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

[Daedius]

No, because it fucks over lower income people.

[Eazy]

No, why someone who earns more should pay more money for the same privileges?

[Deleted]

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.

That's why you can get tax cuts or benefits. Idealy I would have little to no tax since from history it's hown the govt. is very very bad at managing taxes and costs so much more than just don't tax and let the citizen use the money how he wants. A millionare won't be able to apply for unemployment or child support, food support, free housing etc but a poor citizen can, regardless of taxation.

ps: And a flat tax is easy to impose and mange for the govt, cutting costs. It can even be done by just one computer, cutting govt. employee numbers even lower.

[Gamer8585]

Flat-Tax: The litmus test for being an idiot.

[Dug]

Of course not but the wealthy sure would love it! Oh and all of our low to low-mid income right wing shills on this forum that think one day they're gonna make it big

[Macaquerie]

That's why you can get tax cuts or benefits. Idealy I would have little to no tax since from history it's hown the govt. is very very bad at managing taxes and costs so much more than just don't tax and let the citizen use the money how he wants. A millionare won't be able to apply for unemployment or child support, food support, free housing etc but a poor citizen can, regardless of taxation.

ps: And a flat tax is easy to impose and mange for the govt, cutting costs. It can even be done by just one computer, cutting govt. employee numbers even lower.

A progressive tax isn't any more difficult for a computer to calculate than a flat tax. In fact, the only reason to have tax brackets at all is because it needs to be simple enough for people to handle, if it were automated you could just have a smooth tax schedule using whatever shaped curve you want.

[Hammerfest]

You're literally just making shit up, at this point.

No that's what you do... ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[segara82]

I'm fine with a mafia. Of course, the mafia families often worked with independent third parties in order to maintain relations.

You are fine with a criminal enterprise that uses murder and arson but have a problem with a goverment that (tries to) prevents that? So much stupidity i have to save in my signature.

[Hammerfest]

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

Forbes disagrees.

[Machismo]

You are fine with a criminal enterprise that uses murder and arson but have a problem with a goverment that (tries to) prevents that? So much stupidity i have to save in my signature.

Both are the threat of force. Most of a mafia's power comes from leveraging the free markets where the government restricts something. Now, I don't support the actions of a mafia that causes harm, such as murder, arson, and human trafficking. However, I do support the role of an entity that is used as an independent third party to enforce private contracts. The mafia can run all the drugs it wants.

[Realitytrembles]

I would say it's unjust. Why? Well, someone once said it far better than I can.

" To whom much is given, much will be required from." --- Jesus Christ

[Macaquerie]

Forbes disagrees.

A Flat Tax for a Flat Earth

Would make a pretty great campaign slogan to stick on a hat or something...

[Beazy]

A Flat Tax for a Flat Earth

Would make a pretty great campaign slogan to stick on a hat or something...

Bro, we're sooOOoo past flat earth, we're on bowl theory now:

[Deleted]

It all varies depending on your philosophy for a good society.

Do you want a society where the wealthy thrive, or a society where everyone have a decent living?

A super liberalistic society is great for the ones that succeed on the merit of being born wealthy, lucky or worked in a way that gave them a lot of currency. But it is very unsafe in a psychological way for most others. Lack of safety net, school quality, daycare options, public transport, healthcare etc is a big worry for the low-income class.

Wealthy people will say that they deserve their wealth, and nobody should steal it from the,, especially not a state they themselves cannot control or voted for potentially. A valid point.
Poor people will say that everyone deserves good options for living, even if they didnt get born rich, or had the right idea and made a fortune of their own company, or also, a way to get caught IF they dont succeed in making their own fortune.

There is no good or evil, there is simply 2 ideas in the end: Do you believe in spread wealth and higher equality, or do you believe in people keeping everything that is theirs.


If you can believe the research that have been done for a lot of years now, it seems the "ideal" solution is a balance, a so called socio-liberal model. The state pays for almost everything, and your tax is high. However, you are free to pursue individual wealth, and the state will help you try achieve it, because new companies add to the country's wealth. If you fall down, you will get caught by a safety web. You can also take education as a doctor or lawyer for free to get a high income job.
Truly, this model is more social than liberal, because the taxes are quite high, but then again, it wouldn't work without it.

[FlatBootyJudy]

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:

If you eliminate tax breaks for the rich it is indeed fair. Bernie Sanders only paid 13 1/2% in taxes, tell me how that is fair for a family making 1/10th of him paying a higher tax rate?

