Flat Tax vs. Progressive Tax

[burkhartmj]

Since this board is for any politics, not just election '08:

After doing extensive study for an essay, I was convinced the flat tax makes a hell of a lot more sense than our current progressive tax. While lobbyists have tried to villify it by saying that it taxes the poor, the current plan stuck in the Ways and means committee doesn't at all. When flat tax was first considered, people knew it wouldn't resonate without at least 1 bracket for the poor. So up to 23 grand a year is exempted for married couples, with it being progressively less as the family unit gets smaller. Also, while it eliminated most of the loopholes the rich used to get out of paying their due, some of the important ones were kept, like charity donations. most classic liberals back in the 19th century were actually staunchly against graduated taxing, considering it a form of robbery. Since then it has become a more conservative issue to an extent, but has remained largely nonpartisan. The current proposal would tax everyone at 19% for the first 2 years after it's phased in, then drop to 17% after that. While taxing the middle class and upper class technically less, it would actually generate more revenue, due to the absence of loopholes for the upper class to utilize. It wouldn't mess with the lower class, due to the exemption. It would stimulate the economy due to the middle class having more money to put into luxury items and necessities.

Thoughts?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Flat Tax is better, FairTax is best. Unfortunately the Lefties have made it a "right-wing" tax, even though that's totally not the case, so, they just decide to ignore it, and mimic it at other times.

"The FairTax won't work! -- Hey, let's give people more money to stimulate the economy... that will work, but wait, the FairTax won't!"

[tokenuser]

I am a fan of Goods and Services Tax (GST, VAT) style taxation. You earn more, you spend more, you get taxed more. Its a simple story as a consumer, but a bitch for business owners to manage - it basically drove my father-in-law (a building contractor) out of business ... not because of debt, just because it was complex to administer.

I like the concept of a flat tax in conjunction with GST. Unfortunately, I don't think it will fly in the US.

[sir_scutter]

You forgot an option: no tax.

All tax is robbery, technically.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/robbery

[bigshotprof]

I would be for about any tax at this point that I could understand. I think there is some value in a VAT tax, the problem is you can't do any more than estimate what your revenues are going to be. Does anybody here know what the actual percentage the average household pays after itemization?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

You forgot an option: no tax.

All tax is robbery, technically.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/robberyHahahah, you linked to robbery. That really slam dunked your argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument).

[burkhartmj]

I am a fan of Goods and Services Tax (GST, VAT) style taxation. You earn more, you spend more, you get taxed more. Its a simple story as a consumer, but a bitch for business owners to manage - it basically drove my father-in-law (a building contractor) out of business ... not because of debt, just because it was complex to administer.

I like the concept of a flat tax in conjunction with GST. Unfortunately, I don't think it will fly in the US.

VAT is probably the only tax worse than our current system. It doesn't just tax because you spend more, it taxes every level of production. This worked when necessities were simple things like food and clothing [fewer levels of production], but with the growing complexity of necessary technologies nowadays [I believe computers are necessary now], things are being taxed that even the poor have to pay for. this issue is only going to get worse as technology gets more and more complicated and has more levels of production. And, as you said, it's complicated as all hell. Even the proposed flat tax [as compared to a true flat tax] with a few exemptions and allowances [the 23 grand] would fit on a slightly large post card:

http://www.pushback.com/justice/flat-tax/Flat%20Tax%20Form%201.jpg

Since you put them together, I'm warily assuming GST is based around the same principles of VAT?

[esophagus]

Don't lump me in as the "bad" lefties you're refering to, I definitely think FairTax is a good system.

If I lived in the US, Huckabee would have been someone I actually considered voting for. While he has some positions I disagree with (mostly religious issues like gay rights and the displaying of the commandments in schools) I think a lot of his larger positions make a lot of sense.

[phatlip12]

You forgot an option: no tax.

All tax is robbery, technically.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/robbery

I guess those roads, schools and hospitals will just appear then right?

[phatlip12]

Don't lump me in as the "bad" lefties you're refering to, I definitely think FairTax is a good system.

If I lived in the US, Huckabee would have been someone I actually considered voting for. While he has some positions I disagree with (mostly religious issues like gay rights and the displaying of the commandments in schools) I think a lot of his larger positions make a lot of sense.

