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

[Zarc]

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.

No, that is not the fairest way to collect tax. The fairest way would be to completely replace the income tax with a progressive tax on wealth. After all, a core function of government that all but a few lunatic fringe political ideologies agree on is that government should exist to uphold property rights, something government can do by having a government bureaucracy that includes things such as legislative institutions, a judiciary, law enforcement and a military for defense. To fund these core functions of government to uphold property rights rather than have anarchy, it seems most fair if those who own the most property pays the most to uphold this right from which existence they benefit most, and from which absence they stand the most to lose. Of course taxing wealth can be hard for technical reasons, which is why one might opt for other ways. But the Estate Tax is probobly the best and most fair tax available. Just imagine how low other taxes could be for everybody if we had a really thorough and unavoidable estate (and gift) tax which would replenish the treasury each day as the old and rich people die off. Every individual would have the most equal opportunity in life possible, entrepreneurs would be as unhindered in their innovation as they could possibly be throughout their lifetime without an aristocracy of wealth forming over time that is neither fair nor desirable from an individualistic perspective. It would be the ideal taxation scheme for a society focused on individualism, not family or groups of people.

As to the notion that tax collection equates to stealing, that is a ridiculous argument. Most obviously because the definition of stealing is to illegally take somebody else's property. Taxes are legal, thus it's not theft. Simple. But less obvious is the fact that somebody's resources being taxed is no more theft than is the act of a business owner denying a wage laborer the real worth of his or her labor, which of course is the case all the time, as the real worth of an employee's labor is almost never reflected in an employment contract on the free market. If it was businesses would never turn a profit. Capitalism is not a law of nature, it's an economic system. And as with any system, we're allowed to tweak it. Even replace it if we wanted to, and some do. I would never want to do that though. I'm a capitalist. I firmly believe that capitalism is the best economic system ever devised by man. I think there is lots of data to back that up in terms of an unrivaled ability to enable the creation of wealth and the spread of prosperity. There are many ways to tweak capitalism, however, or put differently, there are many forms of capitalism. Denial of this fact by some right-wingers has contributed to an unfortunate situation where many more individuals than otherwise would favors that capitalism be replaced with socialism as an economic system (noting that socialism is both the name of an economic system and a family of political ideologies, some of which wants to have socialism as an economic system and some who do not). Most of these left-leaning folks are, ironically, misinformed by right-wing misinformation. Personally I advocate Nordic or Rhine capitalism, also known as the social market economy, or the mixed economy, as advocated by both Social Democrats, Social Liberals, Christian Democrats and others, over the Laissez-faire, and in my view deeply flawed, form of capitalism.

[cuafpr]

can i say fair with limits? below poverty line should have zero tax, above that yes i support a flat tax, and progressive national sales tax on none food/medicine type items. Example a Honda civic might have 1% national sales tax, but that new lambo costing 300k would have 25% national sales tax. I'm all for workers keeping their money but if you chose to buy luxury items then you pay higher sales tax for said items. And yes i fully think most of the rich would still buy the same luxuries just to show them off.

[Kujako]

I pay for it. It is a private transaction between two entities.

No you don't. It was created by DARPA with tax funds. You're thinking of AOL.

[Machismo]

You had a job paying more than 6k a year at 11? That's impressive.

Yeah, I was bussing tables in my parents' restaurant. I was stoked, because they had to legally pay me.

- - - Updated - - -

No you don't. It was created by DARPA with tax funds. You're thinking of AOL.

Once again, I pay for my internet service, it is not a tax, it is a voluntary transaction between two entities. You are trying to use the existence of government to justify the existence of government.

[AcidicSyn]

@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.

I'm curious. In order to develop ways to "help poor people become rich" don't we need programs that are dedicated to exactly that goal? In which case, don't we need to fund those programs? Personally, as a (technically) middle class American, I would prefer that *I* not be the one footing the bill to fund those programs, as I need every cent I make in order to pay bills. Roughly 30% of those bills are for debt, not credit card debt, not a mortgage, not a motor vehicle; student loan debt that wont be paid off until I am well into my 50's.

