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

[Citizen T]

I am pretty poor. I don't really pay a lot of taxes. Nevertheless what taxes I do pay has directly helped in two main ways:
1 - The small retail business I currently own and previously worked at was the victim of fraud by one of its two former owners. With the help of the police the other owner was able to press charges and was able to take full control of the business.
2 - I shattered my elbow a few years ago. This is a massively debilitating injury that can not be ignored. Without government funded healthcare I would've been totally fucked. Not only is the injury grievous, I would've probably had to close the business because its a two-arm job.

Indirectly, I have a stable customer base who have used government assistance in varying capacities not the least of which is having a functional network of roads to bring people to my business.

If you can not see the big picture about how interconnected people are because of government services, this shows how amazing self-centered you are. This is especially appalling because you're claiming to have served in the military and who's current adult existence only occurred because of military service.

I understand that government services aid me, but they aid me no more nor less than anyone else.

The military is a Constitutionally requirement. I have no problem paying for it nor do I have problems paying for roads, police, fire protection, etc. The problem comes that some people are paying more towards this than do others with no more benefit than anyone else. My problem is that people who are too lazy, make poor life choices, or who just game the system are paying little if anything and receive far more benefit than others. I have no problems with helping those that are truly unable to support themselves even though they have legitimately tried and failed to do so.

[Deleted]

I understand that government services aid me, but they aid me no more nor less than anyone else.

The military is a Constitutionally requirement. I have no problem paying for it nor do I have problems paying for roads, police, fire protection, etc. The problem comes that some people are paying more towards this than do others with no more benefit than anyone else. My problem is that people who are too lazy, make poor life choices, or who just game the system are paying little if anything and receive far more benefit than others. I have no problems with helping those that are truly unable to support themselves even though they have legitimately tried and failed to do so.

ah the fallacy of the undeserving poor and the deserving rich.

[Yvaelle]

I wonder if, much like Ayn Rand, this AnCap sperging comes from their parents telling them no one time and they just held the grudge ever since?

The visibly powerful make great scapegoats for the plight of the every-man, government is the most enduring symbol of authority and power of them all. It's so easy to blame government for all our problems - so ya I could definitely see that being the case.

Ex. "Thanks Obama!"

[Theodarzna]

I see no reason to complain about something possibly happening in my system, when it clearly happens in the model you support.

..... man you are great with vagueness.

Maybe your lack of specifics or explanations is key to your ideological framework. "Just don't think about it."

[Katchii]

@Endus are you even thinking before you post?

It is still not fair / right to take someones money just because they have more "disposable" income than someone else.

The goal shouldn't be "how do we make rich people less rich?" it should be, "how do we help poor people to become rich?"

A liberal / left leaning institute gives a simple formula for not staying poor (in the United States), 1) Don't have kids out of wedlock, 2) Get a High School diploma, 3) Get a job.

If you follow those 3 rules, 95% of the time, you will not be poor / stay poor in the United States.

Lets not try to think of ways to harm the upper class / rich people just because they make more money than others. Thats just plain jealousy, envy, and quite frankly, its evil.

How does making poor people even poorer by making them pay taxes they can't afford help make them rich though?

The other issue is that #3 is not a guarantee and even if it was, the cost of living in the majority of the US cannot be covered by most of the low end jobs that have no requirements for qualifying for, which is the main problem.

The point is to GET THE MONEY that's needed to run the country and do the good we want to do. If what you say you want to happen is ever actually going to happen you need to get the money from somewhere. It's a fact that richer/ wealthy people have more money to give than poor people. Making use of that disposable income is not evil. It's utilitarian.

[Deleted]

i can see the argument. in the ideal capitalist world a person is rich because of there hard work so should not be under any moral obligation to pay more and receive less in a way, but we dont live in a perfect capitalist society we live in some weird little bit of everything world so we have those born rich and do jack, those who got rich by exploitation and those who are poor because of zero opportunity and those poor cos the lazy as fuck. this makes it all very complicated and why the straight capitalist and socialist methods of social security and taxation just don't work in there pure forms and we have dole based systems and income based tax to stop it being completely shit and corruptible

[Machismo]

..... man you are great with vagueness.

Maybe your lack of specifics or explanations is key to your ideological framework. "Just don't think about it."

I'm simply pointing out that the bogeyman you seem to afraid of... is already prevalent in the current model. Your fear of the "what ifs" doesn't hold much water when it already exists in the current state.

[Theodarzna]

The visibly powerful make great scapegoats for the plight of the every-man, government is the most enduring symbol of authority and power of them all. It's so easy to blame government for all our problems - so ya I could definitely see that being the case.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I too wish to dismantle the State, but mostly because I see it as the force scaffolding Capitalism up. A weaker State weakens the Beast. But I'm trying to communicate to him very earnestly that the world he wants can only exist with the State as is.

He wants the perks of the State without the downsides.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm simply pointing out that the bogeyman you seem to afraid of... is already prevalent in the current model. Your fear of the "what ifs" doesn't hold much water when it already exists in the current state.

Oh, you misunderstand me. I love this weakening of the State, but that is out of a sincere conviction that it will defeat Capitalism. I am just curious what madness or delusion compels you to believe otherwise despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Citizen T]

I think you're grossly misinformed on how you can live on 100k in NYC. A good apartment is easily affordable on 100k. 114k household income is considered upper class.

Quick google searches on tax rates and napkin math:
With 15% flat tax:
NYC 100K earnings - 15K federal tax - 6.5K state tax - 2K local tax - 76.5K after tax
3680/month rent - 44160 annual
net dollars after taxes and rent: 32K

AR 50K earking - 7.5K federal tax - 3.5K state tax - no local tax - 39K after tax
733/month rent - 8796 annual
net dollars after taxes and rent: 30K

With this scenario NYC 100K earner is worse off with 15% flat tax than is AR 50K earner. After taxes is 2k more but overall cost in NYC will way more than make up for this.