I like the idea of a FairTax as well. My main attraction is it just seems a whole hell of a lot more simple then our current tax system. We just need to REALLY make sure it's not going to screw over the poor but yeah- given some tweaks here and there the FairTax would be cool.

[straylightrise]

Both sides should work on a compromised tax system that integrates progressive and flat taxes together. Maybe a flat personal tax and a progressive tax for businesses? I don't know. I HATE economics and math but I'm pretty much for less taxes for EVERYONE.

[sir_scutter]

I guess those roads, schools and hospitals will just appear then right?

I love how these things seem impossible to do without gov't.

I'll save my keyboard a pounding and just link to the argument already in progress.

http://revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22288&page=4

Probably a better place to put it, too. I'll let the TAX vs. TAX discussion continue peacefully.

[phatlip12]

I love how these things seem impossible to do without gov't.

I'll save my keyboard a pounding and just link to the argument already in progress.

http://revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22288&page=4

Probably a better place to put it, too. I'll let the TAX vs. TAX discussion continue peacefully.

And how might these individuls get paid to do a service such as road work? Who is going to pay for the labor and supplies and above all - WHY?

Perhaps there could be a fee to enter the road? You know, collect money from everyone that uses it?

Oh wait, we already have that. It's called a tax.

[sir_scutter]

And how might these individuls get paid to do a service such as road work? Who is going to pay for the labor and supplies and above all - WHY?

Perhaps there could be a fee to enter the road? You know, collect money from everyone that uses it?

Oh wait, we already have that. It's called a tax.

Well tax is taken from everyone in the area, not everyone who uses it. Some might use it more and others might not use it at all. I think a toll system would be a lot better than a gov't tax... but that doesn't matter because currently gas tax takes care of roads.

It's easy: the owner of the road takes care of and manages his road. Advertising and marketing and critical thinking could make roads work easy.

[phatlip12]

Well tax is taken from everyone in the area, not everyone who uses it. Some might use it more and others might not use it at all. I think a toll system would be a lot better than a gov't tax... but that doesn't matter because currently gas tax takes care of roads.

It's easy: the owner of the road takes care of and manages his road. Advertising and marketing and critical thinking could make roads work easy.

A toll is a form of taxation buddy.

[sir_scutter]

A toll is a form of taxation buddy.

A toll is voluntary. You don't have to drive on the road.

Tax is collected through the threat of violence. If you choose not to pay, they choose to hurt you.

[phatlip12]

A toll is voluntary. You don't have to drive on the road.

Tax is collected through the threat of violence. If you choose not to pay, they choose to hurt you.

A toll isn't voluntary. Do you want proof? Don't pay the next time you come to one and let us know how much your fine is.

Tolls aren't always avoidable. If thats the only way you can get to where you need to go then you can't avoid paying. Thats going to be even more true if what you're suggesting is implemented because there would be more tolls.

You need roads to get to work. You need work to survive. Of course you don't have to work. That just means you'll be poor. So yes- in such a scenario you wouldn't have to pay to use the road. But you know what? You don't have to work now either which also means you want have to pay taxes.

So you're pretty much suggesting the same exact thing we have now.

[phatlip12]

Now- let me meet you half way here.

I think some of your ideas are great ways to LOWER taxes. I just don't believe they'll be able to replace them. It's either not going to work or its simply a different form of the current system (what you suggested with tolls).

[esophagus]

So you're pretty much suggesting the same exact thing we have now.The difference of course being that the large group of people whonever drive past a toll booth never have to pay it.

[sir_scutter]

Tolls aren't always avoidable.

You have a point there, in the current gov't-owning-roads system in place today, there aren't many competing roads and it is quite tax-like. But the idea of tolls isn't completely theft/coercion. You could fly, you could walk, you could drive a different way... it's kind of like how the TSA are in the airports--sometimes the pain is better option than the alternatives.

...not going to work o....lls).

You may have something there. I'll agree to that. I have been getting a little out of control :)

[phatlip12]

The difference of course being that the large group of people whonever drive past a toll booth never have to pay it.

Yes, but if this is how we started paying for our roads there would be tolls all over the place so we'd all being paying. You can often (but not always) avoid it now. If this happens there would be tolls all over the place.

