Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Flat tax on Consumption

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 9:07:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?:

Better than imposing a sin tax on consumables the government doesn't like, or pretends not to like, in order to give them justification for taxing you more heavily.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 2:00:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?

If a poor person spends 90% of their income an taxable goods like food and clothing while a rich person spends 10% of his income an taxable goods and puts the rest in the bank, do you have any problem with taxing 90% of the poor person's income and 10% of the rich person's income?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 2:16:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 2:00:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?

If a poor person spends 90% of their income an taxable goods like food and clothing while a rich person spends 10% of his income an taxable goods and puts the rest in the bank, do you have any problem with taxing 90% of the poor person's income and 10% of the rich person's income?

There are going to be different incomes. A flat tax is the most fair system. If someone is spending $10 on a shirt and the flat tax is $1 then it is fair to pay it no matter what the income level. I would support a 10% flat tax all across the board.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 3:01:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 2:16:43 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:00:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?

If a poor person spends 90% of their income an taxable goods like food and clothing while a rich person spends 10% of his income an taxable goods and puts the rest in the bank, do you have any problem with taxing 90% of the poor person's income and 10% of the rich person's income?

There are going to be different incomes. A flat tax is the most fair system. If someone is spending $10 on a shirt and the flat tax is $1 then it is fair to pay it no matter what the income level. I would support a 10% flat tax all across the board.

You don't seem to grasp this.

When someone makes an income, the government takes a certain percentage. Currently, we calculate that by how much income they make.

The flat tax is still a tax on your income, but it only applies to those who have to spend their money on taxable goods.

If food costs a family $3,000 a month, and the dad takes home $6,000 a month, you're taxing 50% of the poor person's income at 10%.

The rich family across town also spends $3,000 a month on food, but the family takes home $30,000 dollars per month. They put $27,000 in a savings account.

You tax the 10% of the rich person's income at 10%.

How on earth is that even mildly fair?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 3:31:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 3:01:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:16:43 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:00:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?

If a poor person spends 90% of their income an taxable goods like food and clothing while a rich person spends 10% of his income an taxable goods and puts the rest in the bank, do you have any problem with taxing 90% of the poor person's income and 10% of the rich person's income?

There are going to be different incomes. A flat tax is the most fair system. If someone is spending $10 on a shirt and the flat tax is $1 then it is fair to pay it no matter what the income level. I would support a 10% flat tax all across the board.

You don't seem to grasp this.

When someone makes an income, the government takes a certain percentage. Currently, we calculate that by how much income they make.

The flat tax is still a tax on your income, but it only applies to those who have to spend their money on taxable goods.

If food costs a family $3,000 a month, and the dad takes home $6,000 a month, you're taxing 50% of the poor person's income at 10%.

The rich family across town also spends $3,000 a month on food, but the family takes home $30,000 dollars per month. They put $27,000 in a savings account.

You tax the 10% of the rich person's income at 10%.

How on earth is that even mildly fair?

Most supports of the fair tax believe that there should be a rebate on taxes, or no tax on consumer goods, below the poverty level. Perhaps the government reimburses you beforehand for the consumer tax on consumer goods below the poverty live.

However, you complain that is unfair since the rich man is putting money into his or her bank account. First off, it is noted that the rich person is saving, meaning that he or she will spend the money on a future date. Also why should a person be punished for not consuming material. The rich man is providing a valuable service since he is putting the money to work through investments, which is the driving force of he economy. Through putting the money into savings, he is doing much more to help others then any politician or government official could do.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 6:33:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 3:31:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2011 3:01:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:16:43 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:00:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?

If a poor person spends 90% of their income an taxable goods like food and clothing while a rich person spends 10% of his income an taxable goods and puts the rest in the bank, do you have any problem with taxing 90% of the poor person's income and 10% of the rich person's income?

There are going to be different incomes. A flat tax is the most fair system. If someone is spending $10 on a shirt and the flat tax is $1 then it is fair to pay it no matter what the income level. I would support a 10% flat tax all across the board.

You don't seem to grasp this.

When someone makes an income, the government takes a certain percentage. Currently, we calculate that by how much income they make.

The flat tax is still a tax on your income, but it only applies to those who have to spend their money on taxable goods.

If food costs a family $3,000 a month, and the dad takes home $6,000 a month, you're taxing 50% of the poor person's income at 10%.

