket get more out of indirect benefits, roads, utilities, police, etc. than they're paying in.

And military? They get the biggest government benefits, even the desk jockeys, which is what a lot of them are these days.

[Annoying]

Every time this comes up I make the same example, more or less:

Person A earns $15k/y gross pay.
Person B earns $20k/y gross pay.
Person C earns $100k/y gross pay.
Person D earns $1mil/y gross pay.
Any person requires $15k/y to maintain basic needs.

Flat tax of 25%:
Person A nets $11.25k after taxes.
Person B nets $15k after taxes.
Person C nets $75k after taxes.
Person D nets $750k after taxes.

Person A has 3/4 the money they need to survive. They're now homeless. They don't contribute to the economy.
Person B has exactly the amount of money they need to survive. They get to barely survive and don't contribute to the economy.
Person C has five times the amount of money they need to survive. They get to survive and live a decent life and somewhat contribute to the economy.
Person D has fifty times the amount of money they need to survive. They get to survive and can contribute more to the economy.

Flat 25% tax negatively impacts lower income brackets, and is thus not "fair". There are far more Person A/B/Cs than there are Person D's, so the economy suffers as well.

[Cthulhu 2020]

What do you mean by "fair"? Taxes should be kept minimal cause they're essentially a business transaction with the government. You should only pay for what you get, same as going to the mall.

Unless you are in the top tax bracket, you are paying less than what you get. And most people don't know that they do. You get military protection, pay forward for social security and medicare that you get later, a whole slew of things.

And while there are some optional programs, no, you can't opt out. Everyone talks about the privilege of being a citizen when they're talking about illegals, and how they should have to work for it, etc. Being a citizen carries its own social contract, a contract to follow the laws and pay taxes. Your options if you don't like it are punishment or going to another country where you like their social contract of citizenship more.

[Deleted]

This is just completely and fundamentally incorrect. Paying your taxes is a duty of citizenship, like obeying the law. It is not, in any respect, like a business transaction.

There is no such thing as duty.. and even if there was, its up to every individual to decide what theirs is. As for laws, they're only as good as the governments ability to enforce them. There are tons of stupid ones and as a citizen, if there was a 100% foolproof way to break them, Id happily do that.

"What you get" is evaluated on the societal level, not the individual. Otherwise, why are you mooching off roads you didn't personally pay the entire cost for?

Well lets be honest, because I can. Set up toll booths and tax me if you have a problem with it(and can get away with it). In any case, wealthier people don't need the roads more than poor people so if everyone paid a flat tax, it would all be well and good, wouldnt it?

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you are in the top tax bracket, you are paying less than what you get. And most people don't know that they do. You get military protection, pay forward for social security and medicare that you get later, a whole slew of things.

And while there are some optional programs, no, you can't opt out. Everyone talks about the privilege of being a citizen when they're talking about illegals, and how they should have to work for it, etc. Being a citizen carries its own social contract, a contract to follow the laws and pay taxes. Your options if you don't like it are punishment or going to another country where you like their social contract of citizenship more.

Well the thing is.. there are things that are needed such as the military, infrastructure etc. and without those things, the society would collapse and we'd all lose everything so I have no problem paying for those.

And then there are things that aren't, such as social security. It should be personal responsibility and I see nothing wrong with the good old insurance system. Cant afford it? Tough break. Forced charity is stealing.

[Cthulhu 2020]

There is no such thing as duty.. and even if there was, its up to every individual to decide what theirs is. As for laws, they're only as good as the governments ability to enforce them. There are tons of stupid ones and as a citizen, if there was a 100% foolproof way to break them, Id happily do that.



Well lets be honest, because I can. Set up toll booths and tax me if you have a problem with it(and can get away with it). In any case, wealthier people don't need the roads more than poor people so if everyone paid a flat tax, it would all be well and good, wouldnt it?

Wealthier people often make more money off of those roads though, as doing business in nearly every situation is necessitated by transport in some way. The more you benefit from the infrastructure of society, the more you make use of it, and the more it is your obligation to pay for it. If your wealth is immense, and is protected by the military, you have more benefit from having that wealthy protected. If the country is invaded, those who have nothing, lose nothing. Those who have a lot, lose a lot. Those who have a lot of money derive more benefit from our currency staying strong, and the backing/integrity of trade deals we make.