You ever drive through Delaware? Delaware is toll happy as it is. :(

[phatlip12]

You have a point there, in the current gov't-owning-roads system in place today, there aren't many competing roads and it is quite tax-like. But the idea of tolls isn't completely theft/coercion. You could fly, you could walk, you could drive a different way... it's kind of like how the TSA are in the airports--sometimes the pain is better option than the alternatives.



You may have something there. I'll agree to that. I have been getting a little out of control :)

You can fly and you can walk but the reality is almost nobody flies to work and a majority of Americans commute.

But dude, don't get me wrong. I think you totally have something going where you mentioned ad space sold on the side of roads. I think that would be a great way to lower taxes.

[sir_scutter]

You can fly and you can walk but the reality is a almost nobody flies to work and a majority of Americans commute.

But dude, don't get me wrong. I think you totally have something going where you mentioned ad space sold on the side of roads. I think that would be a great way to lower taxes.

But there would be innovations because surely WalMart wouldn't want you to hate driving on roads to get to it. Just like you can walk in and use Wal Mart's bathrooms for free, they would pay for the roads to get you to come.

Then you have individuals who wish to sell advertising on a good stretch of road, and the advertisers would pick clean, friendly roads.

Maybe even the gas stations would up it's price a little to pay for the roads like the current gas tax is.. that's fine... my point being that it would be consensual and voluntary.

Coercion is wrong. That's my main argument.

[esophagus]

But there would be innovations because surely WalMart wouldn't want you to hate driving on roads to get to it. Just like you can walk in and use Wal Mart's bathrooms for free, they would pay for the roads to get you to come.

Then you have individuals who wish to sell advertising on a good stretch of road, and the advertisers would pick clean, friendly roads.

Maybe even the gas stations would up it's price a little to pay for the roads like the current gas tax is.. that's fine... my point being that it would be consensual and voluntary.

Coercion is wrong. That's my main argument.I must say, I like all your ideas on this.

[phatlip12]

But there would be innovations because surely WalMart wouldn't want you to hate driving on roads to get to it. Just like you can walk in and use Wal Mart's bathrooms for free, they would pay for the roads to get you to come.

I REALLY like this idea. The only problem I see in such an idea is you can almost guarantee Walmart would raise it's prices as a result.


Then you have individuals who wish to sell advertising on a good stretch of road, and the advertisers would pick clean, friendly roads.

True, but ad space isn't a possibility everywhere unfortunately. So as you mentioned earlier the solution would be tolls but that puts us right back to where we started. Theres also the question of whether or not ads would be enough to pay for all of this. I'm thinking it wouldn't be.

Another concern I have is if the roads are privately owned what happens when the road needs to be fixed? I can forsee issues of having poor roads because the owners don't want to fix them.

I guess my entire argument can be wrapped up under the argument that nothing in this world is free.

[sir_scutter]

Another concern I have is if the roads are privately owned what happens when the road needs to be fixed? I can forsee issues of having poor roads because the owners don't want to fix them.

I guess my entire argument can be wrapped up under the argument that nothing in this world is free.

Nope, nothing is free. It's all going to cost something and I merely wish to express that coercion is wrong. I can see why the crazy cat-lady wouldn't want to fix her roads, but I don't see why someone in business of roads would let their road go down.

It'll turn into someone's responsibility, and that responsibility will not be mine.... unless I choose it to be. (It's very likely that I would in a situation that involves me.)

[phatlip12]

Nope, nothing is free. It's all going to cost something and I merely wish to express that coercion is wrong. I can see why the crazy cat-lady wouldn't want to fix her roads, but I don't see why someone in business of roads would let their road go down.

It'll turn into someone's responsibility, and that responsibility will not be mine.... unless I choose it to be. (It's very likely that I would in a situation that involves me.)

Why?

$$$$$

The road owner built the road. He's getting paid every month and lets be honest- we need to use the roads. He knows that so it's not as though he'll stop getting paid.

