Flat tax - the CONs' dream. Would they adopt the following?

[Shira]

Why should there be a negative income tax?  That would involve robbing someone of their income to give it unwillingly to another.  No thanks.  Under such a system, I would - as would most rational people - refuse to work and just live off the system.

And what are the Social Security and the wellfare system if not a negative tax.

The common view on poverty experessed by the conservatives is that the poor are poor because they are lazy.

[opebo]

Why should there be a negative income tax?  That would involve robbing someone of their income to give it unwillingly to another.  No thanks.  Under such a system, I would - as would most rational people - refuse to work and just live off the system.

And what are the Social Security and the wellfare system if not a negative tax.

The common view on poverty experessed by the conservatives is that the poor are poor because they are lazy.

I am of course against Social Security and the Welfare system.

[Storebought]

Actually, tax revenue has gone up dramatically in the two nations that have adopted the flat tax: Russia and Iraq.

Post-war Germany implemented a flat tax over the objections of Truman's socialist Democrat advisors (in the American Zone, of course). Their economy subsequently exploded afterwards--the Wirtschaftswunder

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Actually, tax revenue has gone up dramatically in the two nations that have adopted the flat tax: Russia and Iraq.

Post-war Germany implemented a flat tax over the objections of Truman's socialist Democrat advisors (in the American Zone, of course). Their economy subsequently exploded afterwards--the Wirtschaftswunder

Well, sure, tax revenue won't necessarily go down just because we have a flat tax...but it will surely go down if the flat tax is only 10%!...or even 50%, with the sort of deductions Shira is talking about.
 

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Sales tax would have to be graduated to some extent too.  You assign each item a "luxury" value from 1-10.  You'd pay maximum tax for buying a yaht but no tax for buying bread.

I don't like the flat tax because it shifts a greater burden onto the poor and middle class.

So what if a guy who makes $25,000 a has saved to buy his girlfreind a nice engagement ring, should he too have to pay a huge tax?

Ten percent maximum.

Like some other plans I've heard, this wouldn't come close to funding the government.  Does "fairtax" actually have an estimate for how much revenue a 10% sales tax would collect?

I would guess this tax would have to be about 40% to come close to a balanced budget, if you're not taxing food or any spending up to the poverty line.

Are you counting out income taxes on corporations? That is a HUGE sum of money that comes into the federalg government. It works perfectly fine on the state level at 4-10% depending on the state. Why do you think it would have to be 40% to work on the federal level? Why does this have support from members like Tom Delay?

Maybe not 40%, but at least 30%.   Is Fairtax actually advocating only 10%.  If this is an actual proposal with congressional support, I wonder if anyone has had CBO score the bill.

What does the average family pay in federal taxes?  About 25%, I think, so the tac would have to be at least this high.  Plus, you're exempting the first $15K-$20K of everyone's spending.  Plus you're exempting food.  And people don't spend every dime they make, so everything they save doesn't get taxed.  I'd say this would push it up to around 40%.

[Shira]

Actually, tax revenue has gone up dramatically in the two nations that have adopted the flat tax: Russia and Iraq.

Post-war Germany implemented a flat tax over the objections of Truman's socialist Democrat advisors (in the American Zone, of course). Their economy subsequently exploded afterwards--the Wirtschaftswunder

Well, sure, tax revenue won't necessarily go down just because we have a flat tax...but it will surely go down if the flat tax is only 10%!...or even 50%, with the sort of deductions Shira is talking about.
 

"My" deductions are flexible. Try to see what happens if I change D=10,000 instead of 15,000 or P = 40% instead of 50%

"My" formula is X = (I - N*D)*P/100

[??????????]

Sales tax would have to be graduated to some extent too.  You assign each item a "luxury" value from 1-10.  You'd pay maximum tax for buying a yaht but no tax for buying bread.

I don't like the flat tax because it shifts a greater burden onto the poor and middle class.

So what if a guy who makes $25,000 a has saved to buy his girlfreind a nice engagement ring, should he too have to pay a huge tax?

Ten percent maximum.

Like some other plans I've heard, this wouldn't come close to funding the government.  Does "fairtax" actually have an estimate for how much revenue a 10% sales tax would collect?