- - - Updated - - -

Well the thing is.. there are things that are needed such as the military, infrastructure etc. and without those things, the society would collapse and we'd all lose everything so I have no problem paying for those.

And then there are things that aren't, such as social security. It should be personal responsibility and I see nothing wrong with the good old insurance system. Cant afford it? Tough break. Forced charity is stealing.

Many people know perfectly well how to save for retirement. Others don't. And then old people become the responsibility of the government. That's why we implemented social security in the first place. It was cheaper and cost us less in the end to set up retirement funds for people than to have people have no income when they get old.

[Adam Jensen]

Against. While it looks equal, it really isn't. It hurts the poor more than the rich because the value of a single dollar is greater to a poor man than it is to a rich man (obviously I'm not speaking of its literal monetary value, but of how willing he is to spend it.) Here's an example. Pretend the income tax is 20% for everyone. Sounds fair, right?

No.

Bob makes 20,000 a year before taxes. Bob loses 4,000 and takes home 16,000. That is a significant loss to Bob who can hardly afford to lose 4,000 a year. Bill makes 2,000,000 a year before taxes. Bill loses 400,000 and takes home 1,600,000. Bill can still afford a very comfortable life and can easily care for his family, even after taxes.

So taxes need to be progressive, they need to scale with wealth, because the more you make, the more of the burden you can handle. It sounds like "punishment," conservatives love calling it that. But it makes no sense to put the tax burden on anyone other than the rich! Yes, the poor should pay some share. But the government needs to get their taxes from the wealthy, because that's where the money is.

[Kyriani]

While I know many folks, especially on the conservative side of things, will balk at this, I personally believe that paying taxes is the most patriotic thing you can do. By paying taxes you're making an impactful contribution, not only to your community, but to your nation as whole. You're making sure fellow citizens have roads to travel in working order, that fire departments and law enforcement personnel get an income by protecting your interests. You are making sure the elderly, the poor, and children are cared for.

Maybe some people "don't care". Maybe some people only care about themselves and their immediate needs. Maybe some people would avoid making any contribution to society if they could get away with it. I would classify those people as not only selfish assholes, but unpatriotic and unworthy of citizenship. The entire point of a functional society is that we work together to take of each other. Yes some people are going to do more of the heavy lifting (pay more taxes) than others, but our system is designed so that those who carry the greater burden, are supposed to be the ones most able to do so (the wealthy). So when they try to weasel out of paying their fair share, they do a grave disservice to the nation as a whole IMO.

But that's just how I look at things. I care about people. Even if they are strangers. I don't want to see anyone suffer, or go hungry, or be homeless. I like having good roads, a competent police department, and a ready-to-go fire department. I like seeing people able to eat and have a roof over their head, especially if they are down on their luck or life just really threw them a shitty curveball. I guess the thing for me is I take pleasure from seeing others happy (so long as it doesn't result in harm to others of course). But that's just me.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -


Only going by sales tax would mean the poor would start paying more of the % of their income in taxes than the rich, sounds screwed up.

- - - Updated - - -

What part of a "progressive consumption tax " did you not understand? The more expensive items would have a higher sales tax on them. Most poor could not afford to buy a Lexus or real silver ware anyway. Some items could even be tax exempt or have the lowest % sales tax on. Such as food. Having bracketed sales tax rates based on the cost of something, would have little impact on the poor who could not normally afford something expensive anyway. But meh, this is a dead topic anyway, not going to happen here in the US.

[Theinquisition]

Unless you're in the top tax bracket, you're getting more out of the government than you're paying in, meaning that all of your cushy military benefits are paid for by those better off than you.

I see people make this whine fit all the time, that because others see some benefits directly, like food stamps or tax credits or rebates, that it's somehow digging into the pockets of hard working americans, meanwhile everyone but those in the top marginal bracket get more out of indirect benefits, roads, utilities, police, etc. than they're paying in.

And military? They get the biggest government benefits, even the desk jockeys, which is what a lot of them are these days.

Consensual contracts. That's what the military is, a consensual contract between two agreeing parties. If you don't agree with it, I guess you also have a problem with public and private sector pensions.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily have a problem with food stamps, I have a problem with tax credits that only some people are eligible for I.E. EITC