The rich family across town also spends $3,000 a month on food, but the family takes home $30,000 dollars per month. They put $27,000 in a savings account.

You tax the 10% of the rich person's income at 10%.

How on earth is that even mildly fair?

Most supports of the fair tax believe that there should be a rebate on taxes, or no tax on consumer goods, below the poverty level. Perhaps the government reimburses you beforehand for the consumer tax on consumer goods below the poverty live.

However, you complain that is unfair since the rich man is putting money into his or her bank account. First off, it is noted that the rich person is saving, meaning that he or she will spend the money on a future date. Also why should a person be punished for not consuming material. The rich man is providing a valuable service since he is putting the money to work through investments, which is the driving force of he economy. Through putting the money into savings, he is doing much more to help others then any politician or government official could do.

You're right. The key point is that saving is just future consumption...
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 8:59:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 3:31:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2011 3:01:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:16:43 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:00:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?

If a poor person spends 90% of their income an taxable goods like food and clothing while a rich person spends 10% of his income an taxable goods and puts the rest in the bank, do you have any problem with taxing 90% of the poor person's income and 10% of the rich person's income?

There are going to be different incomes. A flat tax is the most fair system. If someone is spending $10 on a shirt and the flat tax is $1 then it is fair to pay it no matter what the income level. I would support a 10% flat tax all across the board.

You don't seem to grasp this.

When someone makes an income, the government takes a certain percentage. Currently, we calculate that by how much income they make.

The flat tax is still a tax on your income, but it only applies to those who have to spend their money on taxable goods.

If food costs a family $3,000 a month, and the dad takes home $6,000 a month, you're taxing 50% of the poor person's income at 10%.

The rich family across town also spends $3,000 a month on food, but the family takes home $30,000 dollars per month. They put $27,000 in a savings account.

You tax the 10% of the rich person's income at 10%.

How on earth is that even mildly fair?

Most supports of the fair tax believe that there should be a rebate on taxes, or no tax on consumer goods, below the poverty level. Perhaps the government reimburses you beforehand for the consumer tax on consumer goods below the poverty live.

However, you complain that is unfair since the rich man is putting money into his or her bank account. First off, it is noted that the rich person is saving, meaning that he or she will spend the money on a future date. Also why should a person be punished for not consuming material. The rich man is providing a valuable service since he is putting the money to work through investments, which is the driving force of he economy. Through putting the money into savings, he is doing much more to help others then any politician or government official could do.

It isn't just a matter of below the poverty line.

It is regressive taxation that diminishes as your comparisons are between richer and richer people.

Investment is a valuable service for the economy, but so is consumption.

If you have no problem with regressive taxation, then it's a normative matter and I have no issue. However, I have a problem with those who say a consumption tax "equalizes the burden" on rich and poor or that it "equally helps/hurts all classes" or worse is a "fair tax" for the American people. Even "flat tax" is a misleading term.

A true "flat tax" would be the same interest rate applied to all income levels. That is a different discussion entirely.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 8:19:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 3:01:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:16:43 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:00:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?

If a poor person spends 90% of their income an taxable goods like food and clothing while a rich person spends 10% of his income an taxable goods and puts the rest in the bank, do you have any problem with taxing 90% of the poor person's income and 10% of the rich person's income?

There are going to be different incomes. A flat tax is the most fair system. If someone is spending $10 on a shirt and the flat tax is $1 then it is fair to pay it no matter what the income level. I would support a 10% flat tax all across the board.

You don't seem to grasp this.

When someone makes an income, the government takes a certain percentage. Currently, we calculate that by how much income they make.

The flat tax is still a tax on your income, but it only applies to those who have to spend their money on taxable goods.

If food costs a family $3,000 a month, and the dad takes home $6,000 a month, you're taxing 50% of the poor person's income at 10%.

The rich family across town also spends $3,000 a month on food, but the family takes home $30,000 dollars per month. They put $27,000 in a savings account.

You tax the 10% of the rich person's income at 10%.

How on earth is that even mildly fair?

What you described isn't fair. I support this....

$6,000 a month at 10% is $600 in taxes.

$30,000 a month at 10% is $3,000 in taxes.

$3,000 a month on food at 10% is $300 no matter how much you make a month.

