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

[oplawlz]

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.

While I agree the system isn't a good idea, your argument is pretty terrible. Taxes don't exist in a vacuum, and social support systems have far more impact on the lower class than this would.

[Orlong]

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 electing people who will make you pay less is NOT stealing. Its one of the big reasons we elected Trump, and many State governorships are flipping to Republican.

Personally I dont think there should be ANY taxes except a consumption/Sales tax. That way nobody can use loopholes to get out of paying what they are supposed to and everyone pays. No more tax breaks for kids, marriages, mortgages, etc.... Rich people buy more stuff and would pay more in taxes than poor people. Make the sales tax apply to EVERYTHING except food and articles of clothing that cost less than $25

[Zoranon]

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 - - -



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

You know, showing that you are functionally illiterate is not a good thing generally.

But then again, you would be on my ignore list for your repeated logical fallacies and other debate fouls if that were possible, so I am not surprised.

[Alvito]

In almost all cases no. It could be depending on what taxes paid for and provided for people. It is unlikely that most would want the lack of choice or freedoms that would be a result of not ruining the low income populous.

[Jaylock]

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.

Who's to say the guy making 20k will ALWAYS be making 20k his entire life? As an example, in the United States, there is high income mobility. A person who is poor is not likely to remain poor their entire life.

You are just thinking about it in a siloed fashion. You can only see tunnel vision, but circumstances change all the time. As the guy grows in education and works his way up the job ladder and starts making more money, wouldn't it be such a relief to him to know that he will continue to pay the same tax rate and not have to pay increasing sums of his hard earned money just because he makes more?

Its fair because its unethical to take someone elses money just because they make more of it. And for a group of people to vote to take someone elses money just because they make more is still stealing no matter if it was voted on or not.

[Orlong]

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.

The guy making $35k can get a second job if he wants more money

[unbound]

No because all money is not the same. Let me give you some examples.

What does it cost to live somewhere? About the lowest rental prices in my area for anything remotely decent is $1,100 / mo (one bedroom). A $5 million dollar home would run $23,640 / mo.

For someone making $15 /hr working full time (nearly double the minimum wage and assuming 40/hr week constant), that minimum housing has already reduced their available money by more than 40%. There aren't any places to go any cheaper that don't involve serious problems.

For someone making $2 million a year (likely for such a house, that max housing has reduced their available money by less than 15%. Many of those people live in places less expensive than that.

If the first person hits a place like McDonalds after a long day, he'll pay $8 to $10 for a meal, or approaching 10% of his day's pay. There aren't any real places to go any cheaper.

If the second person hits a place like Ruth's Chris Steak House, he'll pay $50 to $75 for a meal, or about 1% of his day's pay. Many of those people don't go to a place like that regularly.

And so on. And we certainly haven't hit on every cost (e.g. groceries, clothing) that is needed to fully live.

A flat tax of, say, 15% on the first person means that his minimum housing now accounts for 50% of his income, and McDonalds really is 10% of his day's pay.

That same flat tax on the second person means that his max housing now accounts for less that 17% (barely any change), and Ruth's Chris Steak House barely changes as well.

Furthermore, because the massive wealth discrepancy and salary stagnation at the low and middle classes, a flat tax would have to be closer to 30% to produce the same federal income as we have today. That would simply obliterate poor people and devastate middle classes.

This is why a progressive tax system is the most fair.

[Endus]

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.

It explicitly isn't "fair". It places more of a burden of hardship on poorer people, who have less proportional income to give up in the first place (often none).

Equality and equity are not synonyms. If you're speeding through the desert in your Jeep to get home for dinner, after just having a big breakfast, and you find a guy dying of starvation, telling him "I've got a sandwich, you can have half because I'm getting a little peckish too" is equal, but a dick move, and clearly not the ethical response.

How is it fair to force people who make more to pay a higher tax percentage?

They have proportionally greater disposable incomes. That's how.

Shouldn't we be creating ways to help poor people become better off, rather than trying to make rich people poor?

If you want to institute a strong basic income system, fine, but that's a much bigger shift than these tax issues.

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?

In a progressive system, people who make more pay more, and people who make less pay less. And it accounts for the variance in disposable incomes, which a flat tax does not. And that's why a flat tax is unethical and unequitable.

- - - Updated - - -

The guy making $35k can get a second job if he wants more money

Because there are infinite desirable jobs out there, and quality of life doesn't matter?

Literally nothing about that makes any sense at all.

[God Save The King]

They have proportionally greater disposable incomes. That's how.

I'm not confident that it's a good idea, but one concept I've heard for a flat tax is to have a flat tax, but do not tax the first $X, based on marriage, children, etc. I.e. the first $25k made is not taxed for a single person, whereas the first $50k made is not taxed for a married couple with two kids.

Then you implement a flat 20% tax after that. So the single guy making $30k, will only pay $1k in taxes, whereas the guy making $100k, will pay $15k in taxes.

The baseline is set regionally as well, by county? or possibly smaller regions. This allows the country to account for people living in rural Montana vs. Upscale San Francisco.

I kind of like the idea, but I'm not crazy about it, I still prefer tax brackets. What are your thoughts?

[Sormine]

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:

Oh look, a highschool level argument about taxes being made capped off with a video where Ben Shapiro, the professional strawman destroyer, strawmans the discussion yet again. If you think a flat tax is a good idea ask yourself if reducing taxes on the rich in your country would reduce income inequality at all.

