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

[Ragedump]

Why is it that the subject of "flat tax" brings everyone out of the woodwork to say how horrible it is to poor people? While a flat tax rate actually would be the most fair TAXING SYSTEM, it is not necessarily fair for the low-income folks because the COST OF GOODS never changes, thus they pay more of their income for buying the necessities of life than someone who makes more money does.

That being said, however, I absolutely HATE the progressive mindset that the rich should pay more because they have more, or the rich don't deserve all the money they make, or any of that crap. Because it's all just crap. They earned that money...go ahead and enjoy it. In America, you have the freedom to go to school, learn a trade or business skill, create a company or product, sell it online or in a brick-n-mortar shop, and get rich or stay middle class or fail and do a bankruptcy. This is NOT a zero-sum game folks!

There is NO GUARANTEE that you will be rich or even have enough money to survive, that is all on YOU. The only guarantee is that you have the EXPRESS RIGHT to TRY. People need to take more personal responsibility imho, too many silver-spoon kids nowadays think the world owes them a living. (Yes, you, go look in a mirror...)

Flat taxes aren't entirely detrimental for poor people, they are only severely advantageous to the rich. Proposing a flat tax as the "savior to the poor" is just wrong.

If you make $2mm a year, single, no home, no wife and kids. Currently, you should owe about $745k in taxes. A flat tax drops that to $300k. A flat tax just made this person $445k extra.

Since public services aren't getting cheaper anytime soon and governments aren't really role models in modest spending... where do we come up with this gap? Now if the rich person could donate his extra earnings to a charity of his choice that would be great but who really is that benevolent? Plus, that's just the start of more special interest groups.

[Vyuvarax]

No, I'm not opposed to government, as I have stated many times. I simply prefer it be one that is joined voluntarily.

As has been stated, take it up with your parents. They're the selfish ones that wanted to be part of a society with things like rights and property and dragged you into such hardships.

[Total Crica]

Your approach appears to be the welfare equivalent of it's worth not helping 20 people who actually need food stamps to make sure 1 person who doesn't really need it can't cheat the system.

What? What does welfare have to do with not putting untalented and unskilled people in charge of income?

I am not against giving people welfare at all.

[Ivanstone]

Why should I be punished by higher tax rate?

You're not being punished. You're paying for goods and services.

Or do you not like having police, roads, fire control, military, etc. etc. If you have more money, these things are more helpful to you.

[Machismo]

What you say is nonsense though. Implicit in making scaffolding the whole system will be a coercive system that can enforce, socially condition and impress compliance upon people. Without that you have no means of safely carrying on strictly transactional relationships with just "I pay you to do X or to claim ownership over Y."

Without the coercive state you'll find it just simply won't create the Capitalist utopia you wanted.

Once again, a State can exist, but it's power would be derived from its voluntary membership.

- - - Updated - - -

As has been stated, take it up with your parents. They're the selfish ones that wanted to be part of a society with things like rights and property and dragged you into such hardships.

My parents are not the ones who took away my will, that would be the government. After all, it's their law.

[Jaylock]

*Yes.

It would be conditional on two main things:
- Cutting out almost all tax deductions
- Having a set personal exemption.

Set a tax rate of 30% with a basic exemption of $30,000 (or tie it to the poverty line). Seems like it would work.

It could be even lower than 30%, somewhere in the range of 15-20% would work. Of course, the government would have to be paired back, and reduced in size, and the programs would have to be paired back. The government shouldn't be in higher education, entitlement programs, and welfare. It should be the local communities caring for their poor, and if you take the government out of subsidizing education, higher education institutions would have to reduce the amount they charge for education because the government wouldn't be paying for it anymore. They would have to to stay competitive.

And I agree, in order for a flat tax to work, most if not all tax deductions / loopholes would need to be gone.

[Vyuvarax]

Once again, a State can exist, but it's power would be derived from its voluntary membership.

- - - Updated - - -



My parents are not the ones who took away my will, that would be the government. After all, it's their law.

Your parents put you in a system that took your will away. After all, do you blame a murder on the gun or the person pulling the trigger? Your parents chose rights. Go belittle them for it.

[Caanrial]

Trump sure earned those millions he inherited, right?

/sigh What does that have ANYTHING to do with OP's whether a flat tax is fair or not? Stop with the Trump bashing, your side lost. Get over it and stop whining.

[Yvaelle]

It could be even lower than 30%, somewhere in the range of 15-20% would work.

Based on your detailed analysis of government spending allocation and the projected incomes of the taxable population, I assume?

[Citation Needed] - and no, a tweet from Trump is not a valid source

[Theodarzna]

Once again, a State can exist, but it's power would be derived from its voluntary membership.

Once again, it won't work or produce the same results.

You might as well say "Magic will make it work!" because that is the equivalent of what you are saying. "It will all work just like now but I want to completely upend the entire core aspect of how it works! WHAT?!!? You want me to explain why doing that wouldn't unravel everything? FUCK! I said I'm for VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP!!! I DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY OR HOW THAT WOULD NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE HOW PEOPLE INTERACT!"

[Vyuvarax]

It could be even lower than 30%, somewhere in the range of 15-20% would work. Of course, the government would have to be paired back, and reduced in size, and the programs would have to be paired back. The government shouldn't be in higher education, entitlement programs, and welfare. It should be the local communities caring for their poor, and if you take the government out of subsidizing education, higher education institutions would have to reduce the amount they charge for education because the government wouldn't be paying for it anymore. They would have to to stay competitive.

And I agree, in order for a flat tax to work, most if not all tax deductions / loopholes would need to be gone.

