• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:

  • Total voters
    133
washunut said:
A flat tax can be shaped sp that it is not regressive. For example raising the cut-in on taxes. So for the first 30k, no tax. Also if you roll in payroll taxes which are the most regressive parts of our taxes that would actually make a flat tax more progressive.
Click to expand...

Then it's not a flat tax.

Duh.

It's graduated, and hence regressive, since by "regressive" I mean unamerican.
 
Catawba said:
I've not seen it in my lifetime. The trickle did not make it down to the middle class my friend. [/qutoe]

Of course it didn't.

No one in the middle class was employed while Reagan was president. The only jobs he created were on Wall Street.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online
Click to expand...


When Warren Buffet follows the lead of Tolstoy, he'll become someone who should be listened to on how vast wealth should be treated.

But, other than that, what he was saying was not that he was taxed too little, but that he either didn't pay his secretaries enough, or they were taxed too much.

Given that Buffet is very successful and no punitive taxations on success can touch him now, why are you be slavishly following his words on how the want-to-be successfuls should be punished?

But again, his words mean nothing until he follows Tolstoy.
 
Catawba said:
Not sure what you mean by roll in payroll taxes? Not enough detail here to tell if your idea could generate the same revenue as our current system without shifting more of the burden from the wealthy to the middle class.
Click to expand...

Payroll taxes are largely social security and unemployment taxes. Both of these taxes start at the first dollar of income and then max out at different levels.

I am not sure about the exact numbers these days. The big one is social security. The tax rate is something like 7.5% and it taxes income between 0-90K. So people over the limit stop paying the tax.

These are what is called regressive taxes as they tax people who earn less more as a % of their income.

So using the numbers above as an example, if someone makes the average income of lets say 45K per year their social security tax rate is 7.5% while if their income is 180K or 4x the average the social security tax rate is 3.75%.

Hope that helps.
 
washunut said:
Payroll taxes are largely social security and unemployment taxes. Both of these taxes start at the first dollar of income and then max out at different levels.

I am not sure about the exact numbers these days. The big one is social security. The tax rate is something like 7.5% and it taxes income between 0-90K. So people over the limit stop paying the tax.

These are what is called regressive taxes as they tax people who earn less more as a % of their income.

So using the numbers above as an example, if someone makes the average income of lets say 45K per year their social security tax rate is 7.5% while if their income is 180K or 4x the average the social security tax rate is 3.75%.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

You make a good point.

I remain a strong advocate of gradually shifting social security out of the Federal government--it would have to be as gradual as it has grown into an unsustainable entitlement to avoid causing untold suffering and to avoid breaking faith with those entitled to receive it. And the unequal and oppressive taxation that will be necessary to sustain it simply cannot be justified in a nation founded on principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Still, if the wealthy cannot collect the same percentage of what they contribute to social security as anybody else, they shouldn't be required to pay more than anybody else.

If the wealthy are to be 'punished' for their success at all, then do it at the deduction end. Put a cap on how much of a single salary and benefits can be deducted as a business expense. That would be neither unequal or manipulative.

In a way, a graduated tax system is also equal when applied without prejudice across the board. The problem with the current tax system is that almost half of working Americans don't pay any federal income tax at all. It is a dangerous situation and entirely corrupting to the system when almost half of the voters bear no consequence for their vote. They will almost certainly keep voting in the people who will continue to give them a free ride while punishing the productive for their success.

A flat tax is the only fair and uncorrupting and non regressive form of taxation that will truly simplify the process and take the politics out of it.

A national sales tax won't.
 
Catawba said:
I've not seen it in my lifetime. The trickle did not make it down to the middle class my friend.
Click to expand...

Of course it did. Since 1973 the wealth of the middle class has grown 29%.
 
washunut said:
Payroll taxes are largely social security and unemployment taxes. Both of these taxes start at the first dollar of income and then max out at different levels.

I am not sure about the exact numbers these days. The big one is social security. The tax rate is something like 7.5% and it taxes income between 0-90K. So people over the limit stop paying the tax.

These are what is called regressive taxes as they tax people who earn less more as a % of their income.

So using the numbers above as an example, if someone makes the average income of lets say 45K per year their social security tax rate is 7.5% while if their income is 180K or 4x the average the social security tax rate is 3.75%.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Numbers are not included to show if it would generate the same revenue as our current tax system.
 
Catawba said:
Numbers are not included to show if it would generate the same revenue as our current tax system.
Click to expand...

I did not drop in numbers as there are a number of variables that would be tweaked in this type of system. The variables would include the tax rate used, the amount of deductible income before the first dollar of taxes are incurred if there is one. Assumptions on which part of the economy and workforce will show the greatest amount of growth etc. A rate will be proposed and the CBO will score if it indeed gets us to the same amount of revenue.
 
reefedjib said:
Of course it did. Since 1973 the wealth of the middle class has grown 29%.
Click to expand...

"Legislative policies authored by and for the super-rich have, over the last 25 years, led to the systematic transfer of tax burden off the richest 5% onto working people."
It’s growing: the gap between rich and poor

The gap may be growin...
Click to expand...

Exactly~

"But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth — and they know it."
Paul Krugman on the Great Wealth Transfer : Rolling Stone
 
Catawba said:
Numbers are not included to show if it would generate the same revenue as our current tax system.
Click to expand...

Well, while it would be necessary to have those numbers to crunch before anybody signed off on a new system, let's go with the theory that we want this to include sufficient reform that we won't NEED the same revenue that our current tax system produces. Let's go for a smaller, more efficient, more effective, less corrupt government who moves as much to the private sector as possible and focuses on those things that government can do that actually do constructively serve the people.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well, while it would be necessary to have those numbers to crunch before anybody signed off on a new system, let's go with the theory that we want this to include sufficient reform that we won't NEED the same revenue that our current tax system produces. Let's go for a smaller, more efficient, more effective, less corrupt government who moves as much to the private sector as possible and focuses on those things that government can do that actually do constructively serve the people.
Click to expand...

Your point has to do with spending. The fair tax people seem to think they are fooling the country that they just want a tax system that more fairly assesses taxes, when in fact it would shift more of the burden from the wealthy to the middle class.

If your issue is spending, I suggest you get a movement together to cut government spending instead of this backdoor scam approach of tax revision that most of us can see right through.
 
Catawba said:
"Legislative policies authored by and for the super-rich have, over the last 25 years, led to the systematic transfer of tax burden off the richest 5% onto working people."
It’s growing: the gap between rich and poor



Exactly~

"But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth — and they know it."
Paul Krugman on the Great Wealth Transfer : Rolling Stone
Click to expand...

And both those quotes are complete and utter lies, as demonstrated a dozen times through this thread by the actual numbers.
 
RightinNYC said:
And both those quotes are complete and utter lies, as demonstrated a dozen times through this thread by the actual numbers.
Click to expand...

You are of course entitled to your opinion. Where is the popular support for a consumption tax?

It would appear that I'm not the only one not buying it.
 
Catawba said:
You are of course entitled to your opinion. Where is the popular support for a consumption tax?

It would appear that I'm not the only one not buying it.
Click to expand...

It's not an "opinion," it's a fact. I provided you with the hard numbers from the Tax Foundation. Your quotes are false.

Furthermore, can you show me where I've advocated for the fair tax?
 
RightinNYC said:
It's not an "opinion," it's a fact. I provided you with the hard numbers from the Tax Foundation. Your quotes are false.
Click to expand...

It is your opinion that your numbers are more correct than mine.

Furthermore, can you show me where I've advocated for the fair tax?
Click to expand...

Not advocating for the fair tax is an admiral position to take! My hat is off to you!
 
Catawba said:
It is your opinion that your numbers are more correct than mine.
Click to expand...

No, I provided you with the actual hard numbers. You provided two quotes from political pundits and think that somehow translates into facts.
 
