Do you believe a FLAT TAX is Fair? Why / Why not?

[Jaylock]

Do you believe that a government having a flat tax on its citizens is a fair way to collect tax income for the various programs and expenses of a country?

For example, a 15% flat tax rate would essentially have everyone paying something to contribute to the society in which they live.

The guy making 10k per year would pay $1,500 in taxes, and the guy making 100k per year would pay $15,000 in taxes.

The guy making more pays more in dollars, but the tax percentage is the same as the guy making 10k per year.

IMHO, this is the fairest way to collect tax income from a country's citizens.


Keep in mind, stealing from someone is still stealing, no matter if you vote to do so or not.

Regarding Income Inequality:



Why Income Inequality is actually a GOOD thing:

[Katie N]

No because low income means you pay more of your income relative to someone who is rich. Someone who has $1000 and pays $150 in tax is more affected than someone who has $10000 and pay $1500.

[Endus]

Definitely not. For those making below the poverty line, it's directly-enforced hardship that's unethical and unequitable, and shouldn't be given any credence by any thinking human being, not without being backed by, say, a strong basic income system at least. It gets particularly silly since a flat tax does nothing to address the issues of tax breaks and exceptions, which the wealthy are far more capable of exploiting, and which is the main issue with most tax systems when you dig down into it.

It's an inhumane "solution" that doesn't even begin to address any actual problems.

And you can dump that "taxes are stealing" nonsense in the garbage as you go. You've consented to taxation by living in your country. Refusing to pay the taxes you owe is "stealing".

[Medusa Cascade]

Tax is theft /s

[Independent voter]

You have a family with a stay at home mom that makes $32K a year, they pay 25% of their income in taxes or $8K leaving them $24K to spend.

You have a family with both parents working that makes $100K a year and they pay $25K leaving them $75K to spend.

You have Microsoft who makes $22.6 billion and they pay... what ever.

Why not make the tax progressive so that the guy making $32K a year only spends 5% and Microsoft has to pay 35%? The guy making $32K a year really could use the money.

[WintersLegion]

Do you believe that a government having a flat tax on its citizens is a fair way to collect tax income for the various programs and expenses of a country?

For example, a 15% flat tax rate would essentially have everyone paying something to contribute to the society in which they live.

The guy making 10k per year would pay $1,500 in taxes, and the guy making 100k per year would pay $15,000 in taxes.

The guy making more pays more in dollars, but the tax percentage is the same as the guy making 10k per year.

IMHO, this is the fairest way to collect tax income from a country's citizens.


Keep in mind, stealing from someone is still stealing, no matter if you vote to do so or not.

You yourself said why it's not fair as the guy making 10k a year will be hurt more by that missing 1.5k than the guy making 100k will be by the 15k.

[Faroth]

Definitely not. For those making below the poverty line, it's directly-enforced hardship that's unethical and unequitable, and shouldn't be given any credence by any thinking human being, not without being backed by, say, a strong basic income system at least. It gets particularly silly since a flat tax does nothing to address the issues of tax breaks and exceptions, which the wealthy are far more capable of exploiting, and which is the main issue with most tax systems when you dig down into it.

I thought part of the flat tax argument was to eliminate a lot, if not all, of the tax breaks and exceptions and have just a flat, simple, tax concept.

Not saying the flat tax idea is solid, I'm just questioning the point of addressing tax breaks and exceptions, which I thought was part of the core idea of the flat tax simplification.

[Sky High]

who gives a shit if it's fair, is it even close to being viable? that, I really doubt.

[Adam Jensen]

A flat tax looks pretty but it's not. It's a horrible, horrible idea disguised as a good one.

Rich people have more disposable income than poor. A guy making 20,000 at a 10% rate loses more than a guy making 2,000,000. Why? Because a guy making 20,000 doesn't have much left after spending on vital things like rent and groceries. 10% is $2,000, which is a big deal to someone making 20,000. But for someone with 2,000,000? 20,000 is not that big of a deal when you're still left with $1,800,000 for an annual income! That is still a metric shit ton of disposable money.

"Oh but the rich have more bills to pay!" Nonsense. That's because they chose to live in fancy houses and drive fancy cars. Which is fine, but don't go around acting like they'll be suffering if they have to pay a bit more in taxes than everyone else.