Except when the US was at its best, it was heavily involved in all those things and had very high taxes on the wealthy. Not sure what historical reference your system has. Feudal maybe?

- - - Updated - - -

/sigh What does that have ANYTHING to do with OP's whether a flat tax is fair or not? Stop with the Trump bashing, your side lost. Get over it and stop whining.

I can reference any millionaire by inheritance. Trump is just convenient. The person I choose has no impact on my criticism of your claim that people should "earn" what they have while being happy with millionaires who earn nothing.

[Ragedump]

That does drop your writeoffs, but even under the proposed system, Two adults with two kids would have $60,000 in deductions (assuming both work).

I agree that home ownership the biggest barrier for financial relief. I also think it is the biggest burden financially. People buy too soon, or buy that "starter home" to upgrade 5 years later.

I believe a true flat tax makes as much sense as a true progressive tax does. Neither exist, and likely never will. I do prefer a system closer to a true flat tax, than a true progressive tax though.

People do get caught up in the "any home is better than renting" mentality. Unless you find a dream home, can afford that payment for 30 years straight and don't plan on moving ever (this should be practically NOBODY) you better do your research to make sure you're not screwing yourself long term.

Realtors tend to glorify homeownership but people need to be wary of who's making money off of their decision.

Also, sure it would be nice to simplify the tax code but no matter what the people with resources will find ways around the system leaving the rest of us in the dust.

[Citizen T]

Average rent in the United States is 30-40% of annual earnings. Seems right in line.

Also, it's better to look at median monthly rent than average. Extremely expensive one bedrooms send the average way up.

Well, math shows that 3680/month is over 40% of 100K - 44%.

Average rent in Little Rock Arkansas (not rural but Little Rock is easiest to find information) is 733/month Which makes it about 35% of 25K income.

So considering the cost of living is significantly higher in NYC it seems that the comparison is apt that 100K in NYC and 25K in AR is similar affects. The point being though is that even if the 25K is raised to 50K people will still say that the 50K is affected more than the 100K and that is almost assuredly false particularly once state/local taxes are considered.

As to median vs average, really expensive ones may help raise it, but since about half of rents are rent controlled it helps pull it right back down.

[Thetruth1400]

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.

Hit the nail right on the head with the first response.

15% is where the current GOP talks are for a flat tax. What that means is that someone working full time making minimum wage would make $15,080 a year and be taxed $2,262 for their taxes. On the other hand, the average CEO makes $13.8M a year, so they would be taxed $2.07M for their taxes. While the average CEO pays far more in taxes, the person working full time on minimum wage is left bringing home $12,818. The CEO is still going to be bringing home $11.73M. That's exactly why a flat tax doesn't work. You're talking the difference between a roof over someone's head, dinner on the table every night, and making sure bills are able to be paid vs someone who isn't able to buy 4 more super top end luxury cars.

[Vyuvarax]

Based on your detailed analysis of government spending allocation and the projected incomes of the taxable population, I assume?

[Citation Needed] - and no, a tweet from Trump is not a valid source

His caveat, of course, means lower with less programs. So even more of a fucking for the poor.

[Endus]

It could be even lower than 30%, somewhere in the range of 15-20% would work. Of course, the government would have to be paired back, and reduced in size, and the programs would have to be paired back. The government shouldn't be in higher education, entitlement programs, and welfare. It should be the local communities caring for their poor, and if you take the government out of subsidizing education, higher education institutions would have to reduce the amount they charge for education because the government wouldn't be paying for it anymore. They would have to to stay competitive.

And I agree, in order for a flat tax to work, most if not all tax deductions / loopholes would need to be gone.

That bit in bold betrays your goal.

You are explicitly arguing that the poor should starve to death in the streets. If you don't realize that's what you're advocating for, then you need to get a better grasp on the things you're saying; the low tax burden and the social support systems you want to "pare back" are the thin line protecting many people from exactly that kind of fate. We know this, because we lived through it, during the Industrial Revolution and up to the Great Depression. It was shocking and horrifying to such a degree that every single developed nation has systems in place to prevent any return to such a system.

Which you are advocating for.

And if you are aware of all that, then you're confessing to a personal level of misanthropy that should lead everyone to simply discard your theories as unreasonable and immoral.

[Ivanstone]

My parents are not the ones who took away my will, that would be the government. After all, it's their law.

The government which you have control over. If you don't like the laws, get them changed. If you don't want to put in the work to do that, stop whining about it.

[Machismo]

Your parents put you in a system that took your will away. After all, do you blame a murder on the gun or the person pulling the trigger? Your parents chose rights. Go belittle them for it.

I blame the entity that took away my will, which is the force of government.

[Krastyn]

It could be even lower than 30%, somewhere in the range of 15-20% would work. Of course, the government would have to be paired back, and reduced in size, and the programs would have to be paired back. The government shouldn't be in higher education, entitlement programs, and welfare. It should be the local communities caring for their poor, and if you take the government out of subsidizing education, higher education institutions would have to reduce the amount they charge for education because the government wouldn't be paying for it anymore. They would have to to stay competitive.

And I agree, in order for a flat tax to work, most if not all tax deductions / loopholes would need to be gone.

The rate would be dependent on where you set the threshold. I'm ok with government being in any of those areas you listed, provided they are doing it efficiently and effectively.

[Citizen T]

You're not being punished. You're paying for goods and services.

Or do you not like having police, roads, fire control, military, etc. etc. If you have more money, these things are more helpful to you.

They are no more helpful to me than they are to anyone else.