Flat Tax Pros & Cons

[jmjj215]

I like the idea of a simplified taxing system. That's as much of an opinion as my knowledge of the issues permits me to have at this time.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

I would like to think VJW that even you can see that such a system of flat tax with high personal allowance certainly would not harm low earners as they would probably get to keep large chunks, if not all, of their salary as personal allowance.

But the “flat Tax” only benefits the wealthy, which is why 98.5% of the citizens of Hong Kong avoid it.

As should we.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

So I suppose you would like to punish people who earn more/spend less?

Care to explain how wanting people to pay their fair share of the tax burden is construed as an effort to “punish” them ?

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Roger

Can you prove it?

Actually, I was referencing the results of the U.S. Treasury study, and you responded that:

“I believe if you look at the math, you will see that you are wrong when you say the poor and middle class would pay more proportionally.”

Can YOU “prove” it ?

The Treasury Department has a vested interest in keeping the current system.

A) But it is not limited to the Treasury Department.

B) It was the Reagan administration’s Treasury Department, so I seriously doubt they would have a “vested interest in keeping the current system”, since after they abandoned the 'Flat Tax', they then went on to implement a radically different tax scheme that failed rather dramatically.

If it was a Flat Tax, there wouldn't be a need for most of the people who work at the Treasury Department.

Untrue.

The complexities of the current system, of deciding what is and what is not income – what is and what is not exempt, would remain with a ‘Flat Tax’.

You are right about the amount of income spent on necessities by the classes. That does not mean the tax is proportional, the tax would still be a flat percentage.

Never claimed the "tax is proportional", but what people PAY in taxes would be proportional to their income. Hence, horribly unfair.

#

[PrincessPerky]

Originally Posted by VJW

Care to explain how wanting people to pay their fair share of the tax burden is construed as an effort to “punish” them ?

#

You are not suggesting 'fair' you are suggesting those with more loot to toss around should pay more.

Like I said, I have higher discrecionary income, yet I am right at the poverty level, you are sugesting that higher discretionary income means higher burden of taxes, sorry I do not feel that way, I have 'spare' loot (meaning truthfully I do not ask the govt for money) because I sacrifice and work hard, not because I am 'rich' and or lucky.

I do not think saying people with more money to spare should pay more for taxes makes any sense in a just way. It sounds more like jelousy. "you have lots so I want to take it away." Actually sounds a bit communist, and I for one prefer to earn what I recieve.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

You are not suggesting 'fair' you are suggesting those with more loot to toss around should pay more.

Actually, no.

A progressive income tax does not have “those with more loot to toss around” paying more, but ‘those with less loot to toss around’ paying less. It would take a high single-rate to be revenue neutral, so the rates have to be lowered for lower-income taxpayers so they can afford to pay it without being bankrupted.

Like I said, I have higher discrecionary income, yet I am right at the poverty level, you are sugesting that higher discretionary income means higher burden of taxes

No, you have that backwards.

The point was not that those with higher discretionary income should pay higher taxes, but that under a ‘Flat Tax’, those with lower discretionary income pay a much higher PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes, and those with higher discretionary income would pay a much lower PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes.

Just the opposite.

I do not think saying people with more money to spare should pay more for taxes makes any sense in a just way.

If one enjoys the benefits provided by government, one must pay for that government. Having everyone pay the same would not provide the revenue required to provide for those services.

It could not be any simpler.

Actually sounds a bit communist

Actually, having everyone pay the same is much closer to Communism. You might want to check a dictionary.

#

[PrincessPerky]

Originally Posted by VJW

income pay a much higher PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes, and those with higher discretionary income would pay a much lower PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes.#

Apparently all those math classes I took failed me, last I checked 20%of 30,000 and 20% of 300,000 or 3milion was the same PERCENTAGE. IE 20%.

Thats why it is a flat tax, everyone pays the same PERCENTAGE.

And since 20% of 30,000 is only 6,000, whereas 20% of 300,000 is 60,000 It doesn't look like the same amount to me. Guess I have a different opinion of PERCENT and SAME than you though.

[VJW]

Once again, you’re confused.

You’re conflating the ‘percentage rate’ with the ‘percentage of income’. Yes the percentage rate is the same. However, the percentage paid of one’s income is different.

I wrote:

“those with lower discretionary income pay a much higher PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes, and those with higher discretionary income would pay a much lower PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes.”

BTW, looks like you did fine in your math classes. It’s those reading classes where you must have been napping.

:]

#

[PrincessPerky]

ah so I am missing the flat tax being only of income not of particular parts of income, see I thought it would be 20% of income, regardless of 'outcome'

[Bruce Wayne]

Its interesting to read your arguments VJW.

If you study society and systems in general you'll find that there are two kinds of system, man made and spontaneous.

Spontaneous systems provide inhabitants with clear rules and then let them operate within those rules however they please. This type of management works very well when the system is so large and complex that it is impossible for single men or groups of men to successfully govern each of the systems constituents. Examples include nature.

Man made systems on the other hand try to manipulate the operation of that system by managing the activities of its' inhabitants. Examples of man made systems include companies and families where the manager could be seen to know best and the system has a clear goal and outcome to aspire to, typically only possible in small systems.

It seems to me that you believe that society can be managed wheras I believe that such attempts are doomed to failure because society is simply too large and too complex to even begin to make decisions for each of the individuals within it, each with their own unique circumstances and dreams. Instead I believe that society would flourish if simple rules were enforced and the individuals allowed to live how they please as long as they follow the simple rules. It is in the enforcement of these rules that government should be active, not the provision of any service.

If you believe this system is doomed for failure I ask you to consider nature and how it flourishes without having any one thing manage it in the billions of years it has been in existence.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

Its interesting to read your arguments VJW.

They’re not MY “arguments”, they are facts released by the Treasury Department, Congressional Budget Office, and the Internal Revenue Service.

It seems to me that you believe....

A) Why do you find it irresistible to attempt to tell me what you believe that I “believe” ?

B) I’m not presenting beliefs.

C) Clearly, you have demonstrated a penchant for presenting beliefs as facts.

#

[Bruce Wayne]

I have given you many examples of nations that have successfully used flat taxes to both improve their economies and increase tax revenue. You have merely countered with statements saying that these examples aren't relevant!

It might interest you to learn that Germany are strongly considering a flat tax, hardly an insignificant nation wouldn't you say?

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

I have given you many examples of nations that have successfully used flat taxes to both improve their economies and increase tax revenue. You have merely countered with statements saying that these examples aren't relevant!

Because they are NOT relevant, as they are not industrialized countries.

What part of that fact is not sinking in with you ?

It might interest you to learn that Germany are strongly considering a flat tax, hardly an insignificant nation wouldn't you say?

A) Considering is not implementing.

B) It’s been well documented that tax relief for the wealthy is counterproductive.

#

[Bruce Wayne]

I would have thought the fact that these countries aren't industrialised would be a positive factor rather than a negative one. That countries with more low earners are implementing flat tax is surely a glowing testamony to the benefits such schemes bring to the well being of all.

[VJW]

Just the opposite.

Not to mention that most of the countries you’ve cited went from being state-run totalitarian economies to at least semi-capitalist economies at the same time.

You're back to the rooster crowing causing the sun to rise in the morning.

#

[independence study girl]

so what exactly are the pros and cons of TAXES in general?

[kork13]

Originally Posted by independence study girl

so what exactly are the pros and cons of TAXES in general?

Wow, big question... To say it simply, taxes fund everything the government does. Without taxes, nothing which is government-owned, controlled, or influenced would happen. Examples: emergency services (fire, police, etc.), military, air transportation (airports are owned/maintained by the federal government), welfare, road maintenance/construction, public schools, utilities, international trade (gov't maintains trade agreements which allow imports/exports), snail mail, gov't subsidized hospitals, court systems, .... the list really could grow quite extensive if you sat down and thought about it.

Taxes are a necessary evil, but what you think about it, you can only be glad that the government provides so much for us, by enabling the pooling of our tax monies to get stuff done.

That said, I will agree that many times gov't spending is outrageous, and probably is one of the biggest economic problems that needs to be addressed... forget raising or lowering taxes -- control government spending!

.....just my own 2 cents...