[Theodarzna]

20% of 10k is 2000 dollars, meaning you only have 8000 dollars to work with

20% of 10 million is 2million, meaning you still have 8 million dollars to work with

The flat tax is idiotic.

^ This. Flat tax has been and always will be a really dumb idea.

[Vyuvarax]

Can someone even explain the warrant behind a flat tax? What are you trying to achieve by lowering taxes on the rich?

[Adam Jensen]

Who's to say the guy making 20k will ALWAYS be making 20k his entire life? As an example, in the United States, there is high income mobility. A person who is poor is not likely to remain poor their entire life.

You are just thinking about it in a siloed fashion. You can only see tunnel vision, but circumstances change all the time. As the guy grows in education and works his way up the job ladder and starts making more money, wouldn't it be such a relief to him to know that he will continue to pay the same tax rate and not have to pay increasing sums of his hard earned money just because he makes more?

Its fair because its unethical to take someone elses money just because they make more of it. And for a group of people to vote to take someone elses money just because they make more is still stealing no matter if it was voted on or not.

He makes more money, he has more disposable income. Even with a progressive tax, he still gets further and further away from starving because he has no money to buy food. If our mythical man succeeds at everything and now makes 2,000,000 a year, after a 10% flat tax, he's still got 1,800,000. With a progressive tax, maybe he has less. Maybe he's down to 1.3 million. It's still a lot of fucking money.

I'm not advocating taking someone else's money "just because they make more of it" but because it makes more sense. People who make more money can shoulder the burden better than those who don't. I'm sorry, but rich people can afford to be taxed much more than the poor, that's the reality. Taxes on the rich vs the poor is the difference between being able to buy a yacht and being able to buy dinner.

Furthermore, the rich people benefitted from all the taxes being spent on keeping this nation's infrastructure together. Therefore, they should put in a bit more.

And if taxes are theft, you're free to stop driving on roads. Don't send your kids to school. Don't expect the cops, firemen, or ambulances to save you. Taxes are necessary part of civilization. Deal with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Can someone even explain the warrant behind a flat tax? What are you trying to achieve by lowering taxes on the rich?

It's just more of the trickle down lie they've been spoonfed since Saint Reagan.

[Endus]

I'm not confident that it's a good idea, but one concept I've heard for a flat tax is to have a flat tax, but do not tax the first $X, based on marriage, children, etc. I.e. the first $25k made is not taxed for a single person, whereas the first $50k made is not taxed for a married couple with two kids.

Then you implement a flat 20% tax after that. So the single guy making $30k, will only pay $1k in taxes, whereas the guy making $100k, will pay $15k in taxes.

That's a progressive tax system with two tax brackets, not a flat tax.

I've heard a lot of flat-tax supporters push for that themselves, without realizing that it is definitively not a flat tax.

[Orlong]

No because all money is not the same. Let me give you some examples.

What does it cost to live somewhere? About the lowest rental prices in my area for anything remotely decent is $1,100 / mo (one bedroom). A $5 million dollar home would run $23,640 / mo.

For someone making $15 /hr working full time (nearly double the minimum wage and assuming 40/hr week constant), that minimum housing has already reduced their available money by more than 40%. There aren't any places to go any cheaper that don't involve serious problems.

That person can get a room mate or 2 to reduce their housing cost, or live with family

If the first person hits a place like McDonalds after a long day, he'll pay $8 to $10 for a meal, or approaching 10% of his day's pay. There aren't any real places to go any cheaper.

If the second person hits a place like Ruth's Chris Steak House, he'll pay $50 to $75 for a meal, or about 1% of his day's pay. Many of those people don't go to a place like that regularly.

A person like this shouldnt be eating dinner in restaurants. They can make a meal at home for less than 2 bucks, even if its a bologna and cheese sandwich or grilled cheese and can of tomato soup

Live within your means or get another job to increase your means

[Adam Jensen]

The guy making $35k can get a second job if he wants more money

I know you're Orlong and you have a habit of posting things that are . . . baity.

But no one should be forced to give up their entire lives and work 80 hours a week for two jobs just to get by.

[ro9ue]

My view is that "taxes" should actually be by donation only.

That's almost naive idealism though, so for taxes I think it should scale but also not exist for the bottom people.

0% tax for anyone under $50k/year
5% for 51k-200k
10% for 201k-500k
15% for 501k-1m
20% for 1m+

I'm not really down with people losing over 1/5th of their income.

But I'm also not down with a flat tax that basically says to someone making 50k you lose 10k (which is a massive deal to them, possibly causing them to have to lose insurance, a vehicle or something extremely important) and then someone at 50m losing 10m, whic hbasically means they can't get their 7th, 8th and 9th Ferraris.

[Endus]

Can someone even explain the warrant behind a flat tax? What are you trying to achieve by lowering taxes on the rich?

That's ALL it's about.

Lower the tax burden on the wealthy, focus attention OFF the tax breaks and exceptions that the wealthy already and would continue to better exploit (a flat tax doesn't change this), and use a false claim of "fairness" to try and make it seem reasonable, when it pretty clearly isn't.

[Xar226]

Fair? Yes.

Good tax policy? Hahahahaha

[Orlong]

Because there are infinite desirable jobs out there, and quality of life doesn't matter?

Literally nothing about that makes any sense at all.

Thats the problem with you entitled millenials. Every job doesnt have to be desirable. 90% of people hate their job but they do it because they need money. If you want more money, earn it whether the job is desirable or not. And you arent entitled to a good quality of life, you need to earn that