 
 
Catawba said:
"Legislative policies authored by and for the super-rich have, over the last 25 years, led to the systematic transfer of tax burden off the richest 5% onto working people."
It’s growing: the gap between rich and poor



Exactly~

"But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth — and they know it."
Paul Krugman on the Great Wealth Transfer : Rolling Stone
Click to expand...

I do not see anything in the Bush tax cuts that increased taxes on the middle class. They seemed to lower the taxes on the highest earners but did not shift taxes. Depending on whom you want to believe the cuts probably just added to the debt ( which is not good)
 
washunut said:
I do not see anything in the Bush tax cuts that increased taxes on the middle class. They seemed to lower the taxes on the highest earners but did not shift taxes. Depending on whom you want to believe the cuts probably just added to the debt ( which is not good)
Click to expand...

Initially they added to the debt, but the purpose of the tax cuts is to stimulate growth and the growth of the economy that occurred in the 2000s translates into a growth in tax receipts. So while each individual pays less on the dollar, there are more dollars, so taxes collected goes up and it does not add to the debt.
 
reefedjib said:
Initially they added to the debt, but the purpose of the tax cuts is to stimulate growth and the growth of the economy that occurred in the 2000s translates into a growth in tax receipts. So while each individual pays less on the dollar, there are more dollars, so taxes collected goes up and it does not add to the debt.
Click to expand...

Exactly, although the Bush tax cuts were tiny compared to Kennedy's and Reagan's--when income taxes were cut for everyone and it resulted in a huge boom in the economy, so in the end, government ended up taking in more money since the tax cuts help create more jobs (more tax payers), and many people's incomes rose and businesses expanded. It was a win-win for the people in the private sector and the government.
 
Porchev said:
Exactly, although the Bush tax cuts were tiny compared to Kennedy's and Reagan's--when income taxes were cut for everyone and it resulted in a huge boom in the economy, so in the end, government ended up taking in more money since the tax cuts help create more jobs (more tax payers), and many people's incomes rose and businesses expanded. It was a win-win for the people in the private sector and the government.
Click to expand...

Beyond the tax cuts being larger under Kennedy and Reagan, it is important to remember that the tax cuts in the past reduced the top income tax burdon from the insane levels of 80 and 60% to the more manageable levels we had under Clinton of almost 40%.

I see it that while Kennedy and Reagan cut the income tax from their insane levels put in place by Hoover (when he tried to ballance the budget after the Great Depression started) while Bush's tax cuts were a cut in an income tax that didn't need to be reduced any more.

not to mention that we needed that surplus to shore up the budget, even before Bush's increased spending.


and the whole idea about tax cuts always decreasing the debt to GDP ratio is false, because the debt to GDP in this country increases since Reagan cut taxes. Even thought the economy was helped, you can't claim that it helped reduce debt, even in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Eh. All of the options other then cookies suck.

The current system is way to complicated to be viable in the long run.

A flat tax removes many useful methods of stimulating the economy and is regressive.

A national sales tax is completely ridiculous in actual application. We'd need millions of auditors to ensure that companies are actually paying their sale tax. States can't even get accurate sale tax from their vendors. Thinking that we could do it nationally is certifiably insane. Anyone who thinks we could have an honest, accurate and viable national sale tax has never, ever worked in the private sector.
 
obvious Child said:
Eh. All of the options other then cookies suck.

The current system is way to complicated to be viable in the long run.

A flat tax removes many useful methods of stimulating the economy and is regressive.

A national sales tax is completely ridiculous in actual application. We'd need millions of auditors to ensure that companies are actually paying their sale tax. States can't even get accurate sale tax from their vendors. Thinking that we could do it nationally is certifiably insane. Anyone who thinks we could have an honest, accurate and viable national sale tax has never, ever worked in the private sector.
Click to expand...

I agree that the sales tax would be ridiculously complex, would not simplify the system in the least, and would likely swell the bureaucracy that we already have. And, as previously stated, it is far more regressive than any other proposed system.

While I agree that the flat tax would remove ability to use taxes for economic stimulus, and I continue to think about that, it would also remove ability of politicians to use taxes to manipulate votes.

I can't see how it would be the least bit regressive, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom