The one issue I have with any taxing system applied is that none effectively manage government expenditure. There is the bottom line of revenue collection, regardless of the system of its collection. Ignore that governments MUST create and hold to a strict budget, and strictly manage to that budget by congressional action of legislation that imposes expenditure justification and accountability according to [in the USA] strict adherence to the specific 17 items Congress is mandated to legislate [US Constitution, Article I, section 8], and eliminate all other concerns, releasing other concerns to State and Local control to manage, and no tax system will achieve its intent.
The Flat Tax
Posts
Total:
41
Y'all seem to want a variety of tax systems, but do not equate that system to an accountable budgeting system of expenditure. The result is a decoupled ledger. How is that expected to work? Your tax revenue MUST be coupled to a controlled budget, or you're all pissing in the wind.
If you do not couple tax revenue to accountable expenditure, you end up funding scientific studies that determine how wide a whore must spread her legs to achieve mutual, maximum satisfaction with a paying sex partner. Probably varies by State. You think I'm kidding?
-->
@fauxlaw
We all dislike paying tax.
Though I think that it is fair to say that we would all dislike no tax even more.
Nonetheless , flat tax would be OK, if there weren't loopholes built into the system.
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore, though dislikes, the consequences of taxation can be societally beneficial; even vital. Without loopholes, a flat tax considers only that a person has an income, but the tax rate is not linked to volume of that income, whereas the flat tax considers that an employed person, regardless of the volume, is able to pay an evenly apportioned percentage across all incomes, and that is basically true, if one also considers that like my claim against government, individuals must also self-impose a budget against which their income [revenue] is applied. If we do not consider that our expenditures must be held within our revenue, we're as at fault as the government is for excessive spending. The fact is, we do not need a boat; we want a boat. But if the boat is an excessive expenditure that breaks the budget, that is not a rational purchase. Same goes for a flatscreen, a new laptop, or a car. We are enttled to nine of those things, and we must stop thinking we are, and insist the government do likewise.
The problem government has with a flat tax is that they consider that a billionaire can afford to pay a higher percentage of his income than can an hourly worker, and so they should pay more. The hourly worker may agree with that assessment, but how is that fair to the billionaire, who has likely spent more in an education, gathering abilities the dishwasher has not invested in. The billionaire has earned his right to consider the money supply as inexhaustible, and has earned the right and has invested the time and energy in going after some of it. What has the dishwasher sacrificed to do that?
-->
@fauxlaw
Yep I generally agree.
Though there comes a point socially where one questions how much money one person actually requires to live a lavish lifestyle.
After all, society is a collective and money is a collective tool......Without an ordered society a billionaires money is worthless.
-->
@zedvictor4
Society is a collective only because it numbers more than one individual, but they are still individuals with all the rights and advantages offered to individuals to either excel, or be sticks in mud. Their choice. There are too many examples of individuals who have decided to ignore all the obstacles against them, and succeed. I am one of them, so I know I'm not just talking through my hat, repeating wishful thoughts proceeded by "if only." I sent "if only" packing forty years ago. We can do it because money is not a collective. It is the by-product of ambition, planing, and execution that everyone who leads a successful life does in spades. They can do it because Oba'a was dead wrong, always has been, and ever will be as long as he believes "there comes a time when you have made enough money." No, the money supply has no ceiling. Period, the end.
-->
@fauxlaw
To reiterate the point that I was making.
Being a financially successful individual is just fine....... But without everyone else, your success and wealth are worthless.
Needing to be part of a system, whilst wanting to be separate from the system, is a tad --------. You choose the word I do not wish to appear too cynical.
flat tax is stupid.
if we kept spending the same, it would cause taxes to go up on the middle class and poor. this is a necessity.... the rich will pay less if we make the tax less than they are taxed now, so the poorer will be taxed more to maintain current spending. if we make the tax what the rich pay now, then by definition the poorer will spend more that way too
rich people should pay more in taxes, it should be progressive. it's not right that we use a middle class guy's income for welfare programs. that should only be taken from those with excess wealth. plus the rich should be penalized for taking so much of the planet's resources, a luxory tax. it's not fair that what they take others cannot take, so at least tax em for it.
58 days later
-->
@Trent0405
That study is very limited and one study certainly doesn't represent most studies. For instance, this meta-analysis (A meta-analysis is essentially a study of studies, analysing what the results of a large selection of studies on a topic say when looked at today) finds "other fiscal variables like a flat tax system, tax rates, and tax amnestieshave unambiguous negative impacts on tax compliance".
Really even if it did produce some modest growth benefit it wouldn't really win me over as economics idn't simply "Get numbers higher" but also moral calculations of what is right and fair to enact.
298 days later
-->
@Trent0405
Let's imagine two men. One makes ten million dollars a year. One makes ten thousand. Let's say both pay 25% flat tax. Let's further say that eight thousand a year is what each needs to live on... clearly these numbers are unrealistic in our modern economy but since this is just an example let's make simple math shall we?
Ok so we have
10,000,000 - 2,500,000 (taxes) -8,000 (cost of living) = 7,492,000
10,000 - 2,500 (taxes) - 8,000 (COL) = -500
Unfortunately a flat tax disproportionately harm the poor. Even without any legal chicanery or loopholes a flat tax doesn't address the most basic problem causing the wage gap. The problem of concentrating wealth in few hands. Capitalism tends to monopoly and once begun the process is compounding and very difficult to stop. Rather than a flat tax I recommend a flat top salary.
May I recommend (if taxes are even necessary and/or desirable) we have a 100% tax for any profit above this amount. Also if the rich are not asked to pay taxes on their gross earnings but only on their net gains than neither should the workers and if the workers are asked to pay taxes before expenses than likewise the rich should have this same burden.