View Poll Results: Should there be a "Flat Tax"?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    28 56.00%
  • No.

    19 38.00%
  • Other.

    3 6.00%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62

Thread: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
    Goodness no! Certainly not. We're not a group of strangers all out for ourselves. We're a team that plays fair.

    The poor shouldn't pay any taxes because they get no benefit of being a citizen. They could just get by in any country.
    Nothing fair about stealing a larger portion of a man's money because he has more.

    Nothing fair about demonizing wealth or those who create it. This nonsense has gone too far. If the completely immature and unrealistic goal of socialism is acheived and everyone is equally poor, who will be signing the paychecks?

    No one.

    The people starve.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Go back and read your post. The pirate bit is YOUR metaphor - so I am implying nothing of the kind.
    You laid the plank in place, eventually it becomes your turn to walk it. You should try studying the history of nations that embrace the idiocy of socialism. The rank and file starve.

    You're rank and file, buddy.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Under the FairTax legislation that function is provided by the state governments; who recieve a small percent to cover expenses.
    The NATION has Constitutional imperatives that must be complied with. While it could be possible to implement a system whereby the states are required to collect taxes from their people determined by, perhaps a per capita measure of expenses, without federal regard to how those taxes are collected, this system would be more like tribute than taxation as it is generally understood.

    No. Put the federal government back in the Constitutional bottle and see if a general national sales tax could cover the burden without undue harm. After all, the budget would be 90% smaller than it is today. Spreading a $400B annual budget through a national sales tax isn't unfeasible, and the computation for sales taxes in the states is a simple one page form, compiled by businesses. The Mayor's experience is that it takes ten minutes to fill out.

    And one specifies a National Sales Tax, written into an amendent that supercedes and removes the Sixteenth's permission to tax incomes, because the old idea of tarifs is blatantly protectionist and the American conumser is harmed by protectionism.

    Oh, and use of a single agency to collect revenues from the single (and vastly simplified) federal tax code is more efficient, and has a clear chain of command, than attempting to coordinate the actions of the fifty states.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,092

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    You laid the plank in place, eventually it becomes your turn to walk it. You should try studying the history of nations that embrace the idiocy of socialism. The rank and file starve.

    You're rank and file, buddy.
    An intentional distortion of my post to produce a twisted metaphor does not serve anyone or advance the discussion.
    Lame attempts at humor normally detract from your point rather than help make it.
    But you can go ahead and try to be witty with such efforts - its still a free country - for a while.
    Every effort to democratize society and improve life for people is NOT socialism and that is just a red herring.
    Reasonable people can discuss such matters without resorting to distortion or strawmen.
    The plank that is being walked is being prepared for the middle and working classes by greedy monied interests.
    Last edited by haymarket; 04-20-11 at 08:30 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    So I've read what I wrote at least a dozen times and cannot find where I claim that the lowest tax brackets will "jump for joy and rush out and work harder when they're given the opportunity to pay taxes on what they earned."
    perhaps you should read the Mayor's post, then, since the Mayor kindly quoted your statement which said that raising taxes on the poor will encourage them to work more.

    It's right there. You said it, not the Mayor.

    And yes, I frequently wonder why people don't work harder now... but not for the implied reason you're getting at. The answer seems obvious: because they don't have to in order to maintain their required lifestyle.
    Well, that's true enough. Their preference for a particular lifestyle is limited by the fact that working 168 hours a week to sustain that lifestyle doesn't actually leave them with any time left to live it. And people working sixty hours a week certainly feel that their lifestyle is sufficient once all the taxes have been paid and they can afford a couple of Hershey bars to show they really know how to live the life.

    Actually, people earning the bottom tier wages aren't living the lifestyle anyone wants. They're living in 'hoods that have hoods in them, their children are going to piss-poor public unionized schools, and they're on the edge of poverty without a large bank about to cushion blows from incompetents like Obama stalling the economy. They can't work all they want to, especially not with more than 10% unemployment and millions of jobs taken by illegal invaders secure in the knowledge the government won't send them home. There's no jobs to be had at their skill level.

    Many of the lower middle class can't work harder because there's no work to be had. Obama is also driving the economy into it's long expected double-dip recession, that's going to make everything worse for them.

    Work is reward based. If the work/reward ratio isn't worth it, then you won't work the extra 15 hours/week in order to have extra luxuries.
    Really? You mean when the government taxes the higher earnings at a higher rate so you don't see a linear increase in take home wages with those extra hours there comes a point where the worker decides he's wasting his time?

    But you do require a nominal amount of income to live on and if that's all you intend to work for, as many do, then a flat tax will in essence give you a pay cut to a point below your necessary standard of living, since they were already achieving the minimum necessary. And so they will not work more out of the fun of taxes, but out of necessity.
    Oh, gee. You mean if the people who aren't paying taxes now are required to start paying their fair share they might have to turn in their cell phone, turn off their cable TV, buy K-mart sneakers instead of Converse (the Mayor is giving away his age here), and decide to fix the old car instead of buying or leasing another? They might have to find a place to live that's less expensive?

    You people don't care about any of that.

    What you care about is the following consequence of spreading the pain evenly:

    People who pay taxes pay attention to what their money is spent on. Expanding the pool of taxpayers expands the number of people who will become seriously pissed off at the socialists and liberals in all political parties who can never find anything to cut from a budget.



    The basis for my argument is that the person who never achieved a rank higher than burger-flipper at a fast-food chain was because of the extra effort vs extra reward wasn't worth it for them. Not that they weren't able. I'm not saying this was wrong of them; to each their own. I'm just saying that they ought to be paying taxes too.
    Hello?

    Your argument was that if they paid taxes they'd work harder. Which is arrant nonsense.

    A burger flipper that never advances is an idiot living in his mother's basement or his car. He's taking in money from the government in the form of various unconstitutional assistence programs, and raking in that EITC scam when he files his taxes.

    By being an under achiever, he deserves to be forced to pay a proportionate share of the cost of governmet, as all citizens should. But a useless turd like that never works harder.

    But the lower middle class isn't exemplified by this fine example of the success of public education you've provided. No, most of the lower middle class are working hard trying to get ahead, and it's just the nature of human society, as imposed by laws of nature and economics, which are expressions of nature's law, that there's more people on the bottom than on the top.

    If you want to debate me, please do so based on what I'm actually saying.
    As was made perfectly clear, the Mayor was indeed responding to what you actually said.

    Just in case you're unfamiliar with the concept, words mean things, and the people reading your words aren't to be faulted for assuming the meanin conveyed by the words you post are the meanings you understand them to be.

    So put more effort into saying what you mean.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    An intentional distortion of my post to produce a twisted metaphor does not serve anyone or advance the discussion.
    You made a bad metaphor.

    The Mayor improved it.

    Your whining is amusing, but useless.

  7. #47
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    The NATION has Constitutional imperatives that must be complied with. While it could be possible to implement a system whereby the states are required to collect taxes from their people determined by, perhaps a per capita measure of expenses, without federal regard to how those taxes are collected, this system would be more like tribute than taxation as it is generally understood.

    No. Put the federal government back in the Constitutional bottle and see if a general national sales tax could cover the burden without undue harm. After all, the budget would be 90% smaller than it is today.
    actually the Fair Tax is revenue neutral.

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,092

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    actually the Fair Tax is revenue neutral.
    Every time this allegation if foisted in the debate I ask the same question and it is never answered:

    If the Fair Tax is revenue neutral, and if the Fair Tax will seriously reduce taxes upon the rich, who is it that pays more to make up for those revenues?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #49
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    perhaps you should read the Mayor's post, then, since the Mayor kindly quoted your statement which said that raising taxes on the poor will encourage them to work more.

    It's right there. You said it, not the Mayor.



    Well, that's true enough. Their preference for a particular lifestyle is limited by the fact that working 168 hours a week to sustain that lifestyle doesn't actually leave them with any time left to live it. And people working sixty hours a week certainly feel that their lifestyle is sufficient once all the taxes have been paid and they can afford a couple of Hershey bars to show they really know how to live the life.

    Actually, people earning the bottom tier wages aren't living the lifestyle anyone wants. They're living in 'hoods that have hoods in them, their children are going to piss-poor public unionized schools, and they're on the edge of poverty without a large bank about to cushion blows from incompetents like Obama stalling the economy. They can't work all they want to, especially not with more than 10% unemployment and millions of jobs taken by illegal invaders secure in the knowledge the government won't send them home. There's no jobs to be had at their skill level.

    Many of the lower middle class can't work harder because there's no work to be had. Obama is also driving the economy into it's long expected double-dip recession, that's going to make everything worse for them.



    Really? You mean when the government taxes the higher earnings at a higher rate so you don't see a linear increase in take home wages with those extra hours there comes a point where the worker decides he's wasting his time?



    Oh, gee. You mean if the people who aren't paying taxes now are required to start paying their fair share they might have to turn in their cell phone, turn off their cable TV, buy K-mart sneakers instead of Converse (the Mayor is giving away his age here), and decide to fix the old car instead of buying or leasing another? They might have to find a place to live that's less expensive?

    You people don't care about any of that.

    What you care about is the following consequence of spreading the pain evenly:

    People who pay taxes pay attention to what their money is spent on. Expanding the pool of taxpayers expands the number of people who will become seriously pissed off at the socialists and liberals in all political parties who can never find anything to cut from a budget.





    Hello?

    Your argument was that if they paid taxes they'd work harder. Which is arrant nonsense.

    A burger flipper that never advances is an idiot living in his mother's basement or his car. He's taking in money from the government in the form of various unconstitutional assistence programs, and raking in that EITC scam when he files his taxes.

