• 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!

why do people think a flat tax is a good idea

JasperL said:
For businesses, that's a gross receipts tax, and it doesn't work very well. Low margin, high volume businesses like wholesalers, grocery stores, etc. get clobbered. So where they exist, there are different rates for those type businesses, which works like deductions in practice.

And at the individual level, people perceive it as unfair and it is in some ways. We don't have kids, but would pay the same tax as someone with 6 children. That's fair in some respects, but we have far more ability to pay than a couple who has to pay for healthcare, clothing, food, college and more for all those six kids. Similarly, if a family has to spend $100k on healthcare, most people would think it punitive for them to pay the same tax as a healthy 30 year old who spent $1,000.
Click to expand...

If you make more you end up paying more in the flat tax. Sales taxes are another matter. You could do away with them but you would have to make up for them in the increase of the flat tax. The idea that you can equal out everything on a dollar to dallar basis is upsurd. Those that are better off financially are going to have more. That's not unfair, its a result of a large number of factors, among them, education, work ethic and planning.
A flat tax would tax everyone the same percentage. That's fair because the more you make the more total you pay. A Fair tax is a sales tax and it would be harder on the poor since everything wold be tax at a higher amount, including food.
 
SkyChief said:
All of that explains perfectly why we have a progressive income tax. The progressive income tax was invented by communist economists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, I guess, but it's not true. England imposed a progressive income tax in 1798, a decade or more before either of those two were born. It was implemented then for the same reason we use one now - it's the wealthy who have the means to pay....

A Brief History of Progressive Taxation

This is true. Any cut in taxes MUST be accompanied with a cut in spending.

Last year (2019) the government took in $3.46 Trillion from tax revenues. They borrowed $1.23 Trillion. So they spent $4.69 Trillion to pay for everything.

The problem is that 66% of that $4.69 Trillion (over $3 Trillion) was redistributed in the form of entitlements, pensions, welfare, medicare, and interest on the debt.

US taxpayers were OVER-taxed in 2019 by $3 Trillion.

A flat tax could easily pay to sustain an essential government, i.e., gov't payroll, Courts, law enforcement, military and infrastructure.
Click to expand...

You might refer back to another economist, Keynes, who was a big fan of 'capitalism' but recognized that things like social safety nets are necessary to preserve the overall system. Otherwise, if the masses are hungry, they'll do like they've done many places and overthrow the 'capitalist' system for communism, socialism, etc.
 
JasperL said:
Sounds good, I guess, but it's not true. England imposed a progressive income tax in 1798, a decade or more before either of those two were born. It was implemented then for the same reason we use one now - it's the wealthy who have the means to pay....

A Brief History of Progressive Taxation



You might refer back to another economist, Keynes, who was a big fan of 'capitalism' but recognized that things like social safety nets are necessary to preserve the overall system. Otherwise, if the masses are hungry, they'll do like they've done many places and overthrow the 'capitalist' system for communism, socialism, etc.
Click to expand...

There are multiple tax plans that could work, the progressive income tax, the Flat tax, are both workable. The problem is how much to tax, what do we spend the tax dollars on and what kind of deductions, if any, do you allow. Tax business too much and you hurt the economy. Tax the rich too much and you eventually effect the economy. Striking a balance is difficult because everything is political these days and the nation is very divided on social issues and how to fund them.
 
Integrityrespec said:
If you make more you end up paying more in the flat tax. Sales taxes are another matter. You could do away with them but you would have to make up for them in the increase of the flat tax. The idea that you can equal out everything on a dollar to dallar basis is upsurd. Those that are better off financially are going to have more. That's not unfair, its a result of a large number of factors, among them, education, work ethic and planning.
Click to expand...

I didn't argue against any of those points...

A flat tax would tax everyone the same percentage. That's fair because the more you make the more total you pay. A Fair tax is a sales tax and it would be harder on the poor since everything wold be tax at a higher amount, including food.
Click to expand...

It's just how the math works that every single "flat" tax proposal I've seen lowers taxes for the wealthy, which means raising taxes on those not-wealthy. If you think the big problem in our society in 2020 is Buffett and Bezos pay too MUCH in taxes, that's a good outcome. But I don't think you'll get many takers in Congress for a tax cut for the wealthy offset with tax increases on the middle class.
 
Integrityrespec said:
There are multiple tax plans that could work, the progressive income tax, the Flat tax, are both workable. The problem is how much to tax, what do we spend the tax dollars on and what kind of deductions, if any, do you allow. Tax business too much and you hurt the economy. Tax the rich too much and you eventually effect the economy. Striking a balance is difficult because everything is political these days and the nation is very divided on social issues and how to fund them.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that, I just in general object to "flat taxes" because, again, in practice, what's proposed, they are ALWAYS massive tax cuts for the top sliver, and it's because all of them exempt capital gains and dividends. "Flat tax" is a bullhorn call to hold tight to your wallet and delve deep into the details, because you're about to be conned. That's my experience anyway.

Reagan's TRA 86 was sort of a "flat tax" but it taxed capital gains and dividends at the normal rate, which was a huge IMO benefit of that plan, and it eliminated lots of deductions while lowering rates. In principle I'd support something like that. The problem is as we've seen is very quickly, within a decade, the capital gains preference was back in the code, then dividend preferences, and the loopholes, etc...
 
JasperL said:
You might refer back to another economist, Keynes, who was a big fan of 'capitalism' but recognized that things like social safety nets are necessary to preserve the overall system. Otherwise, if the masses are hungry, they'll do like they've done many places and overthrow the 'capitalist' system for communism, socialism, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with Keynesian economics which is the economic model most popular today. Unfortunately, Keynes was wrong on nearly everything.

According to the Keynesian theory, the cutting of the structural budget deficit should have depressed the economy. But we know the exact opposite happened.

Keynes theorized that if the economy is in the doldrums, the government should "stimulate" things up by borrowing and spending. Of course we know this is idiotic. It's a recipe for disaster, and it's why the US has incurred such massive debt. In fact, our debt exceeds our GDP. Keynes probably thought that's a really good idea, but even most 8th-graders can figure out that this is unsustainable.

There are literally hundreds of articles that refute Keynes' economic theory - - - here's one: Keynes Was Wrong on Stimulus, but the Keynesians Are Wrong on Just about Everything | Cato @ Liberty
 
SkyChief said:
I'm familiar with Keynesian economics which is the economic model most popular today. Unfortunately, Keynes was wrong on nearly everything.
Click to expand...

Is it as extensive as your knowledge of Marx, who invented the progressive income tax before he was born?

According to the Keynesian theory, the cutting of the structural budget deficit should have depressed the economy. But we know the exact opposite happened.
Click to expand...

When did this happen? And Keynes would say to borrow during recession, and pay that down in expansion.

Keynes theorized that if the economy is in the doldrums, the government should "stimulate" things up by borrowing and spending. Of course we know this is idiotic. It's a recipe for disaster, and it's why the US has incurred such massive debt. In fact, our debt exceeds our GDP. Keynes probably thought that's a really good idea, but even most 8th-graders can figure out that this is unsustainable.

There are literally hundreds of articles that refute Keynes' economic theory - - - here's one: Keynes Was Wrong on Stimulus, but the Keynesians Are Wrong on Just about Everything | Cato @ Liberty
Click to expand...

The article doesn't actually provide evidence Keynes was wrong about....anything. They assert it as fact, but the alternative isn't tested, and we see no examples where "austerity" worked better, let alone in the Great Depression.

And you cannot talk informed about Keynes as if he had one economic theory. It's not even close to that simple. Even the libertarian types at Cato recognize in your article he got a lot right, way, way ahead of his time.
 
JasperL said:
And you cannot talk informed about Keynes as if he had one economic theory. It's not even close to that simple. Even the libertarian types at Cato recognize in your article he got a lot right, way, way ahead of his time.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
God only suggested a 10% tithe for the Temple. Just have everyone pay the government a flat 10% or 15% or 20% of what they make. If they don't make anything, they don't pay anything.
 
SkyChief said:
childish gif
Click to expand...

Right, tell us some more about your economic history chops, such as that Marx invented the progressive income tax decades before he was born. I liked that one.

You know nothing about Keynes or his economic theories. You're not even doing a good job of parroting Cato. But, for example, if you think Keynes' work can be summarized as ONE theory, describe it in your own words. Let's see how you do.
 
SkyChief said:
NO tax is better than a Flat Tax.

Before 1913, Tariffs and some usage Taxes were plenty to fund the federal government.

In 1848, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels advocated a heavy progressive tax as a means of despoiling the “bourgeoisie” and softening middleclass society up for the eventual dictatorshp of the proletariat. This was an important part their Communist Manifesto.

When President Wilson wanted to build his war chest, they passed the The Revenue Act of 1913 (aka the Underwood Tariff or the Underwood-Simmons Act), and Amended the Constitution which granted government the power to tax people's incomes "from whatever source derived" (16th Amendment).
Click to expand...

It was done in anticipations of the 18th Amendment since a large portion of revenue for the feds was in liquor taxation.
 
Moonglow said:
It was done in anticipations of the 18th Amendment since a large portion of revenue for the feds was in liquor taxation.
Click to expand...
Liquor Tax could have been a huge source of revenue for the feds.

They kind of shot themselves in the foot with the 18th Amendment which effectively guaranteed zero tax revenues from liquor sales.. So WHY??
 
Last edited:
memberya2 said:
When i hear people talk about a flat tax i dont get it, so your gonna tax poor people the same as rich people?
...
Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't talked to any intelligent, educated and sane people about this.

Do you remember when Mitt Romney said his secretary paid more in taxes than he did? Don't you see a problem with that?

Have you thought that maybe a flat tax would apply to all except those under a poverty line? That food and other essentials could be exempt?

Have you thought that the problem with the current tax code is that it's so large, so convoluted only the rich can afford to take advantage of it? So you and I pay our 28% and they pay nothing?

Have you thought that if the rich and corporations actually did pay 20% that our deficit and national debt would eventually go to zero?

No matter. Rest assured a flat tax will never happen because the rich and the corporations don't want it. So you win! LOL
 
Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, allowing the Federal government to tax ONLY the States in proportion to their population, and Congress members would be made more accountable to their constituents for the budgets they pass, which would result in their State governments to tax their population adequate to pay their share.
 
Helix said:
False. Some of us realize that the steering wheel can guide the car in different directions, and sometimes that direction isn't off the road hard right.
Click to expand...

Word salad.
 
JasperL said:
Huh, I didn't claim that. Weird how you invented a straw man to attack.
Click to expand...

Huh, I didn’t say you did. Weird how you invented a straw man to attack.


JasperL said:
That's nice you think there should be no taxes, but 5 seconds of reflection should reveal how that's unworkable.
Click to expand...

I’ve reflected far longer and still do not come to the same conclusion.

JasperL said:
And if government charges like a business, why not disband the government? Just privatize the whole thing, and society would be run by CEOs, our corporate overlords. Can't see a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Light. Down with rulers.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, well, that's fine. I don't have much interest in engaging that nonsense, so you can vote for people who promise that, and see how that works out for you. I suspect it won't work out AT ALL, but who knows. Give it a shot.
Click to expand...

I intend to, thanks. [emoji849]
 
Tbird19482 said:
and I never said you did,
I was suggesting the deductions
Just a personal deduction and nothing else and tax what ever is left at a set percentage
Have a nice day
Click to expand...

Deductions distort the tax and make it more complicated than necessary. They are no longer flat and there is no longer equality under the law.
 
My flat tax

First $30,000 untaxed

Everything over that taxed at.a rate that will balance the federal budget. Congress cuts spending your taxes go down. Raise spending taxes go up. Need a little extra to start paying down the debt.

No more payroll taxes. Everyone sits down quarterly and writes a check to the IRS.

All income earned and unearned taxed at the same rate. No more tax loopholes, writeoffs or any other way to avoid taxes.

I will add.more later
 
Aberration said:
Huh, I didn’t say you did. Weird how you invented a straw man to attack.

I’ve reflected far longer and still do not come to the same conclusion.

Welcome to the Light. Down with rulers.
Click to expand...

Disbanding government doesn't do away with "rulers." It just changes them from those who at least occasionally respond to voters, to those who are never accountable to voters or the people. It's a step backwards.
 
SkyChief said:
Liquor Tax could have been a huge source of revenue for the feds.

They kind of shot themselves in the foot with the 18th Amendment which effectively guaranteed zero tax revenues from liquor sales.. So WHY??
Click to expand...

They were thinking of the moral implications and the money saved by not having to deal with drunken sots..Yet one could get a prescription from a doctor for booze and almost everyone in the family had one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom