• 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
Whovian said:
The poor, as well as the 'ok' as well as the 'slightly more ok' etc, are all part of that. I have no problem paying my fair share in taxes to 'contribute to the public expense', but I simply do not believe I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes, simply because I have achieved more in my life than someone else has. If I want to help those who have not acheived as much as I have, I'll choose to do so, or not.
Click to expand...
The reason you achieve more is because you use more of that provided provided by the govenment. For example if you invent a widget, why should I care whether somebody starts making the same thing and profiting from it, they will pobably sell it cheaper than you. Why should I have to pay taxes to protect YOU? That's just one example of why the rich should pay at a higher rate.

In short, you are wealthy because you depend upon much of what the govenment provides you by helping you get weathy and protecting it.
 
I liked the arguments presented at the beginning of this thread for a flat tax better than I do the fairness concern. I think there is truth to the claim that wealthy people benefit more from a lot of what governemnt does to help them accumulate weallth. Government has often been quite supportive of the wealthy and big business. We spend far more money on helping them than we do the poor. Investigate corrporate welfare sometime.

In any case, I prefer arguments concerning the good of the country over fairness for the wealthy, who I don't believe are being mistreated.

Just saying . . . ;)
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why is taking care of the poor a Federal and NOT a state issue? Increase in Federal Taxes will result in people fleeing states with higher taxes and thus cut state revenue shortfalls putting more pressure on the Federal Govt. and U.S. Taxpayer. Cuts in Federal Taxes will put more power back where it belongs, at the state and local level.

The poor spending a higher percentage of their income on consumer spending really is irrelevant because that spendin is offset by higher deficits and greater use of public services by these same people. No one can tell me that people making 50,000 and less cannot afford something in the form of taxes.
 
Conservative said:
The poor spending a higher percentage of their income on consumer spending really is irrelevant because that spendin is offset by higher deficits and greater use of public services by these same people.
Click to expand...
Not true, the govenment protects the wealthy far more that they protect the poor.
 
pbrauer said:
Not true, the govenment protects the wealthy far more that they protect the poor.
Click to expand...

Right, that is why 47% of the income earners in this country don't pay any Federal Income taxes and why high income earners are paying more in taxes under the Bush tax cuts. Tax laws in this country were written by the Ways and Means Committee in this country and for the past 4 years it has been under the control of the Democrats. All those so called protection for the rich loop holes were created by the Ways and Means Committee in the House. You can thank Democrats for any protection for the Rich that exists.
 
Whovian said:
The poor, as well as the 'ok' as well as the 'slightly more ok' etc, are all part of that. I have no problem paying my fair share in taxes to 'contribute to the public expense', but I simply do not believe I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes, simply because I have achieved more in my life than someone else has. If I want to help those who have not acheived as much as I have, I'll choose to do so, or not.
Click to expand...

pbrauer said:
The reason you achieve more is because you use more of that provided provided by the govenment. For example if you invent a widget, why should I care whether somebody starts making the same thing and profiting from it, they will pobably sell it cheaper than you. Why should I have to pay taxes to protect YOU? That's just one example of why the rich should pay at a higher rate.

In short, you are wealthy because you depend upon much of what the govenment provides you by helping you get weathy and protecting it.
Click to expand...

First off, let's be clear. When I use 'I have achieved', I am speaking hypothetically, not literally. So don't get all condescending and whiney about how I have more but don't deserve it.

Second, you don't pay taxes to protect me... I pay taxes to protect me. As for the use of copyright laws in your argument, that is severely flawed. Why should someone else profit off my invention? They did not conceive it.. create it... spend money to develop it... I did. What gives them the right to profit from MY hard work, initiative and investment? I don't feel I should have the right to profit from something YOU invented, why should you have the right to profit on something I invented? As for the 'they will probably sell it cheaper than you' statement, that's merely an assumption you're making in a failed attempt to bolster your position.

This argument that the ONLY reason someone achieves more is because the government made it possible is patently ridiculous.
 