    By being an under achiever, he deserves to be forced to pay a proportionate share of the cost of governmet, as all citizens should. But a useless turd like that never works harder.

    But the lower middle class isn't exemplified by this fine example of the success of public education you've provided. No, most of the lower middle class are working hard trying to get ahead, and it's just the nature of human society, as imposed by laws of nature and economics, which are expressions of nature's law, that there's more people on the bottom than on the top.



    As was made perfectly clear, the Mayor was indeed responding to what you actually said.

    Just in case you're unfamiliar with the concept, words mean things, and the people reading your words aren't to be faulted for assuming the meanin conveyed by the words you post are the meanings you understand them to be.

    So put more effort into saying what you mean.
    I will not spend anymore of my time re-clarifying the extreme interpretation you're implying through my words. It's clear you understand my points, but you go off on tangents about an argument that I never said. When I argued people will work harder, i was based on the fact that they aren't working nearly as hard as they could be and/or need to be, as I explained - not because they'll have an opportunity to be taxed. My argument that the poor will work more if taxed is not saying they will jump up and down for joy at the opportunity of being taxed.

    Do you see what I'm saying? I'm speaking very directly. You're not for the most part - though you were able to define a couple of primary difference in our arguments through all of your... "arguments":

    "But the lower middle class isn't exemplified by this fine example of the success of public education you've provided. No, most of the lower middle class are working hard trying to get ahead, and it's just the nature of human society, as imposed by laws of nature and economics, which are expressions of nature's law, that there's more people on the bottom than on the top."

    See - if you argue your points rather than try to tear up my points with false interpretations, we can have a reasonable debate. I know, it means you'll have to get off that pedastal, but I'll tell you what, if you get down, I'll get down. Then we can start the low blows. :-P

    Those in that 'middle class' range that are struggling are already in the 15% tax bracket. Their tax bracket will NOT change. So how will this affect them? Well, the rich will be paying less taxes... so what are they going to do with that money? They'll spend it! spending it means more production. They need to hire more people to produce more. They have the extra cash, and so with dollar signs in their eyes, they'll expand their business taking advantage of the low real estate market. There are so many opportunities with a flat tax and my true concern is the majority of the population. As to your accusation that 'we people don't care', know this: I'm in the middle range of the 15% tax bracket with one child. I have a bucket-load of student loans and work long hours to achieve that pathetic status. I'm not looking for a flat tax to lower my own bracket. But I do think EVERYONE should pay some taxes and I know that if my small business owner boss had more money, I may just get that extra bonus mid-year that we have been getting the past 4 years.

    I would be in favor of a temporarily reduced bracket of say, 5% for those below the poverty line. But ideally in the long run, a flat tax should be our goal. Those that are in a 'hood within a hood' would be taxed, yes. That's going to hurt, yes. But the way we help them isn't by letting them live in the US for free. We help them by significantly increasing law enforcement while providing better educations. The solutions to those problem are a completely different debate. Arguing against a flat tax on these people's behalf is arguing to fix a symptom, no money, of the problem of no skill set/education/lack of law enforcement.

    And lastly: regarding your accusation that this is 'our' goal:

    "People who pay taxes pay attention to what their money is spent on. Expanding the pool of taxpayers expands the number of people who will become seriously pissed off at the socialists and liberals in all political parties who can never find anything to cut from a budget."

    This is not my goal, but I don't deny it is an inevitable result. And the fact that it would be the result should show the corruption in the system! You're admitting that those who have to pay the government's bill would become (I assume you mean 'reasonably so') pissed off at the current spending initiatives.

    I suppose in a backwards way, it is similar to my goal. But I look at it from the other side. If those people AREN'T paying into the system, but have an equal say as to how my tax dollars are spent, then what's from stopping more people joining 'those' numbers? And they have. The percent of wage earners not paying taxes IS increasing. And so you end up with a majority making decisions for the minority's working dollars. Why is it wrong to ask that we're all responsible for a piece of that responsibility?

    But this isnít the same as of what youíre accusing me. If everyone is paying for the bill and then we all vote for health care reform and it passes with a majority, so be it. Iíll still argue against it, but at least Iíll know those voting for what I believe to be an inefficient process are the same people that will be helping to pay for it.

    Iím not trying to gain numbers via a flat tax. Iím trying to make those people who think theyíre benefiting also have to help pay for the socialist movements. I call it paying (at least partially) for what you're receiving. You call it 'spreading the pain'.
    Last edited by fredmertz; 04-20-11 at 11:51 AM.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Should ther be a "Flat Tax"?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Every time this allegation if foisted in the debate I ask the same question and it is never answered:

    If the Fair Tax is revenue neutral, and if the Fair Tax will seriously reduce taxes upon the rich, who is it that pays more to make up for those revenues?
    Well, hopefully the free loaders not currently paying their fair share.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •