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

[Noah37]

There is diminishing returns on how hard someone at a higher income level is effected, versus those at a lower level, in terms of taxation. This is likely caused by the cost of goods and services not scaling along with taxes. So, basically a family living on $50k being taxed 20% are not at $40k to live off of. Then you factor in all of every days costs of living, bills, groceries, unforeseen needs, etc. and you quickly diminish anything left. Now, think of someone at $500k instead, they are taxed the 20% so we are down to $400k. They are then paying the same amount for all of those items, so it takes far less of what is left. Sure, theoretically that gives them additional funds to spend back into the economy, but it does not always work out that way. Instead, they end up with more money at the end of every year, resulting in the ability to save/invest higher amounts of money, which causes exponential growth of wealth and deepens the divide further.

[Total Crica]

I was responding to the comment that the goal should be full unemployment no plan for what the 99% are going to do for money. The end result of full unemployed is burning cities. At 30% unemployment you get Arab Spring. At 100% unemployment, we all get to play Fallout. You're either rich, or you're manning the walls at the rich guy's house (firefighter or soldier).

Fully automated AI means the robots do ALL the jobs, including those jobs.

[Youn]

I want a flat 15%+5% tax with no way of adjusting that up or down. I don't want congress to decide one day they need more money and suddenly add another percentage. Use a constitution amendment and state each person/business owes 15% to the federal government and 5% flat tax to the state you live in.

Then make the those organizations have to exist within that amount of money with no flexibility.

[Tiwack]

You want a progressive tax if you ever want to move from an alms society to a welfare society.

That youtube on why inequality is a good thing makes me wretch and the thought that you can't have equality in a free market is malignant.
But what do I know? tax = theft

[Thepersona]

Do they horde money for the sake of just hording it? Some of them, I'm sure. Most of them just can't spend the amount of money they make. Not really their own fault but it's just sitting there.

No rich person is investing ALL of their money, probably not even half of their money. You also can't just keep expanding a business indefinitely. There's going to be diminishing returns at some point where it's just not worth it because your customer acquisition cost is too high and you already have enough of the market share.

Talk about needing economics 101. Thinking you can just keep growing a business indefinitely.

Jaylock doesnt know about diminishing returns, and the problems you get when a company is too big... and that's in the first class of econ 101 and Business 101

[Total Crica]

Jaylock doesnt know about diminishing returns, and the problems you get when a company is too big... and that's in the first class of econ 101 and Business 101

Cable company oligopolies seem to be doing just fine (for themselves).

[Hiricine]

Incorrect. In order to benefit MORE from money, one must make MORE money.

Well that can be true, but if you look at expenditures it doesn't make any sense to frame it like that. Over 50% of all spending in the US at least is Social Security or health care, which if you're rich gets you as much as you pay in, or if you're poor gets you much more than you pay into it. The military which is the next highest can get you more if you're rich, but it'd be a stretch to say the lions share of rich people are in the military industrial complex.

Next its interest on the debt, which is arguably financed by the rich since they pay proportionally higher in taxes to benefit the less wealthy, then education, which generally the wealthy exempt themselves from through private education.

So if you simply go through all the top expenditures, you see that the wealthy benefit as much as or less than the less wealthy categorically. I won't disagree that there are wealthy people that disproportionately benefit from public services, but the disproportionate costs by low income people far outweigh the wealthy on average.

[Total Crica]

Well that can be true, but if you look at expenditures it doesn't make any sense to frame it like that.

Expenditures on what? Public spending isn't anywhere the level of rich spending. Have you ever toured a USA military hospital and then toured a top tier privately funded hospital? Sorry, but public services are not offering the poor what rich services offer the rich.

[Thepersona]

Cable company oligopolies seem to be doing just fine (for themselves).

Well, then you have natural monopolies that should be heavily controlled? But yeah, you have the problem of monopolies or oligopolies when you simply let companies get too big

[Total Crica]

Well, then you have natural monopolies that should be heavily controlled?

All things should merely be controlled. There is no reason to own anything, and thereby have the only say of how it's used, except that which you were born with, your body.

[Thepersona]

All things should merely be controlled. There is no reason to own anything except that which you were born with, your body.

Oh yeah, i agree. what my point is, is that The OP does not know a thing about economy, apart from the randian spectrum that no one takes seriously (no one sane)

[Tiwack]

PragerU bringing you the best the-onion youtube titles like "The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: Christians" and "How the Minimum Wage Hurts Young People" and many more!

Honestly freaking Wikipedia would serve you better if you actually wanted to enlighten yourself... and not be fooled and distracted by pretty graphics. Be critical of what you're watching and at-least think smh!

[Hammerfest]

It's a bullshit argument.

I'll go with Forbes over an intellectually effete, snob Canadian Mignola fan.

[zEmini]

Nope, because the burden is too heavy on the poor.

I would also say that the extremely poor shouldn't pay taxes at all.

The more you make, the more you are taxed. However it should never be over 20-25%. We talking just Federal Income taxes right?

[Hiricine]

Expenditures on what? Public spending isn't anywhere the level of rich spending. Have you ever toured a USA military hospital and then toured a top tier privately funded hospital? Sorry, but public services are not offering the poor what rich services offer the rich.

Right, but privately funded hospitals aren't funded by taxes, unless you include medicare, which disproportionately pays for the poor. Your argument in the previous post alluded to that the Rich should pay more in taxes because they get more from them, when its not true from a proportional standpoint and its probably not true even from a nominal standpoint.

[Total Crica]

Right, but privately funded hospitals aren't funded by taxes, unless you include medicare, which disproportionately pays for the poor. Your argument in the previous post alluded to that the Rich should pay more in taxes because they get more from them, when its not true from a proportional standpoint and its probably not true even from a nominal standpoint.

I never stated I think rich people should pay more then poor people. Personally, I don't think anyone who isn't talented or skilled with income should be in control of income at all, they will not be able to retain any income if they are in control of it.

[Ivanstone]

I'll go with Forbes over an intellectually effete, snob Canadian Mignola fan.

You would go with some elitist who's trying to make up stupid arguments that protects his inherited wealth? Ok.

[Tico]

Flat tax is not a good idea, for the reasons stated above (especially the one that states a porportional stake in tax for a poor one means a much higher cut to living standards).

[Endus]

Did you even watch the fucking video? If you did, you would understand that in the US, BILLIONS of dollars are spent on tax preparation because of how complex the tax code is, especially when you start making more money, and have investments, and interest paid on loans, and what can and can not be deducted, and what qualifies and all the other shit in the shity tax system we have here in the US.

Please do your homework before making uninformed statements Endus, you're better than that.

I wasn't disputing that. I was saying that it isn't connected to a progressive tax bracket system, and can readily be fixed within such, and thus does not provide any argument for a flat tax system. Particularly since most flat-tax advocates, when pressured, confess that some deductions and stuff are fine, but will hand-wave discussing which are which.

[kail]

Did you even watch the fucking video? If you did, you would understand that in the US, BILLIONS of dollars are spent on tax preparation because of how complex the tax code is, especially when you start making more money, and have investments, and interest paid on loans, and what can and can not be deducted, and what qualifies and all the other shit in the shity tax system we have here in the US.

Please do your homework before making uninformed statements Endus, you're better than that.

Says the guy proposing a flat tax...