The idea is to implement the tax first, it is weighted to provide sufficient operating funds for existing programs with the idea of weening the government off of spending and waste in an economically viable timeframe, the concept involves a trimming effect on overspending, forcing programs to lean down through the natural progression of legislative law, not by shock and awe economic leveragingWouldn't it generate less revenue for government? And I'm not saying this is bad because it will force government to cut waste, but couldn't it also threaten to cripple many programs? Especially during troubled times when people just aren't buying?
Most fair minded conservatives would state that we have too many entitlements, but we have so much at the moment that immediate elimination would damage the economy past the benefit of the reductions, many of us advocate a strategic roll back of programs to what is necessary, but to eliminate the fat, we would use a scalpel, not a hatchet.And I don't think California will ever just turn off welfare. As has been pointed out, the state would erupt in riots.I agree, but I would also commend those that put their position at risk to do what needs to be done towards solvency.It would have to be a multi-year, progressive reduction in benefits. If even then. I think you see a turnover in legislators who would fight the plan.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
Basic maths shows this.Flat tax is a horrible idea and will only benefit the rich
Person 1 earns 10 dollars a year
Person 2 earns 100 dollars a year
Person 3 earns 10000 dollars a year.
Flat tax system of say 20% since you yanks love low numbers.
Person 1 pays 2 dollars in tax, leaving 8 dollars to live on
Person 2 pays 20 dollars in tax, leaving 80 dollars to live on
Person 3 pays 2000 dollars in tax, leaving 8000 dollars to live on.
Which person would have a more "comfortable" life?
In a proportional system it could be like this. 50 dollar deductible. First 1000 dollars is taxed by 10%, 1001 to 5000 is taxed 20% and anything over 5000 is taxed by 30%.
Person 1 earns 10 dollars a year but since there is a 50 dollar a year deductible he will pay no tax. 10 dollars to live on.
Person 2 earns 100 dollars a year, has a 50 dollar deductible leaving only the 50 dollars to be taxed by 10% which is a tax of 5 dollars. That gives 95 dollars to live on.
Person 3 earns 10000 dollars a year, has a 50 dollar deductible. the 10000 dollars are taxed the following. The first 1000 by 10% which is 100 dollars, then next 4000 is taxed by 20% which is 800 dollars and the remaining income of 5000 dollars is taxed by 30% which is 1500 dollars. This is a grand total of 2350 dollars in tax (with the 50 dollar deductible.. even though it dont matter jack for this person). That will leave the person 7650 dollars to live off.. ohh poor rich people have less to live off.. boo hoo... will have to skip one weekly botox treatment.
The tax income from the flat tax is 2022 dollars. The tax income from the progressive tax system is 2455 dollars. The tax burden on person 1 and 2 is considerably lower where as the burden on person 3 is increased but then again said person can afford it.
Now I know tax systems are never so simple, but the whole idea of a flat tax system is to make it simple with no deductions. The drop in revenue for the government will be considerable and the burden on low and middle class earners will increase. The rich will get a lower tax burden and considering they already have money to avoid paying their full share of tax under the present system (regardless of country) then well. My maths above might be off a bit (cant be bothered to check it tbh), but the idea behind it is right.
Lets see. The list of flat tax nations in Europe are the following.Flat tax nations in Europe are the worst off at the moment
Bosnia, Bulgaria, Albania, Czech Republic, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine.
Now what do we have there. Iceland has had to be bailed out and expects 20+% economic contraction. The Baltic states have the largest economic downturn in Europe proper and are on the verge of default. They have also received bailouts. Serbia and Romania got IMF bail-out money. Albania has always been a basket case and remains so. Ukraine cant pay its gas bills and was one of the first to get a bail-out from the IMF. If you dont believe me, google it.... for Ukraine
Ukraine Gets an IMF Bailout - BusinessWeek
That leaves the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia as "shining examples" right? well...
If you google Russia and economic crisis, then you will probably be shocked....
The Czech Republic is in a relative good economic situation compared to the rest. However even here the crisis has hit hard. Same goes for Slovakia, where the crisis has hit even harder. But compared to the rest yea these have a great economy....
The other nations.. get real, they barely have economies to begin with.
Not sure what you want here soo.It is a egotists dream, and all are basicly ruled by the gun and the rich
Second, the relevance is the steep increase in the quantity of debt in local currency terms due to the plunging currency valuations. When you borrow in Euros when your currency is trading at 2:1, then your currency drops to 4:1, you've just seen your debt load double. Only way to avoid that trap would be if GDP doubled at the same time, so that the relative debt load remained the same. In a worldwide economic contraction, that obviously is not happening.
The reason I mention the Euros should be patently obvious: that is the denomination of the debt.
There is another reason for mentioning the Euro: the European banks and countries holding the paper on all this debt are jammed up by this as well, for the simple reason that a default by Eastern Europe will unleash a banking crisis in Germany and Austria that will make the Anglo-American travails seem mild by comparison.
Guess that bring this little non-discussion to a close. Moving right along.....
It all comes back to this argument. PeteEU is arguing that because the nations that have Flat Tax are doing the worst, that Flat Tax must be the reason. Unfortunately for PeteEU, you can't just demonstrate correlation and imply causation. He needs to prove that the Flat Tax is the reason for those nations doing so poorly. Until he does that, all you need to say is "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc."
California cant elimate welfare. The Democrats voter base would dry up, along with the Mexican vote.
Although, it would be sweet poetic justice to hear Democrats have to come to terms with their ridiculous notion that the government can provide all aspects of daily life on the taxpayer's dime. For them to totally reject that, would be a day of revolution in this country.
80 years of welfare reform, down the tubes and finally admitted to being worthless and bad policy. That would be a sweet day.
If somehow this passed, I would wallow in the irony for months. California of all places. LOL
What's next? Illinois going to ban worker's unions?