• 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!

Flat tax or progressive tax? Which do you prefer?

Would you support a flat tax system instead of our current progressive one?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • No

    Votes: 18 56.3%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Total voters
    32
I actually wish you did. I really do. But you have completely skipped the point of what was posted.

Not at all, 47% of the income earners pay no Federal Income Taxes, the rich are paying a larger dollar amount and higher percentage of the taxes than before the Bush tax cuts, and the lower income wage earners are paying less in taxes. If you want more govt. revenue implement the flat tax so everyone is paying something and put 16 million Americans back to work.
 
Not at all, 47% of the income earners pay no Federal Income Taxes, the rich are paying a larger dollar amount and higher percentage of the taxes than before the Bush tax cuts, and the lower income wage earners are paying less in taxes. If you want more govt. revenue implement the flat tax so everyone is paying something and put 16 million Americans back to work.

I repeat:

. . . 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
 
I repeat:

. . . 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

I got my information from the IRS. Apparently you believe the NY Times is more accurate.
 
You didn't get any information that disputes this.

My argument all along has been FEDERAL INCOME TAXES as all the other taxes mentioned are use taxes, Medicare, SS for example. Those come back to the taxpayer whereas Federal income taxes fund the govt. and services that 47% of the people use but don't pay for. Your article acknowledges that 47% don't pay and FEDERAL INCOME TAXES and the issue never was about the other taxes they do pay.
 
Progressive taxation is needed for 2 primary reasons
1) Lower income people spend a far higher proportion of the money on consumer spending, which is the primary driver of our economy.
2) Lower income people tend to spend most of their money on basic needs and lowering their income would have a significant impact on social stability.

Fairness, in either income earned or taxation is a pipe dream. With an all-so fair flat tax, it still runs into issues with how to treat capital gains, inheritance, and income earned overseas.
an opinion i disagree with. a consumption tax is even better but the main evil is allowing politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising the wealth of the rich

none of the tax hike advocates want to address that

because it is undeniable that is how the left gets lots of votes
 
Not true, the govenment protects the wealthy far more that they protect the poor.

MOre complete crap--check any city or county's law enforcement logs and see where most of the calls come from and most of the emergency runs go to. 75% of those murdered are people with felony records-guess what income class most of those are. This is one of the biggest myths going. The poor use far more police and they clog up the jails far more

I live in a wealthy area-we have had one murder in a couple years-it is a major event (mainly because the guy is being tried for the third time) Over the rhine area of cincinnati (poor appalachinans and blacks) had 100 murders in less than 2 years.

the wealthy are far more mobile than the middle class and the poor.
 
That's because 47% of the income earners earn essentially nothing as a proportion of national income.



High income earners are paying more under the Bush tax cuts? How do you figure? The top rate was 39.6% in 2000, and it's now 35%. :confused:



To which loopholes are you referring?

more nonsense-the bottom 47% earn far more than 0 percent of the income. and they sure use alot more than 0% of the services the income taxes pay for.
 
Except YOU literally do this.


Oh the irony...

can someone explain to me what he is braying about-I was bashing affirmative action, how does that contradict his claims about the rich having to pay more because they get more.
 
I'm in favor of a more progressive tax than we currently have. No one is an island of productivity, totally unreliant on others. Have you made no use of public services such as roads and other infrastructure in making your money? Did you invent all the technology used to produce your product or service? Did you create the trade routes that make one location more productive than another? What gives you the right to keep all this wealth which is not a result of your own labor? If you think you earned it all on your own go to Afghanistan and work your magic.

The reality is that a welfare state has to exist in order to keep a degree of social order in tact. Without throwing a minimal amount of money at those who are down on their luck, a door is left open for robberies, murder, assault and other personal crimes because of a exceeding amount of social strain in those populations.

Also the percentage of total income total taxes paid (FICA, Fed. income, state income, property, capital gains, sales taxes, etc.) by the wealthy is less than total taxes paid, as a percentage of income, by the middle class.
 
Last edited:
If an income tax has to exist at all (it should be abolished) a progressive tax would be better than a flat poll tax. A poll tax just punishes the poor and middle class.
 
I'm in favor of a more progressive tax than we currently have. No one is an island of productivity, totally unreliant on others. Have you made no use of public services such as roads and other infrastructure in making your money? Did you invent all the technology used to produce your product or service? Did you create the trade routes that make one location more productive than another? What gives you the right to keep all this wealth which is not a result of your own labor? If you think you earned it all on your own go to Afghanistan and work your magic.

The reality is that a welfare state has to exist in order to keep a degree of social order in tact. Without throwing a minimal amount of money at those who are down on their luck, a door is left open for robberies, murder, assault and other personal crimes because of a exceeding amount of social strain in those populations.

Also the percentage of total income total taxes paid (FICA, Fed. income, state income, property, capital gains, sales taxes, etc.) by the wealthy is less than total taxes paid, as a percentage of income, by the middle class.