If your local McDonald's sucks you can always go to Burger King. Thats not the same when it comes to the road though. You'll HAVE to use that road to get to certain places so you'll often have no choice. When will the road be fixed? When he/she gets to it and you can guarantee thats not going to be until the roads are horrible. Other business have to go the extra mile to provide a great service. Why? Because you can always go somewhere else. Thats not the case with this. You can't go somewhere else and they know that so why go the extra mile? Why care if your product (the road) is the best if it can be if your customers (the drivers) have no choice but to use it?

[esophagus]

Why?

$$$$$

The road owner built the road. He's getting paid every month and lets be honest- we need to use the roads. He knows that so it's not as though he'll stop getting paid.

If your local McDonald's sucks you can always go to Burger King. Thats not the same when it comes to the road though. You'll HAVE to use that road to get to certain places so you'll often have no choice. When will the road be fixed? When he/she gets to it and you can guarantee thats not going to be until the roads are horrible. Other business have to go the extra mile to provide a great service. Why? Because you can always go somewhere else. Thats not the case with this. You can't go somewhere else and they know that so why go the extra mile? Why care if your product (the road) is the best if it can be if your customers (the drivers) have no choice but to use it?If roads are privately owned/operated/constructed there would more than likely end up being road competition. Multiple routes to the same place. Enough to keep people in check.

[phatlip12]

If roads are privately owned/operated/constructed there would more than likely end up being road competition. Multiple routes to the same place. Enough to keep people in check.

That doesn't change the fact that you need to take certain roads to get to certain places sometimes. That and it's often inconvenient going other paths. Then you're more then likely taking the longer way and wasting gas when you could get there faster on the other road that isn't in proper condition. So if you're even willing to do that your wasting money there too.

[burkhartmj]

This thread has been officially derailed =/

[phatlip12]

This thread has been officially derailed =/

Not really, it just evolved. We're still talking about taxes.

[bigshotprof]

Not really, it just evolved. We're still talking about taxes.

I love that scene at the beginning of "The Fugitive" where the train evolves!

[sir_scutter]

Why?

$$$$$

The road owner built the road. He's getting paid every month and lets be honest- we need to use the roads. He kn....ou can't go somewhere else and they know that so why go the extra mile? Why care if your product (the road) is the best if it can be if your customers (the drivers) have no choice but to use it?

Like I said, when there's demand (a way to get from A to B) there will be supply. Maybe competing roads? Who knows!

Tunnels?

Air-road?

Hover-cars?

The free market will decice.

[rabidbadger]

All roads private? Impossible!

The logistics are a nightmare.

exampe: My house is on the corner of Main street (owned by Straight street co) and Rogers Road (owned by Ralphs Road co). My address (and driveway) are on Main street, but I'm on the last block of main street and a dead end. So for me to even leave my house to go anywhere, i have to pay Straight Street co just to pull out of the driveway, and then Rogers Road co if I need to turn left or right. Then drive to the highway owned by Exxon's Highway Division, who keep the highway in shape and charge cheap because they only allow Exxon gas stations on it. Or alternatively take back roads owned by 12 other companies to get to my destination, my workplace, which is in in strip mall land backed up by a lake, with only one road leading to it, and no way for an alternative road to exist. That road is owned by Bumpy Ride Co, and is in such bad condition that the potholes are so many and so unavoidable that I trash my tires or axle twice a month. But Bumpy Ride knows they have a Monopoly on that road, so have no incentive to fix it.

Do I have to stop and drop a quarter in a bin every 3 blocks? Or do I have to buy and sign up for 90 different EzPass stickers?
And what If I have to get somewhere on a road that I don't have a ezpass for? And what if I visit Mom in another city?

And, bringing it back to Government/taxes...

For this to even start happening, The gov will have to sell existing roads to thousands of bidders. Then with the EzPass system of hundreds of companies, They will have to centralize them into one card, or something. So once again, huge beuracracy created that will take tax money to implement.

AND the gov will be taxing all the companies that own the roads, so the price for users will get raised to accomodate that.

and alternatives? walking? Um. Sidewalks are along roads. Who will own/care for them? Bikes? er, bikes use roads. Hovercars? you nuts, most drivers suck in two dimensions, I'd hate to see them in three. Busses? Bus companies will have to deal with the tolls too. And charge passengers accordingly.

[sir_scutter]

All roads private? Impossible!

The logistics are a nightmare.

exampe A) My house is on the corner of Main street (owned by Straight street co) and

Well either you would own the road in front of your property... or you would have contracted a business to take care of that road as a group of people.... or you wouldn't move to a place where Straight Street co owned that crooked road.

Individuals will figure it out. There's no evidence that says otherwise. Some just think that it's necessary for people in funny hats to decide what happens with roads. Turns out gov't suck at dealing with roads.

I'm not saying everyone would be happy wherever they go, due diligence and considerations would have to be made for a location you will be moving to.

[rabidbadger]

And don't even get me started on the recent Supreme Court Ruling about eminent domain. (FOXnews Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html).) And yeah, a mostly "liberal judge" decision. So I'm not totally knee jerk liberal. ;)

You would just KNOW cities will allow these private road companies to trash homes in order to sell the land, and tax the road companies... etc... Like I said. Nightmare!.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

I guess those roads, schools and hospitals will just appear then right?I don't know if someone already pointed this out to your or not, but those things you listed above are not paid for by the income tax.

[sir_scutter]

I don't know if someone already pointed this out to your or not, but those things you listed above are not paid for by the income tax.

so thread is becoming quite derailed.... yeah.


So back to the topic of no federal income tax, what purpose does the IRS serve? Let's call it no tax.

[phatlip12]

I think you also need to remember roads are also used for defense. Thats why we have the interstate so roads have to be govt. funded in that sense.

[sir_scutter]

I think you also need to remember roads are also used for defense. Thats why we have the interstate so roads have to be govt. funded in that sense.

I'll correct you that nothing has to be government regulated/funded. Man created gov't, therefore came before gov't.

But getting back to the actual title of the thread: flat tax and progressive tax... they are both ways of taking my money without my consent and most likely for services i do not want and do not use. To claim that it's possible to get the taxes to be spent on the correct things meaning people have to elect the correct person to power is just crazy. Powerful positions will attract power-hungry, dangerous people. Even if on politician got spending lowered, it would just go up again because it's their decision and they can do whatever they want.

[ariastar]

I have an idea - how about scrapping the tax write-offs the rich get? You buy a Hummer or a yacht, pay the damned taxes instead of claiming it all as a write-off. Build your Japanese palace-inspired mansion for more than it could sell for? Don't bitch about it, and then expect the county to reimburse you $1.5 million (I'm looking at you, fucking Larry Ellison).

Look, taxes are out of control due to write-off, a lack of accountability, and insane government salaries. If politicians would think things through instead of start a project then ditch it after a few million, a lot of money would be freed up instead of wasted. And they don't need to be voting themselves raises every year. They are supposed to work for us, right? I'd like to see anyone else go to his boss and tell him he's getting a raise, and that's that, and he's how much, and any attempt to stop it (like not paying the money) will result in jail time. You'd get fired if you were anyone else.

[phatlip12]

I'll correct you that nothing has to be government regulated/funded. Man created gov't, therefore came before gov't.


If we want to use our interstate system for defense reasons then yes- the government HAS to regulate and fund it. The military= government.

[burkhartmj]

I have an idea - how about scrapping the tax write-offs the rich get? You buy a Hummer or a yacht, pay the damned taxes instead of claiming it all as a write-off. Build your Japanese palace-inspired mansion for more than it could sell for? Don't bitch about it, and then expect the county to reimburse you $1.5 million (I'm looking at you, fucking Larry Ellison).

Look, taxes are out of control due to write-off, a lack of accountability, and insane government salaries. If politicians would think things through instead of start a project then ditch it after a few million, a lot of money would be freed up instead of wasted. And they don't need to be voting themselves raises every year. They are supposed to work for us, right? I'd like to see anyone else go to his boss and tell him he's getting a raise, and that's that, and he's how much, and any attempt to stop it (like not paying the money) will result in jail time. You'd get fired if you were anyone else.

So what you're suggesting is the top tax bracket still be taxed as much as 60% of their income, and have no way to keep some of that, while lower brackets pay exhorbitantly less? Even as is, the rich are paying at least 80%, but I believe 90% of the taxes in this country. The whole point of the flat tax [and fairtax to an extent] is to eliminate writeoffs without completely fucking over anyone, including the wealthy.

Everything about the politicians throwing money away I completely agree with though :)