[Macaquerie]

It all varies depending on your philosophy for a good society.

Do you want a society where the wealthy thrive, or a society where everyone have a decent living?

A super liberalistic society is great for the ones that succeed on the merit of being born wealthy, lucky or worked in a way that gave them a lot of currency. But it is very unsafe in a psychological way for most others. Lack of safety net, school quality, daycare options, public transport, healthcare etc is a big worry for the low-income class.

Wealthy people will say that they deserve their wealth, and nobody should steal it from the,, especially not a state they themselves cannot control or voted for potentially. A valid point.
Poor people will say that everyone deserves good options for living, even if they didnt get born rich, or had the right idea and made a fortune of their own company, or also, a way to get caught IF they dont succeed in making their own fortune.

There is no good or evil, there is simply 2 ideas in the end: Do you believe in spread wealth and higher equality, or do you believe in people keeping everything that is theirs.

The thing is, the binary choice between free market induced inequality and state enforced equality is a fairly recent phenomenon. For most of history, the norm was government power being applied to forcibly redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, and many would argue that this process continues to the present day what with crony capitalism, regulatory capture, and the like.

[Ivanstone]

If you eliminate tax breaks for the rich it is indeed fair. Bernie Sanders only paid 13 1/2% in taxes, tell me how that is fair for a family making 1/10th of him paying a higher tax rate?

More fair would be to have a progressive tax and eliminate tax breaks for the rich.

Every penny you give to a poor person will eventually end up in a rich person's hand anyways.

[zebreck]

Flat tax is stupid. You're a capitalist right? not the kind with the money, the kind who the people with the money have tricked into believing capitalism is an ideology and not, y'know, a system in which you aren't one of the people with the money. But beyond that, you're a capitalist. Which means you have some sort of stake in the capitalist system self-perpetuating. So you have a stake in insuring there are people with money to buy shit with, because in a state of systemic low demand the entire system teeters back and forth between self-fellating bubbles and total desolation. If that sounds strangely familiar, congrats, you were paying attention in 2008. So flat taxes disproportionately affect the disposable income of the poor. It's not a left-wing bleeding heart thing, it's a fact. The poor directly spend the overwhelmingly vast majority of their disposable income on products and services that are not financial in nature. In other words, they drive real demand. You want your poor, to the extent that they must exist and you want the capitalist system to self-perpetuate, to have the lowest tax burden possible. Flat tax does not accomplish this. Libertarian tax nuts are very, very bad economists who you should not listen to. Ever.

[Floopa]

tax should scale and there should be an amount of money each person receives which is untaxed, or given tax free to every citizen, which covers "living costs".

let's say the living cost is 20000, each citizen would be given 20000 tax free (whether in employment or not in employment) and everything over 20000 would be taxed.

because of the way this works, you would need to tax high values so someone earning 30000 might be taxed 40% on the 30000 they earn over (because of the 20000 living cost subsidy), while someone who earns 80000 might be taxed 70% on the 80000 they earn, etc.

obviously just food for thought, but it's a fair and supportive tax system for an entire country to benefit from.

also there are different forms of tax, i am a firm believer inheritance tax should be set at 98%.

[Macaquerie]

Flat tax is stupid. You're a capitalist right? not the kind with the money, the kind who the people with the money have tricked into believing capitalism is an ideology and not, y'know, a system in which you aren't one of the people with the money. But beyond that, you're a capitalist. Which means you have some sort of stake in the capitalist system self-perpetuating. So you have a stake in insuring there are people with money to buy shit with, because in a state of systemic low demand the entire system teeters back and forth between self-fellating bubbles and total desolation. If that sounds strangely familiar, congrats, you were paying attention in 2008. So flat taxes disproportionately affect the disposable income of the poor. It's not a left-wing bleeding heart thing, it's a fact. The poor directly spend the overwhelmingly vast majority of their disposable income on products and services that are not financial in nature. In other words, they drive real demand. You want your poor, to the extent that they must exist and you want the capitalist system to self-perpetuate, to have the lowest tax burden possible. Flat tax does not accomplish this. Libertarian tax nuts are very, very bad economists who you should not listen to. Ever.

The sad thing is that rich people only actually care about money for the sake of having more of it than all their other rich buddies, and that dick waving contest would still work out pretty much the exact same way if we taxed them all at a higher rate.