10% tax across the board. I would support that. I also support wages being more balanced across the board than what they are today. Bring the wealthy by wage down to upper middle class and the poor by wage up to lower middle class. I would rather live in a country where there is only a small gap. Upper middle, middle, and lower middle. Wealthy and poverty classes need to be eliminated. It's more efficient and sustainable for any socio-economic system. This is my perspective.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:43:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 8:19:38 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 3:01:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:16:43 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:00:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:54:22 AM, seraine wrote:
A flat tax on consumption seems like the most logical system for taxes- it's so much less complicated than our current system and there is no reason for such a complicated system. Would anyone have any objections for a flat tax on consumption?

If a poor person spends 90% of their income an taxable goods like food and clothing while a rich person spends 10% of his income an taxable goods and puts the rest in the bank, do you have any problem with taxing 90% of the poor person's income and 10% of the rich person's income?

There are going to be different incomes. A flat tax is the most fair system. If someone is spending $10 on a shirt and the flat tax is $1 then it is fair to pay it no matter what the income level. I would support a 10% flat tax all across the board.

You don't seem to grasp this.

When someone makes an income, the government takes a certain percentage. Currently, we calculate that by how much income they make.

The flat tax is still a tax on your income, but it only applies to those who have to spend their money on taxable goods.

If food costs a family $3,000 a month, and the dad takes home $6,000 a month, you're taxing 50% of the poor person's income at 10%.

The rich family across town also spends $3,000 a month on food, but the family takes home $30,000 dollars per month. They put $27,000 in a savings account.

You tax the 10% of the rich person's income at 10%.

How on earth is that even mildly fair?

What you described isn't fair. I support this....


$6,000 a month at 10% is $600 in taxes.

$30,000 a month at 10% is $3,000 in taxes.

$3,000 a month on food at 10% is $300 no matter how much you make a month.

10% tax across the board. I would support that. I also support wages being more balanced across the board than what they are today. Bring the wealthy by wage down to upper middle class and the poor by wage up to lower middle class. I would rather live in a country where there is only a small gap. Upper middle, middle, and lower middle. Wealthy and poverty classes need to be eliminated. It's more efficient and sustainable for any socio-economic system. This is my perspective.

Alright, just know that that isn't a flat tax on consumption, it's a flat tax on income.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:59:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No matter how you look at it wnope, there is no practical way to tax a rich man's savings unless he makes money from his savings. As long as there are tax free investments, and there always will be those, cunsumption taxes may be the ONLY way to tax rich people.

Also, 90 % and 10% seem quite exaggerated, more like 60% for poor and 30% for rich, just think how expensive rent is.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 2:10:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The fact that Washington can't get this passed is a clear indication that the rich do not think it is fair to pay any form of a consumption tax.

You don't really think the poor people make policy do you?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 8:26:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 8:59:35 PM, Wnope wrote:

It isn't just a matter of below the poverty line.

alright

It is regressive taxation that diminishes as your comparisons are between richer and richer people.

However, both parties are consuming an equal amount in present. I don't see why a person should be punished for savings. Also,as an above poster stated, savings is just future consumption.

Investment is a valuable service for the economy, but so is consumption.

Investing is a much more valuable service to the economy. Investment allows for economic growth. Consumption only satisfies present needs for society. Maybe its just me, but I think what Warren Buffet and Bill Gates do with their money is a much more valuable service to society then what Paris Hilton does with hers, and as a result should be rewarded for that.

Present savings is just future consumption. All taxes lead to deadweight loss in all scenarios. Capital taxes harm investment. Income taxes discourage work.

If you have no problem with regressive taxation, then it's a normative matter and I have no issue.

I don't think I have an issue, If a very wealthy man consumes as much as an average person. Furthermore, private sector goods and services do not discriminate based on wealth, however public sector goods and services do.

However, I have a problem with those who say a consumption tax "equalizes the burden" on rich and poor or that it "equally helps/hurts all classes" or worse is a "fair tax" for the American people. Even "flat tax" is a misleading term.

Well, the fair tax is fair in a few senses. First, as I stated above, it doesn't punish investing or work. Second, it gets rid of the loopholes in the tax system.

A true "flat tax" would be the same interest rate applied to all income levels. That is a different discussion entirely.

Well the assumption is that a really wealthy person spends more then a wealthy person.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...