I would guess this tax would have to be about 40% to come close to a balanced budget, if you're not taxing food or any spending up to the poverty line.

Are you counting out income taxes on corporations? That is a HUGE sum of money that comes into the federalg government. It works perfectly fine on the state level at 4-10% depending on the state. Why do you think it would have to be 40% to work on the federal level? Why does this have support from members like Tom Delay?

Maybe not 40%, but at least 30%.   Is Fairtax actually advocating only 10%.  If this is an actual proposal with congressional support, I wonder if anyone has had CBO score the bill.

What does the average family pay in federal taxes?  About 25%, I think, so the tac would have to be at least this high.  Plus, you're exempting the first $15K-$20K of everyone's spending.  Plus you're exempting food.  And people don't spend every dime they make, so everything they save doesn't get taxed.  I'd say this would push it up to around 40%.

Go to the site and read the bill. It's on there.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The proposed bill sets the tax rate at 23%.

Lower than I thought, but still much higher than 10%.

[??????????]

The proposed bill sets the tax rate at 23%.

Lower than I thought, but still much higher than 10%.

Sounds fair.

[muon2]

To get a feel for the flat tax consider the many states that currently use a flat tax as part of their funding.

In IL there is a flat 3% income tax. The form is simple. Take the federal adjusted gross income, subtract certain benefits that were included in the AGI (such as Soc Sec benefits or state tax refund), subtract $2,000 for each federal exemption and multiply by .03 to get the tax.

Is it foolproof, no. And it fluctuates with the economy as any income tax does. But with few loopholes there is little debate year to year except to determine whether the overall rate is raised or lowered.

Obviously, IL also gets alot of revenue from sales tax as well as income tax, like most states. This does balance somewhat with the income tax, though both will droop during economic downturns. Sales tax is only slightly more stable than income tax due to regular expenditures that can't be postponed.

The biggest weakness of the sales tax is its lack of extension to services. For example, the average video is played about five times. If I purchase a video for $15, I pay sales tax. If I rent it five times for $3 each time, I get the expected use, put the same money into the system, but no tax is generated. This problem needs to be fixed in any sales tax-based system.

[Frodo]

US already moving toward a flat tax:
Bigger tax breaks for wealth produces a system in which the middle class pays about the same as the rich.

By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0414/p03s01-usgn.html

[opebo]

A tolerable 'flat tax' would be one with a standard individual deduction of $40,000 per adult, and say $10,000 per child, and then any and all income above that could be taxed at 70%. 

Examples:
Individual, making $35,000 = no tax, leaving $35,000
Individual, making $350,000 = owes $217,000, leaving $133,000
Family of 4, making $100,000 = owes no tax, leaving $100,000
Family of 4, making $1,000,000 = owes $630,000, leaving $370,000


Assuming one is pointlessly insisting on just one rate - what is the attraction of this unless you are extremely rich?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I did the math, and it looks like the people who brought you this 23% figure are the same people who said that Bush's $1.2 trillion Medicare drug benefit would cost $350 billion. It's major lie #42814981248912489 by the Republican party. f**ck them all. I will not rest until these curropt lying sh**tty America destroying Republicans are eliminated from ing power.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I already knew it was crap, but I decided to find a page that explained why it was crap.
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V11/13/devil1.html




Medicare drug benefit was supposed to cost $350B, it actually costs $1.2T. They actually promised to fire the Congressional accounting guy if he released the true costs. Bush has promised to veto any change to this $1.2T giveaway to rich drug company CEOs.

The Iraq war was suppose to cost $50B-$60B.
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_warcost.php
It has already cost $170B
It could cost over a trillion.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/US_cost_to_invade_082503.htm



Bush turned an $87B surplus into a $600B deficit in just 4 years.
Hint to America: Never let these assholes anywhere near your money again! Wake the f**ck up, America!


My generation will hopefully be very anti-Republican even when we're 90 thanks to this crap. I really hope the Republican party is completely destroyed.

[A18]

US already moving toward a flat tax:
Bigger tax breaks for wealth produces a system in which the middle class pays about the same as the rich.

By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0414/p03s01-usgn.html

The top 20% pays 80% of the income tax.