Meanwhile; Because I am single, have a college education, have no kids, and have a job; I do not qualify for any of the aforementioned programs; yet I should still pay into said programs? If I am paying into these programs, why are those with drastically larger pools of disposable income exempt from paying into these systems? If they were not exempt, perhaps I would have to pay less and could then save enough to afford a small weekend away once a year? As a "middle class" American, a weekend trip to Disney shouldn't be so far outside of my budget should it? After all, I did what you said; I didn't have any kids, I stayed in school, got a job, I even went to college; which was drilled into my head as mandatory since kindergarten.

Feels to me like both left and right sides of the aisle want the folks who did exactly what they were taught to do; to just eat it and shut up because we're not poor enough to need help and not rich enough to deserve breaks. I feel like ALOT of the "systems" people toss around would actually work if they were free of exemption.

[Machismo]

That purely transactional relationship only exists because of a big bad State entity that actively socializes and conditions people to behave in a purely anonymous shallow transactional relationship.

Your AnCap fantasy cannot exist without funding.

Once again, I never asked for that. Trade can exist without government involvement.

[Krastyn]

Except that's not what you responded to with a strawman. Here's my original post:
"I've never met anyone logically argue for an actual flat tax. They just talk about a flat tax with a, b, and c caveats, which is not a flat tax but a really horrible and uneducated progressive tax.
Actual middle class flat taxers are a myth. It's just a bunch of people wanting to reenvision the progressive tax and are bad at economics."

And here's your response:
"I'd argue for it, because the math works out. Depending on what you consider middle class, I'm likely in it."

As I said, saying "the math works" is a strawman. No one is debating the math working, it's a debate over whether it works better or worse.

This post of yours, however, was unquestionably a strawman. The fact that you would quote the wrong post to deflect is fucking hilarious.

I've never met anyone argue for a TRUE flat tax, just like a TRUE progressive tax doesn't exist. Nearly every time people talk of flat taxes vs progressive taxes, they are only talking about the rates, not exemptions and deductions.

The math doesn't have to be better or worse, it can work out exactly the same. And if it works out exactly the same, to me a flat tax is more fair than a progressive.

[Jastall]

I'm against the idea of a flat tax for various reasons already established in this thread (most of them practical), but I do ask; would this apply to things like investments and capital gains?

[Vyuvarax]

I've never met anyone argue for a TRUE flat tax, just like a TRUE progressive tax doesn't exist. Nearly every time people talk of flat taxes vs progressive taxes, they are only talking about the rates, not exemptions and deductions.

The math doesn't have to be better or worse, it can work out exactly the same. And if it works out exactly the same, to me a flat tax is more fair than a progressive.

Are you just ignoring that you got marked for a strawman, then made another by misquoting and now trying to act like you are continuing a normal thread of conversation? You're fucking crazy.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm curious. In order to develop ways to "help poor people become rich" don't we need programs that are dedicated to exactly that goal? In which case, don't we need to fund those programs? Personally, as a (technically) middle class American, I would prefer that *I* not be the one footing the bill to fund those programs, as I need every cent I make in order to pay bills. Roughly 30% of those bills are for debt, not credit card debt, not a mortgage, not a motor vehicle; student loan debt that wont be paid off until I am well into my 50's.

Meanwhile; Because I am single, have a college education, have no kids, and have a job; I do not qualify for any of the aforementioned programs; yet I should still pay into said programs? If I am paying into these programs, why are those with drastically larger pools of disposable income exempt from paying into these systems? If they were not exempt, perhaps I would have to pay less and could then save enough to afford a small weekend away once a year? As a "middle class" American, a weekend trip to Disney shouldn't be so far outside of my budget should it? After all, I did what you said; I didn't have any kids, I stayed in school, got a job, I even went to college; which was drilled into my head as mandatory since kindergarten.