Conservative said:
Right, that is why 47% of the income earners in this country don't pay any Federal Income taxes
Click to expand...

That's because 47% of the income earners earn essentially nothing as a proportion of national income.

Conservative said:
and why high income earners are paying more in taxes under the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

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:

Conservative said:
Tax laws in this country were written by the Ways and Means Committee in this country and for the past 4 years it has been under the control of the Democrats. All those so called protection for the rich loop holes were created by the Ways and Means Committee in the House. You can thank Democrats for any protection for the Rich that exists.
Click to expand...

To which loopholes are you referring?
 
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...


Take your comments to the IRS as they posted the data. Ask Pbrauer who says that the rich are being protected by tax laws.

Why is it that liberals believe that because tax rates go down that revenue goes down as well? U.S. Treasury Dept. says differently as it posts actual tax revenue dollars by month and by year. Check out the tax revenue after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts went into effect.
 
Conservative said:
Right, that is why 47% of the income earners in this country don't pay any Federal Income taxes and why high income earners are paying more in taxes under the Bush tax cuts. Tax laws in this country were written by the Ways and Means Committee in this country and for the past 4 years it has been under the control of the Democrats. All those so called protection for the rich loop holes were created by the Ways and Means Committee in the House. You can thank Democrats for any protection for the Rich that exists.
Click to expand...

Just so you know:

Upon closer inspection, the report proved much less incendiary than reported by the Associated Press and various right-wing blogs. As the New York Times' David Leonhardt noted: "The 47 percent number is not wrong. [...] But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too."

Leonhardt went on to succinctly summarize the rationale behind wealthy Americans having a significantly higher tax rate.

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

47 Percent 'Don't Pay Taxes'? No Big Deal | The Atlantic Wire

With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 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
 
Boo Radley said:
Just so you know:

Upon closer inspection, the report proved much less incendiary than reported by the Associated Press and various right-wing blogs. As the New York Times' David Leonhardt noted: "The 47 percent number is not wrong. [...] But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too."

Leonhardt went on to succinctly summarize the rationale behind wealthy Americans having a significantly higher tax rate.

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly — which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.

47 Percent 'Don't Pay Taxes'? No Big Deal | The Atlantic Wire

With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 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
Click to expand...

Now there you go again distorting the discussion and ignoring that the taxes that the poor pay are use taxes for things like Social Security which is where all the Payroll Taxes go. Nice diversion and total distortion of the true facts. It is income taxes that was supposed to fund the General Fund however the Congress has seen to it that all taxes including use taxes goes to the General Fund to be wasted.

The fact is the rich now shoulder a higher percentage of the income tax burden today AFTER the Bush tax cuts than they had before and more lower income people are paying no income taxes today thanks to the Bush tax cuts. Note the links in this article instead of noticing the author.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation

By the way why do you always state that since tax rates are cut that tax revenue is reduced? Prove it
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Now there you go again distorting the discussion and ignoring that the taxes that the poor pay are use taxes for things like Social Security which is where all the Payroll Taxes go. Nice diversion and total distortion of the true facts. It is income taxes that was supposed to fund the General Fund however the Congress has seen to it that all taxes including use taxes goes to the General Fund to be wasted.

The fact is the rich now shoulder a higher percentage of the income tax burden today AFTER the Bush tax cuts than they had before and more lower income people are paying no income taxes today thanks to the Bush tax cuts. Note the links in this article instead of noticing the author.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation

By the way why do you always state that since tax rates are cut that tax revenue is reduced? Prove it
Click to expand...

Not a diversion, a fact. Not sure what you seek to prove with your myths list, as it too says taxes don;t help the economy by putting money in the hands of people, but I also suspect other things on that list are debatable at best.

In any case, you did not dispute anything said in the articles I posted with this list. Sorry.
 