A flat tax is not a tax where the middle class pay about the same as the rich. It's where there's a flat percentage.

Anyway, anyone who thinks the middle class is paying the same as the rich needs to wake up, as that's completely impossible given our progressive income brackets, and the fact that deductions are phased out.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

US already moving toward a flat tax:
Bigger tax breaks for wealth produces a system in which the middle class pays about the same as the rich.

By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0414/p03s01-usgn.html

The top 20% pays 80% of the income tax.

A flat tax is not a tax where the middle class pay about the same as the rich. It's where there's a flat percentage.

Anyway, anyone who thinks the middle class is paying the same as the rich needs to wake up, as that's completely impossible given our progressive income brackets, and the fact that deductions are phased out.

Hey, member of the Liar party, there are other taxes besides the federal income tax. And the top 20% "earn" quite a large percentage of the money in this country.

[opebo]

US already moving toward a flat tax:
Bigger tax breaks for wealth produces a system in which the middle class pays about the same as the rich.

By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0414/p03s01-usgn.html

The top 20% pays 80% of the income tax.

A flat tax is not a tax where the middle class pay about the same as the rich. It's where there's a flat percentage.

Anyway, anyone who thinks the middle class is paying the same as the rich needs to wake up, as that's completely impossible given our progressive income brackets, and the fact that deductions are phased out.

What middle class?  I think you're living in the past.  The US is basically a two-class society now.

[David S]

Shira's plan is pure redistribution. It takes money from people who earned it and gives it to someone who did not.
It rewards failure and punishes success. No thanks.

[Erc]

My ideal tax system:

Replacement of Social Security with a National Sales Tax (to encourage an appropriate level of saving).

If we need any more money, then I think a flat tax on income is probably the least distortional option (unless, of course, you want to go the Georgist route and have a national property tax).

[David S]

Some observations:
Shira's plan- A single woman with ten kids gets a tax rebate of $55,000 per year tax free for doing absolutely no work other than having sex and producing more kids. Want more money? Have more kids.

Opebo's plan- The cutoff level at which no tax is paid is $35000.  Opebo's stated income from other posts is $35,000. Coincidence?

[David S]

I already knew it was crap, but I decided to find a page that explained why it was crap.
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V11/13/devil1.html




Medicare drug benefit was supposed to cost $350B, it actually costs $1.2T. They actually promised to fire the Congressional accounting guy if he released the true costs. Bush has promised to veto any change to this $1.2T giveaway to rich drug company CEOs.

The Iraq war was suppose to cost $50B-$60B.
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_warcost.php
It has already cost $170B
It could cost over a trillion.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/US_cost_to_invade_082503.htm



Bush turned an $87B surplus into a $600B deficit in just 4 years.
Hint to America: Never let these assholes anywhere near your money again! Wake the f**ck up, America!


My generation will hopefully be very anti-Republican even when we're 90 thanks to this crap. I really hope the Republican party is completely destroyed.

I am for keeping both parties away from my money. Get rid of the income tax.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I am for keeping both parties away from my money. Get rid of the income tax.

Replacing it with a sales tax would be far worse, since the sales tax would have to be over 50%.

[A18]

The 50% number is completely unrealistic. The proposal is 23%, and it replaces the payroll tax. It'd be more like 15% if we left the payroll tax alone.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 50% number is completely unrealistic. The proposal is 23%, and it replaces the payroll tax. It'd be more like 15% if we left the payroll tax alone.

Did you do the math, and or read the link? The proposal is actually 30%, and it's all lies, it's counting on massive tax revenues from the government itself. Toss out all of the idiocy, and you get over 50%, and even more if you have any sort of progressive rebate. It's an awful idea.

Think about it, if everyone pays less taxes under the new system, the numbers don't add up.

Also, an income tax is easier to enforce. So much spending would be off the books if a sales tax of over 50% applied.

[A18]

Tax-inclusive rates are, when measured against an income tax rate, pretty reasonable.

I do not support the 23% sales tax. I support a flat tax of about 17%, with a generous amount exempted, and forcing the federal government to downsize to make up for any shortfall in revenues.

And CATO, which is where these numbers come from, opposed both the Medicare drug benefit and the Iraq war, so your rant misses the mark.