[Deleted]

The other issue is that #3 is not a guarantee and even if it was, the cost of living in the majority of the US cannot be covered by most of the low end jobs that have no requirements for qualifying for, which is the main problem.

this is the biggest issue facing western society and the one that you will find all other problem's have spawned from. the world is getting to a point of no return, every year technology advances and makes more of the population redundant shrinking the low skill job sector, add on the influx of migrants in our globalised world and the people have a scapegoat who really is in just the same place they are. the left has failed with there answer it has become clear that intelligence is part nurture but also part nature, the degrees for all as seen in Europe has lead to a rise the the qualified idiot with useless arts and liberal degrees that have no worth or job sector forcing them to compete for the low skill jobs and pushing out the middle aged and foreigner for the shrinking number of jobs.

soon there will be an apocalypse of unemployment , the discontent will be widespread and the devil will make use of idle hands.

[Yvaelle]

I mean, don't get me wrong, I too wish to dismantle the State, but mostly because I see it as the force scaffolding Capitalism up. A weaker State weakens the Beast. But I'm trying to communicate to him very earnestly that the world he wants can only exist with the State as is.

He wants the perks of the State without the downsides.

Agreed. I know your proclivities here - and for the record I am in favor of different tiers of government, closer to city-states. With something akin to customs unions uniting former 'nations' and regions, but legal jurisdiction decided at a much closer-to-home level. It's easy enough to copy/paste laws if you like them from one city-state to the next.

In effect, greater 'states' rights (to use the confusing American term here) - California would decide its own laws, and Arizona would as well, and so forth. North America might still become a single free trade union (ex. NAFTA): but these large bodies (continents or even global governance bodies) would be focused on trade law, not moral codes.

Actually, it's not so much that I see that as ideal (though preferable to the current system), so much as the inevitable outcome of globalization. Not One World Government, but perhaps One World Trade Laws, the dissolution of nations, with city-state specific local laws (ex. Wales, not the UK). Still very much systems of governance though!

His version is exactly as you put it - all the benefits and stability of the existing state he lives - without the resulting tax burden/laws/regulations.

[Soeroah]

Only if you don't have to pay tax at all if your annual income is below a line slightly above the minimum required for a decent living standard.

15% of your income paid is nothing if you earn ten million dollars a year; it's several day's worth of food and possibly a few bills if you're living paycheck to paycheck.

[ranzino]

capital interest is taxed here in germany at 25 % ( + church tax and solidarity fee) and if your income is just from that source, you are off the hook.
get 10k or 100k out of your interest or a million: it stays the same percentage. ok, you can keep the first 801 € (if single, not married) for free to avoid taxation of small income from interest.

[Mittens]

Only idiots think tax is theft. It's a part of society. If you're using our roads, emergency services, etc and not paying taxes then you're the one stealing.

You are making the same argument as Vyuvarax. I already know that taxes are pretty useful and without them, we would not have a lot of the public services we enjoy, but that doesn't stop it from being theft.

[Endus]

You are making the same argument as Vyuvarax. I already know that taxes are pretty useful and without them, we would not have a lot of the public services we enjoy, but that doesn't stop it from being theft.

What stops it from being theft is that you've implicitly consented to its collection. As has already been pointed out to you multiple times.

[Beazy]

I dont think 15% is large enough to for large businesses. For most of these businesses, this would be a big tax cut. We cant afford that right now.

Flat tax cant work the way we live in this country. We just couldn't make it work because were all ass holes. Sad but true.

[Theodarzna]

Agreed. I know your proclivities here - and for the record I am in favor of different tiers of government, closer to city-states. With something akin to customs unions uniting former 'nations' and regions, but legal jurisdiction decided at a much closer-to-home level. It's easy enough to copy/paste laws if you like them from one city-state to the next.

In effect, greater 'states' rights (to use the confusing American term here) - California would decide its own laws, and Arizona would as well, and so forth. North America might still become a single free trade union (ex. NAFTA): but these large bodies (continents or even global governance bodies) would be focused on trade law, not moral codes.

Actually, it's not so much that I see that as ideal (though preferable to the current system), so much as the inevitable outcome of globalization. Not One World Government, but perhaps One World Trade Laws, the dissolution of nations, with city-state specific local laws (ex. Wales, not the UK). Still very much systems of governance though!

His version is exactly as you put it - all the benefits and stability of the existing state he lives - without the resulting tax burden/laws/regulations.

If I thought globalization would allow local autonomous communities to exist and control their content and character, I'd likely warm up to it. Though in general the break up of large states is something I absolutely support across the board.

[Ivanstone]

My problem is that people who are too lazy, make poor life choices, or who just game the system are paying little if anything and receive far more benefit than others. I have no problems with helping those that are truly unable to support themselves even though they have legitimately tried and failed to do so.

People who have more wealth benefit from government services more than those that have less. Police protection alone significantly increases the value of your wealth. Interconnectivity allows the wealth you've already accumulated to increase in size.

Does the government spend tax money on stuff you don't like? Sure. But someone else probably wanted that and you've entered a compromise with that person via chosen representatives (aka politicians).

A poor person who makes poor life choices still spends all of his money which then stimulates the economy.

[Thepersona]

why people are still falling for jaylock posts?
like really

[Fayolynn]

Then the poor are all felons for not paying anything. Im glad we can agree on something

Sorry didn't think I needed to specify "Unless society deems it acceptable." The point being people who make the claim "taxes are theft" usually feel like they should have to pay them for whatever random bullshit reason they come up with.