Feels to me like both left and right sides of the aisle want the folks who did exactly what they were taught to do; to just eat it and shut up because we're not poor enough to need help and not rich enough to deserve breaks. I feel like ALOT of the "systems" people toss around would actually work if they were free of exemption.

You make choices in life like everyone else. Not everyone can do the same thing some can’t do anything, if they did something you’d bitch too many people do it.

Bottom line is your argument is irrelevant. I have to pay taxes for kids that aren’t even mine. So what, rather they get some education than none. I would prefer better education but meh!

Bottom line is yes shut up fucking deal with it or don’t. But enough of the self righteous bullshit. You do what millions do guess what we still have to take care of things like homelessness, hunger, poverty and crime.

These things don’t magically go away cause you wish they would.

However I do agree the wealthy should pay no taxes.

[Vyuvarax]

I'm against the idea of a flat tax for various reasons already established in this thread (most of them practical), but I do ask; would this apply to things like investments and capital gains?

Generally flat tax supporters will say those wouldn't be taxed. That's due to the fact that flat taxes were developed and sold to the public by very wealthy operatives.

[Machismo]

I'm against the idea of a flat tax for various reasons already established in this thread (most of them practical), but I do ask; would this apply to things like investments and capital gains?

I think that would depend on if it was a flat tax based on income, or one based on consumer spending. Generally, most people want to base it on earnings, so they would still count.

[Citizen T]

It is numerically fair and that's about it.

The problem is that $1500 you take from the guy making $10K means a WHOLE lot more than the $15k you take from the person making $100K, and even more than the $150k being taxed at $1mil a year.

Assuming single, unmarried, no kids tax payer. $1500 a year for someone making less than $10 is forcing the decision of what necessities they will be forced to go without. $15K out of $100K is a matter of creature comforts.

I posit that the person earning 10K in rural Arkansas and the one making 100K in NYC or San Francisco, there is little difference with potentially the 100K earner being worse off.

[Deleted]

it is not fair. People who have more can afford to have slighly less, they still have hundres times more then the poorest.
the danish welfare state, the broadest shoulders should carry the heavyest load.

[Vyuvarax]

I posit that the person earning 10K in rural Arkansas and the one making 100K in NYC or San Francisco, there is little difference with potentially the 100K earner being worse off.

10k is no money even for rural Arkansas. I've lived in NYC and rural Midwest; you're much better off with 100k in NYC.

[Total Crica]

10k is no money even for rural Arkansas. I've lived in NYC and rural Midwest; you're much better off with 100k in NYC.

The money itself doesn't matter unless you have access to talent/skills that you can spend it on.

[Ragedump]

The question is whether a flat tax can be fair. And my response is that yes it can, with no deductions and a personal exemption.

True, it -can- be fair. But it just won't work (at least in the US). There would be a complete shift in behavior of the general public's spending habits and procreating habits. From an average income earner's perspective, if we do away with deductions, it would kill any incentives for home ownership, having dependents (whether your own children or an assisted adult), getting married and self employment.

It would shift the entire financial system which is built around the current tax code. Anyone in finance / banking / insurance, with their continuous goal on profits, would adapt to new ways of making money. The largest banks and insurance companies sell a large portion of their products based on what helps rich people write off their taxes (pass to heirs, etc). If they can't make money there, guess where they'll come next? Dodd Frank was a minor version of this that made banks shift where they get their profits (fee income) with the extreme case being Wells Fargo and their millions of fake accounts. Banks already used Dodd Frank as an excuse to do away with things like free bank accounts.

[Machismo]

Jesus Christ there are a lot of alt accounts these days. There's no less than three in this very thread.

[Vyuvarax]

The money itself doesn't matter unless you have access to talent/skills that you can spend it on.

What the fuck are you arguing? Are you trying to say there's nothing to spend money on in rural Midwest?

[Ragedump]

Jesus Christ there are a lot of alt accounts these days. There's no less than three in this very thread.

My apologies. This is a new main account. Just bored lol.

Been playing WoW on and off since vanilla just decided on a whim to start a login. I don't know how to prove this, just ask me and I can back whatever up haha.