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

[THE Bigzoman]

Ya I mean it really makes no sense to have a flat tax unless your goal is simplification of the tax code.
There is no other reason to do it, unless you want to reduce the tax code to the length of a tweet.

Ehh,

Not really sure about that. You can have a simplified tax code without flat taxes.

I admire the Flat tax for what seems to be a genuine attempt to make taxes simpler. But I doubt this or any other attempt to simplify things because accountants and other administrative workers would suddenly lose one of the bigger justifications for their existence.

[Ivanstone]

I have both, and you are incorrect in your assumption. The rich will always spend greater amounts, and thereby get taxed in greater amounts, even if they purchase less frequently. And how is your use of percentage based consuption anymore relevent than my percentage based sales tax? The non-rich will buy 1000 things for a total of $500 in taxes, where the rich will buy one item for $20,000 in taxes. Consumption taxes will always affect the rich greater since whether they are income-based or inheritence based, they will be taxed on what they spend.

The poor will always outspend the rich. The large majority of a poor person's money is spent on taxable items. The rich will spend a relatively small portion of their money on taxable goods and services with the majority of it being tied up in investments or simply saving it without doing anything it.

[SirBeef]

And you all never talk about the 'freebies at the expense of everyone else' portion. My middle class taxes go to giving them what they didn't earn while still taking it away from me and then demanding more. A flat tax (implied without the deductions and other taxbreak loopholes) is 'fair' because it taxes everyone equally proportional to their earnings. If you want everone to 'feel' the same effect, elliminate the income tax and make it a national sales tax of 10%. The rich, who buy more expensive things (like Lambos and yahts), will get taxed accordingly, and the less fortunate will make better purchases (ie. no gold teeth or tattoos). Yes, I'm an ass, so I choose to use that example...

Part of our social contract is to provide for those without so that everyone can benefit. We all used to be citizens and did for all. About 30 years ago the discussion changed to call us taxpayers. Since then, most people have forgotten that we are all in this together and are cometely self centered.

As pointed out multiple times it is not fair. A 10% flat tax would disproportionately hurt lower income earners more than higher income earners. Low income earners pay more of their income to everyday and monthly expenses than higher income.e earners while using significantly less of the commons. Flat taxes would aslo disproportionately hurt all non rich people when police, fire, rescue, and infrastructure are cut or fail due to lack of funds.

Non rich people drive the economy. When they have money it gets spent. Rich people, while they buy more high ticket items, as a percentage is literally nothing compared to what normal people spend overall. Social welfare (unemoyment, SS, and other forms of financial support) provide a bigfer return to the economy than tax breaks and other froms of stimulus relief for the "job creators". This benefits everyone in the long run since it increases demand wich van lead to more jobs, more coporate revenue, more tax revenue, more stability.

A progressive tax system is the only way to go. We can discuss what those wage brackets are, what the bracket percentages are, what counts as income, and what deductions are. Those that have should pay more. Those without should be helped. We are in this together, if we keep going down the I got mine fuck you road, this thing we cal America will not be America anymore.

[Djuntas]

In Denmark we have progressive taxes....OP does a very bad example.

[SirBeef]

Ehh,

Not really sure about that. You can have a simplified tax code without flat taxes.

I admire the Flat tax for what seems to be a genuine attempt to make taxes simpler. But I doubt this or any other attempt to simplify things because accountants and other administrative workers would suddenly lose one of the bigger justifications for their existence.

Best way to simplify is to say all income is counted the same. Wages, earnings, interest, investments, capital gains and anything else is earnings. It all counts as one collective pool.

[Zeek Daniels]

A flat tax is fair because everyone is taxed equally. Just because you make more money doesnt mean you should be taxed more and if you make less money doesnt mean you should be taxed less. The reason people want rich people to be taxed more is because they want the government to give them more "free" stuff. And the government wouldnt be able to afford that stuff without getting more income in taxes. So people tell the government to tax other people more so they can get more "free" stuff.

The question i have is does an economy grow if businesses and wealthy people are taxed less thus allowing people to be paid more and earn more money, or will the majority of businesses horde their wealth and not put it back into the system? I dont know but people seem to have made the decision that the majority of businesses will keep the extra money they are not taxed and keep paying workers the same. I say as one of those workers give them a chance and see what happens. Maybe if you didnt tax these companies so much they could raise minimum wage to a more livable wage.

[Sky High]

The question i have is does an economy grow if businesses and wealthy people are taxed less thus allowing people to be paid more and earn more money, or will the majority of businesses horde their wealth and not put it back into the system? I dont know but people seem to have made the decision that the majority of businesses will keep the extra money they are not taxed and keep paying workers the same. I say as one of those workers give them a chance and see what happens. Maybe if you didnt tax these companies so much they could raise minimum wage to a more livable wage.

the fact you're hung up on "growth" and not "stability", kinda tells me you don't really know what you're talking about. granted I'm no econ professor but from the countless times we've lowered taxes on the rich we see growth, and then decline, it's called boom/bust cycles, and that's all supply side economics does reliably.

[SirBeef]

A flat tax is fair because everyone is taxed equally. Just because you make more money doesnt mean you should be taxed more and if you make less money doesnt mean you should be taxed less. The reason people want rich people to be taxed more is because they want the government to give them more "free" stuff. And the government wouldnt be able to afford that stuff without getting more income in taxes. So people tell the government to tax other people more so they can get more "free" stuff.

The question i have is does an economy grow if businesses and wealthy people are taxed less thus allowing people to be paid more and earn more money, or will the majority of businesses horde their wealth and not put it back into the system? I dont know but people seem to have made the decision that the majority of businesses will keep the extra money they are not taxed and keep paying workers the same. I say as one of those workers give them a chance and see what happens. Maybe if you didnt tax these companies so much they could raise minimum wage to a more livable wage.

No one is saying just because you have more you should pay more. They pay more specifically because they use more of the commons and benefit more from it. If you did a flat tax you short change the funding for those services while those that require more are no longer paying their fair share for them.

Historically speaking in the US, the country generally had better wages respective to CEOs and owners, better exonomic growth, and more stability when the top marginal tax rates were over 50%. It is a GOP myth that lowering taxes on corporations and wealthy people brings in higher wages. This is calles trickle down and was called Vodo Economics by Bush and others during the 1980 primaries. It has yet been proven to work. The wealth discrepancies are the largest they have been since the 1920s while the MTR is on of the lowest at 39.6%.

[nanook12]

Nah I believe in a progressive tax system. High levels of income inequality cause all kinds of bad things such as high rates of imprisonment, more drug use, higher crime rates, hardship imposed on the masses for the benefit of few, crumbling of infrastructure, and general unhappiness. It is also not sustainable in the long term. Those major corporations need customers to buy their products, and if they pay their employees so little that they can barely survive, then they are not going to buy those products. The collapse of living standards follows.

A nation with high income inequality is a nation in decline.