[Moralgy]

Going by your thread premise, we should abolish all taxes because taxes are just "stealing". I'm sure that will make for a wonderful society.

[Endus]

I thought part of the flat tax argument was to eliminate a lot, if not all, of the tax breaks and exceptions and have just a flat, simple, tax concept.

That's what they claim, but they basically never talk about it other than in generic terms, and they focus on the tax brackets themselves for no reason.

The only difference between a flat tax system and a progressive tax system is that a flat tax system only has one tax bracket; a progressive system has multiple. They both have the same capacity to include breaks and exceptions, and if that's your real issue, you can (and should) address it by actually targeting those, not the brackets.

Another defense that crops up when you point out the hardship of making someone struggling to make rent on $10k/year pay 15% tax on top of everything else, is "well, what if we didn't tax people making less than $15k or something?" Congrats, that's a progressive tax system and you've revealed that you don't actually support a flat tax.

[Mifuyne]

Flat tax only works if everyone gets paid the same amount of money.
That's not the case so no, flat tax doesn't work / is fair.

[misterpuk]

It is numerically fair and that's about it.

The problem is that $1500 you take from the guy making $10K means a WHOLE lot more than the $15k you take from the person making $100K, and even more than the $150k being taxed at $1mil a year.

Assuming single, unmarried, no kids tax payer. $1500 a year for someone making less than $10 is forcing the decision of what necessities they will be forced to go without. $15K out of $100K is a matter of creature comforts.

[Zoranon]

Yes and it is the only fair way of taxing income, with some tax deductions for the poor.

But expect the extreme left brigade on this forum to savage you for daring to make this post.

[oplawlz]

I'd settle for a tax system that doesn't habitually fuck the middle class. People who make too much for tax breaks but too little to make low tax investments.

[Deletedaccount1]

In the US, I think it would be an improvement over the status quo.

[Garnier Fructis]

Yes and it is the only fair way of taxing income, with some tax deductions for the poor.

But expect the extreme left brigade on this forum to savage you for daring to make this post.

If you need tax deductions for the poor, then you're already building some non-flatness into your flat tax system.

Which indicates that while you believe it to be fair, you know that a straight up flat tax has at least some practical problems.

[Jaylock]

Definitely not. For those making below the poverty line, it's directly-enforced hardship that's unethical and unequitable, and shouldn't be given any credence by any thinking human being, not without being backed by, say, a strong basic income system at least. It gets particularly silly since a flat tax does nothing to address the issues of tax breaks and exceptions, which the wealthy are far more capable of exploiting, and which is the main issue with most tax systems when you dig down into it.

It's an inhumane "solution" that doesn't even begin to address any actual problems.

And you can dump that "taxes are stealing" nonsense in the garbage as you go. You've consented to taxation by living in your country. Refusing to pay the taxes you owe is "stealing".

But how is it "unethical and unequitable?" Paying the same rate regardless of what you make seems like the fairest way to pay into a government tax system. How is it fair to force people who make more to pay a higher tax percentage? Shouldn't we be creating ways to help poor people become better off, rather than trying to make rich people poor?

Flat tax puts everyone on equal footing. As the poor / middle class people start to become better off in life, and make more money, so too does the raw dollars they pay into the system because they pay the equal % no matter the amount of money they make.

In this system people who make more PAY MORE. People who make less PAY LESS. Whats not equitable about that?

[Zoranon]

If you need tax deductions for the poor, then you're already building some non-flatness into your flat tax system.

Which indicates that while you believe it to be fair, you know that a straight up flat tax has at least some practical problems.

It has more to do with the fact that bellow certain income level, tax collection is a net waste of money.

[Endus]

Yes and it is the only fair way of taxing income, with some tax deductions for the poor.

But expect the extreme left brigade on this forum to savage you for daring to make this post.

You mean by reducing the percentage of tax that poorer people pay?

You're advocating against a flat tax system, while claiming to support it. That's why you'll get "savaged" for stating this; not because others disagree with you, but because you don't even agree with yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

It has more to do with the fact that bellow certain income level, tax collection is a net waste of money.

Again, you're arguing for a progressive tax system, while claiming to want a flat tax.