Whovian said:
Why should someone else profit off my invention? They did not conceive it.. create it... spend money to develop it... I did. What gives them the right to profit from MY hard work, initiative and investment? I don't feel I should have the right to profit from something YOU invented, why should you have the right to profit on something I invented?
Click to expand...
Nobody should profit from someones invention, but I am not inventing anything so why must I pay taxes to prevent someone from stealing your invention? OTOH, Why not the let free market rein and let dog eat dog? :mrgreen:
 
Boo Radley said:
Not a diversion, a fact. Not sure what you seek to prove with your myths list, as it too says taxes don;t help the economy by putting money in the hands of people, but I also suspect other things on that list are debatable at best.

In any case, you did not dispute anything said in the articles I posted with this list. Sorry.
Click to expand...

What that post shows are IRS numbers and the link to those numbers showing that the rich are paying a greater percentage of the taxes after the Bush tax cuts even with the rate cuts and more lower income people have been dropped from paying any Federal income taxes. I take IRS data a lot more seriously than the articles you post.

By the way, read the entire myth number 8 instead of just the first sentence

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy" because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. Claims that tax cuts benefit the economy by "putting money in people's pockets" represent the flip side of the pump-priming fallacy. Instead, the right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms, thereby encouraging more productive behavior.

That means rate cuts, not rebates
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Take your comments to the IRS as they posted the data. Ask Pbrauer who says that the rich are being protected by tax laws.

Why is it that liberals believe that because tax rates go down that revenue goes down as well? U.S. Treasury Dept. says differently as it posts actual tax revenue dollars by month and by year. Check out the tax revenue after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts went into effect.
Click to expand...

You sure you want to go down that path? OK, fair enough. Reagan's tax cuts went into effect in 1982, and Bush's tax cuts went into effect in 2001-03. Let's see how that affected revenue:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Revenue in constant FY2005 dollars (millions):
1980 $1197.6
1981 $1251.4
1982 $1202.8
1983 $1113.6

2000 $2310.0
2001 $2215.3
2002 $2028.6
2003 $1901.1

What amazes me is that there are people who still argue that we can get a free lunch by cutting taxes, when all the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Does cutting tax stimulate the economy? Yes, to a degree. Does it stimulate the economy enough to make up for all the lost revenue? Not even close. If you think that lower taxes are inherently good because they help the economy, that's one thing. But don't try to make the case that they have no costs at all in terms of government revenue. That kind of something-for-nothing attitude is juvenile. If that actually worked, why not just cut the tax rate to 0% so that we could maximize our tax revenue? :roll:
 
Conservative said:
What that post shows are IRS numbers and the link to those numbers showing that the rich are paying a greater percentage of the taxes after the Bush tax cuts even with the rate cuts and more lower income people have been dropped from paying any Federal income taxes. I take IRS data a lot more seriously than the articles you post.
Click to expand...

No one argues they are not. My link clearly stated this:

There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group
Click to expand...

But it also says this:

But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades.
Click to expand...

And the other one says this:

. . . . 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.
Click to expand...

So, you're addressing something not argued and not addressing what was argued. Try again.
 
Kandahar said:
You sure you want to go down that path? OK, fair enough. Reagan's tax cuts went into effect in 1982, and Bush's tax cuts went into effect in 2001-03. Let's see how that affected revenue:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Revenue in constant FY2005 dollars (millions):
1980 $1197.6
1981 $1251.4
1982 $1202.8
1983 $1113.6

2000 $2310.0
2001 $2215.3
2002 $2028.6
2003 $1901.1

What amazes me is that there are people who still argue that we can get a free lunch by cutting taxes, when all the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Does cutting tax stimulate the economy? Yes, to a degree. Does it stimulate the economy enough to make up for all the lost revenue? Not even close. If you think that lower taxes are inherently good because they help the economy, that's one thing. But don't try to make the case that they have no costs at all in terms of government revenue. That kind of something-for-nothing attitude is juvenile. If that actually worked, why not just cut the tax rate to 0% so that we could maximize our tax revenue? :roll:
Click to expand...