How much do you pay yearly in Federal Income Taxes? It normally is easy to support higher taxes if you are one of the 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes.

Far too many really don't have a clue as to the present tax structure we have and where that money is supposed to go. Your argument is one that I hear a lot from people who really don't understand our taxes and the difference between Federal Income taxes and use taxes like FICA, Excise Taxes, and property taxes. To some it is all the same and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Right now 47% of the American workers do not pay any Federal Income taxes. They do pay FICA taxes which is Social Security and Medicare. Are you proposing that we should eliminate those taxes as well? Property taxes are local taxes and not Federal going to the schools. Excise taxes are the taxes paid when you buy gasoline and go to the infrastructure such as roads and bridges. Those taxes shouldn't be going into the general fund but do thanks to the Democrats who put those funds on budget back in the late 60's.


If you truly care about govt. revenue how much extra are you sending each year to the govt. as there is nothing preventing you from doing that?
 
I don't support a completely flat tax, since it would really hurt people who are living near the poverty line.

The best solution in my opinion is a flat tax on income above a certain amount.

For example, if the the poverty level for a family of 4 is $30,000/year and the tax rate is 10%, then there would be a flat tax of 10% on any income a family of 4 made over about 35,000 per year. If you make 40 grand a year, you pay $500 in income tax. If you make 135 grand a year, you pay 10,000 in income tax.

It's simple, it's fair, and it's just progressive enough that it doesn't hurt the people who are barely getting by as it is.
 
I don't support a completely flat tax, since it would really hurt people who are living near the poverty line.

The best solution in my opinion is a flat tax on income above a certain amount.

For example, if the the poverty level for a family of 4 is $30,000/year and the tax rate is 10%, then there would be a flat tax of 10% on any income a family of 4 made over about 35,000 per year. If you make 40 grand a year, you pay $500 in income tax. If you make 135 grand a year, you pay 10,000 in income tax.

It's simple, it's fair, and it's just progressive enough that it doesn't hurt the people who are barely getting by as it is.

thank you, you are the first person to actually provide a common sense answer to the questions raised. That makes sense to me.
 
If an income tax has to exist at all (it should be abolished) a progressive tax would be better than a flat poll tax. A poll tax just punishes the poor and middle class.

What really is punishing the poor and the middle class is the total irresponsibility shown by politicians in D.C. on both sides. Our Founders never envisioned a 3.8 trillion dollar bloated Federal govt. riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse. Our Founders understand that power corrupts and that is why they put the power with the people at the state level. They wanted a small central govt. and it is amazing to me that far too many Americans continue to buy the rhetoric and support all the spending that Congress generates not realizing that it is being done by a bureaucrat in D.C. yet designed to help people hundreds or thousands of miles away. Much of what Congress spends should be a state and local issue not a Federal Taxpayer issue. If taxpayers appropriated money for exactly what our Founders envisioned we would have a budget of less than 2 trillion instead of 3.8 trillion and growing.
 
What really is punishing the poor and the middle class is the total irresponsibility shown by politicians in D.C. on both sides. Our Founders never envisioned a 3.8 trillion dollar bloated Federal govt. riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse. Our Founders understand that power corrupts and that is why they put the power with the people at the state level. They wanted a small central govt. and it is amazing to me that far too many Americans continue to buy the rhetoric and support all the spending that Congress generates not realizing that it is being done by a bureaucrat in D.C. yet designed to help people hundreds or thousands of miles away. Much of what Congress spends should be a state and local issue not a Federal Taxpayer issue. If taxpayers appropriated money for exactly what our Founders envisioned we would have a budget of less than 2 trillion instead of 3.8 trillion and growing.

Do you have any figures I can see to back that up? Don't really care, just wondering.
 

No...

If taxpayers appropriated money for exactly what our Founders envisioned we would have a budget of less than 2 trillion instead of 3.8 trillion and growing.

How do you get the 2 trillion figuring what the founders intended.

Either it is a guess, or you based it on some kind of comparative statistic that can be verified. Before I comment on your response to me, I want to see if it is fact or fiction and reply accordingly.
 
No...



How do you get the 2 trillion figuring what the founders intended.

Either it is a guess, or you based it on some kind of comparative statistic that can be verified. Before I comment on your response to me, I want to see if it is fact or fiction and reply accordingly.

Take the Budget of the U.S. the link I gave you that shows line items and then plug in the items that our Constitution requires from our Govt, defense, small central govt. expense, debt service, V.A. affairs and see what you come up with?


From the Budget, this is what I come up with as categories that should be funded by Federal Income Taxes

Defense 662.8
Gen. Science, Space 29.9
Commerce 292.5
Transportation 84.4
Health 334.3
Veterans Benefits 95.5
Justice 53.4
General Govt. 118
Net Interest 190.9


Total 1861.7
 
Last edited:
I'm in favor of a more progressive tax than we currently have. No one is an island of productivity, totally unreliant on others. Have you made no use of public services such as roads and other infrastructure in making your money? Did you invent all the technology used to produce your product or service? Did you create the trade routes that make one location more productive than another? What gives you the right to keep all this wealth which is not a result of your own labor? If you think you earned it all on your own go to Afghanistan and work your magic.

The reality is that a welfare state has to exist in order to keep a degree of social order in tact. Without throwing a minimal amount of money at those who are down on their luck, a door is left open for robberies, murder, assault and other personal crimes because of a exceeding amount of social strain in those populations.

Also the percentage of total income total taxes paid (FICA, Fed. income, state income, property, capital gains, sales taxes, etc.) by the wealthy is less than total taxes paid, as a percentage of income, by the middle class.

wrong-and the rich pay far more than they use. that is the main issue

what skews the statistics is that the top 400 taxpayers, the billionaires, have most of their income in capital gains or dividends not salary. Most of the top 2% have substantial salary income which is taxed rather high
 
Take the Budget of the U.S. the link I gave you that shows line items and then plug in the items that our Constitution requires from our Govt, defense, small central govt. expense, debt service, V.A. affairs and see what you come up with?


From the Budget, this is what I come up with as categories that should be funded by Federal Income Taxes

Defense 662.8
Gen. Science, Space 29.9
Commerce 292.5
Transportation 84.4
Health 334.3
Veterans Benefits 95.5
Justice 53.4
General Govt. 118
Net Interest 190.9


Total 1861.7

Well I don't agree or disagree although it has little to do with my statements or this thread. It is simply about taxes and not the deficit.
 
Well I don't agree or disagree although it has little to do with my statements or this thread. It is simply about taxes and not the deficit.

LOL, it has everything to do with the thread as taxes lead to govt. revenue that funds the expenses. As long as the liberal left distorts the true role of the Federal govt. and convinces people that it is about tax revenue and not spending we are going to face the deficits we have today and the argument over the right amount of taxes to collect. Seems to me that far too many have bought into that larger bloated Federal govt. as it is always about the revenue generated vs the actual spending.

Some here seem to believe that Conservatives don't want any taxes. That is bs, Conservatives understand that it takes taxes to run the govt. The real issue is the role of the govt. and thus the amount of taxes. There is absolutely no need for progressive taxes with a limited Central govt. A flat tax will do quite well and will be considerably more fair that what we have right now.
 
LOL, it has everything to do with the thread as taxes lead to govt. revenue that funds the expenses. As long as the liberal left distorts the true role of the Federal govt. and convinces people that it is about tax revenue and not spending we are going to face the deficits we have today and the argument over the right amount of taxes to collect. Seems to me that far too many have bought into that larger bloated Federal govt. as it is always about the revenue generated vs the actual spending.

Again it does not. The deficit is what it is, and the type of tax has absolutely no affect at all.

Funny how you blame liberals for distorting when it was so called conservatives who got the ball rolling under Bush.

Some here seem to believe that Conservatives don't want any taxes. That is bs, Conservatives understand that it takes taxes to run the govt. The real issue is the role of the govt. and thus the amount of taxes. There is absolutely no need for progressive taxes with a limited Central govt. A flat tax will do quite well and will be considerably more fair that what we have right now.

Be it progressive or flat an income tax is not and never was needed. I do however try to stick with realistic goals. Our system that we have now is what we have to work with. The income tax is not going to go away, nor is it going to be changed to a flat tax. So we have to try and cut taxes within the system we have.
 
Again it does not. The deficit is what it is, and the type of tax has absolutely no affect at all.

Funny how you blame liberals for distorting when it was so called conservatives who got the ball rolling under Bush.



Be it progressive or flat an income tax is not and never was needed. I do however try to stick with realistic goals. Our system that we have now is what we have to work with. The income tax is not going to go away, nor is it going to be changed to a flat tax. So we have to try and cut taxes within the system we have.

Hate to break it to you but it happened long before Bush and regardless it happened because of both parties. We do not elect a King and no spending is done without Congress. Bush and the Congress took the debt from 5.6 trillion to 10.5 trillion in 8 years. Obama and the Congress have added 3.1 trillion to it in just two years. Bush never had any trillion dollar deficits and Obama has had two his first two years and projected trillion dollar deficits for the remainder of his term. He has total control of the Govt.

Now taxes mean revenue but you are right that revenue isn't really the problem, spending is and that is what I tried to point out. Doesn't matter whether we have a flat or progressive tax Congress and this President are going to spend the money.

The answer is cutting taxes and spending. Cutting taxes stimulates economic growth and job creation thus more taxpayers. Right now we have 16 million unemployed Americans that are paying a very small amount of Federal Income taxes. Imagine putting those people back to work?
 
Back
Top Bottom