Why would anyone apply 2005 dollars to what happened in the 80's. Here are the facts by year

Line 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1 Current receipts 917.7 939.3 1,000.3 1,113.5 1,214.6 1,290.1 1,403.2 1,502.4 1,627.2
2 Current tax receipts 663.5 659.5 694.1 762.5 823.9 868.8 965.7 1,018.9 1,109.2
3 Personal current taxes 345.2 354.1 352.3 377.4 417.3 437.2 489.1 504.9 566.1
4 Taxes on production and imports 235.6 240.9 263.3 289.8 308.1 323.4 347.5 374.5 398.9
5 Taxes on corporate income 81.1 63.1 77.2 94.0 96.5 106.5 127.1 137.2 141.5
6 Taxes from the rest of the world 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.7
7 Contributions for government social
insurance 196.9 210.1 227.2 258.8 282.8 304.9 324.6 363.2 386.9
8 Income receipts on assets 50.2 58.9 65.3 74.3 84.0 89.7 85.6 89.9 93.7
9 Interest and miscellaneous receipts 1 50.1 58.7 65.1 74.1 83.8 89.5 85.5 89.7 93.5

What continues to amaze me is how some people continue to believe that the American people keeping more of their money is an expense to the Federal govt. That is total bs and part of the brainwashing by the left.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
No one argues they are not. My link clearly stated this:



But it also says this:



And the other one says this:



So, you're addressing something not argued and not addressing what was argued. Try again.
Click to expand...

Again, you are hanging your entire argument on tax rates and not dollars collected. Fact is the Rich are paying a lower rate but higher dollars today under the Bush tax cuts and that is reality.
 
Conservative said:
Again, you are hanging your entire argument on tax rates and not dollars collected. Fact is the Rich are paying a lower rate but higher dollars today under the Bush tax cuts and that is reality.
Click to expand...

If wealth and income were distributed more evenly as it should be, this wouldn't be a problem :shrug:
 
megaprogman said:
If wealth and income were distributed more evenly as it should be, this wouldn't be a problem :shrug:
Click to expand...

Was this country built on wealth and income redistribution? Please name for me any country in the world that has been successful with that kind of economic policy?
 
Whovian said:
The poor, as well as the 'ok' as well as the 'slightly more ok' etc, are all part of that. I have no problem paying my fair share in taxes to 'contribute to the public expense', but I simply do not believe I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes, simply because I have achieved more in my life than someone else has. If I want to help those who have not acheived as much as I have, I'll choose to do so, or not.
Click to expand...

just as the student who makes all A's at a public university should not have to pay higher tuition or higher property taxes compared to the C-students or the D students or even the barely passing morons.
 
megaprogman said:
If wealth and income were distributed more evenly as it should be, this wouldn't be a problem :shrug:
Click to expand...

how many dead bodies do you want to achieve that

all a government can do is to impoverish all. You cannot make the lazy and untalented into high earners

pillowheaded utopianistic dreams to the contrary
 
Conservative said:
Why would anyone apply 2005 dollars to what happened in the 80's.
Click to expand...

If you understood the way economic statistics are used, you would understand that constant 2005 dollars is just a benchmark. You can use any year you want, as long as it's in constant dollars; the trend would be exactly the same. Constant dollars just adjusts for inflation.

Conservative said:
Here are the facts by year

Line 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1 Current receipts 917.7 939.3 1,000.3 1,113.5 1,214.6 1,290.1 1,403.2 1,502.4 1,627.2
2 Current tax receipts 663.5 659.5 694.1 762.5 823.9 868.8 965.7 1,018.9 1,109.2
3 Personal current taxes 345.2 354.1 352.3 377.4 417.3 437.2 489.1 504.9 566.1
4 Taxes on production and imports 235.6 240.9 263.3 289.8 308.1 323.4 347.5 374.5 398.9
5 Taxes on corporate income 81.1 63.1 77.2 94.0 96.5 106.5 127.1 137.2 141.5
6 Taxes from the rest of the world 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.7
7 Contributions for government social
insurance 196.9 210.1 227.2 258.8 282.8 304.9 324.6 363.2 386.9
8 Income receipts on assets 50.2 58.9 65.3 74.3 84.0 89.7 85.6 89.9 93.7
9 Interest and miscellaneous receipts 1 50.1 58.7 65.1 74.1 83.8 89.5 85.5 89.7 93.5
Click to expand...

So you're using current (non-inflation adjusted) dollars, AND you're using tax receipts completely unrelated to the income tax to prove that income tax cuts generate revenue? Makes perfect sense.

I'm through trying to educate you on how to use statistics. It's obvious that you don't want to see what the empirical evidence obviously shows. :roll:

Conservative said:
What continues to amaze me is how some people continue to believe that the American people keeping more of their money is an expense to the Federal govt. That is total bs and part of the brainwashing by the left.
Click to expand...

If you think that you have some fundamental right to every dollar you own, that's at least a philosophical difference. (You're wrong, but at least I can understand where you're coming from.) But when you incorporate all of this dishonest crap into your argument claiming that tax cuts don't decrease revenue - when the evidence shows precisely the opposite - you undercut any credibility you have.
 
Kandahar said:
If you understood the way economic statistics are used, you would understand that constant 2005 dollars is just a benchmark. You can use any year you want, as long as it's in constant dollars; the trend would be exactly the same. Constant dollars just adjusts for inflation.



So you're using current (non-inflation adjusted) dollars, AND you're using tax receipts completely unrelated to the income tax to prove that income tax cuts generate revenue? Makes perfect sense.

I'm through trying to educate you on how to use statistics. It's obvious that you don't want to see what the empirical evidence obviously shows. :roll:



If you think that you have some fundamental right to every dollar you own, that's at least a philosophical difference. (You're wrong, but at least I can understand where you're coming from.) But when you incorporate all of this dishonest crap into your argument claiming that tax cuts don't decrease revenue - when the evidence shows precisely the opposite - you undercut any credibility you have.
Click to expand...

why is he wrong-just because the government has more power to take his money

I find the parasite mentality of the left to be disgusting myself.
 
TurtleDude said:
why is he wrong-just because the government has more power to take his money
Click to expand...

I just posted the statistics showing that tax revenue did indeed decrease following the Bush tax cuts (and to a lesser extent, following the Reagan tax cuts). Try to keep up.

TurtleDude said:
I find the parasite mentality of the left to be disgusting myself.
Click to expand...

Cool. I find your Gordon Gekko mentality to be disgusting. (However, I'm not so partisan that I would attribute your despicable worldview to ALL conservatives.)
 
Kandahar said:
If you understood the way economic statistics are used, you would understand that constant 2005 dollars is just a benchmark. You can use any year you want, as long as it's in constant dollars; the trend would be exactly the same. Constant dollars just adjusts for inflation.



So you're using current (non-inflation adjusted) dollars, AND you're using tax receipts completely unrelated to the income tax to prove that income tax cuts generate revenue? Makes perfect sense.

I'm through trying to educate you on how to use statistics. It's obvious that you don't want to see what the empirical evidence obviously shows. :roll:



If you think that you have some fundamental right to every dollar you own, that's at least a philosophical difference. (You're wrong, but at least I can understand where you're coming from.) But when you incorporate all of this dishonest crap into your argument claiming that tax cuts don't decrease revenue - when the evidence shows precisely the opposite - you undercut any credibility you have.
Click to expand...

What I posted were actual dollars at the time and tax revenue to the U.S. Govt. almost doubled after the Reagan 10-10-5% tax cuts. How can that happen? I understand that the govt. has to be funded but today that means 3.8 trillion dollars and is outside the role of our govt. established by the Founders.

There is nothing dishonest about my claim that the tax rate cuts led to more taxpayers and thus higher tax revenue to the govt. It isn't crap as it is substantiated by the U.S. Treasury and the IRS. Your evidence is typical liberal spin and is nothing more than an attempt to convince people that the govt. needs the revenue more than the American people and that tax cuts are an expense to the govt.

I would worry more about your credibility than mine as mine is backed by actual data that matters, U.S. Treasury and the IRS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom