Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Flat tax v. Fair Tax

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:33:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was reading a website for a fair tax (NRST, http://www.fairtax.org... ) and it sees to be good. Questions:

1. What do you support
2. Why do you support it?
3. Which would be better for the economy?

Thank you.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.

Why would it do that? I'm for a complete removal of payroll tax.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:43:06 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.

Why would it do that? I'm for a complete removal of payroll tax.

Not the payroll tax, the 23% consumption tax.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:57:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:56:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:43:06 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.

Why would it do that? I'm for a complete removal of payroll tax.

Not the payroll tax, the 23% consumption tax.

people still buy cigarettes.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:58:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:57:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:56:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:43:06 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.

Why would it do that? I'm for a complete removal of payroll tax.

Not the payroll tax, the 23% consumption tax.

people still buy cigarettes.

It would encourage saving, instead of spending, as you can avoid the tax, unlike the income tax.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:00:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:58:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:57:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:56:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:43:06 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.

Why would it do that? I'm for a complete removal of payroll tax.

Not the payroll tax, the 23% consumption tax.

people still buy cigarettes.

It would encourage saving, instead of spending, as you can avoid the tax, unlike the income tax.

saving is good. It leads to investments in businesses, as sitting on your money is a losing deal due to 3% inflation.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:03:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 5:00:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:58:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:57:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:56:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:43:06 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.

Why would it do that? I'm for a complete removal of payroll tax.

Not the payroll tax, the 23% consumption tax.

people still buy cigarettes.

It would encourage saving, instead of spending, as you can avoid the tax, unlike the income tax.

saving is good. It leads to investments in businesses, as sitting on your money is a losing deal due to 3% inflation.

When a group of people stop spending money and save it, demand decreases, which leads to a recession.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:09:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 5:03:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 5:00:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:58:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:57:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:56:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:43:06 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.

Why would it do that? I'm for a complete removal of payroll tax.

Not the payroll tax, the 23% consumption tax.

people still buy cigarettes.

It would encourage saving, instead of spending, as you can avoid the tax, unlike the income tax.

saving is good. It leads to investments in businesses, as sitting on your money is a losing deal due to 3% inflation.

When a group of people stop spending money and save it, demand decreases, which leads to a recession.

That can be a good thing when supply is based on people running up credit card debt. Retooling the economy is not a bad thing.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:20:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 5:09:03 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 5:03:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 5:00:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:58:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:57:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:56:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:43:06 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:41:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I like the concept of the removal of payroll tax but I'm afraid that it might generate a sort of psychological effect that demotivates consumption.

Why would it do that? I'm for a complete removal of payroll tax.

Not the payroll tax, the 23% consumption tax.

people still buy cigarettes.

It would encourage saving, instead of spending, as you can avoid the tax, unlike the income tax.

saving is good. It leads to investments in businesses, as sitting on your money is a losing deal due to 3% inflation.

When a group of people stop spending money and save it, demand decreases, which leads to a recession.

That can be a good thing when supply is based on people running up credit card debt. Retooling the economy is not a bad thing.

Demand applies to borrowed money also..
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 6:50:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I support the Progressive income tax.

Those who have more money can afford to contribute more to society. Just some more. So the gov't can improve our infrastructure and other services the gov't provides better (utilities, insurance, defense).

At the worst I would support the flat tax with the NIT, at a rate of 25% for the flat tax. I like the idea of zero loopholes.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 6:55:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Contra, with what moral justification can two people who use the same governmental resources pay no taxes and taxes respectively?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 6:59:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, don't give me the moral bullish!t about how one person lives in a car and another in a mansion.

They all use public goods.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 7:09:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 6:55:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, with what moral justification can two people who use the same governmental resources pay no taxes and taxes respectively?

+1
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 7:09:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 6:55:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, with what moral justification can two people who use the same governmental resources pay no taxes and taxes respectively?

The purpose of the government is to promote the common good. Thus, a guy who pays no taxes but because of this stays out of poverty, it is in the general interest of society to do so. And most Americans hate the idea of paying the same percentage of income who owns thousands of times more wealth than they do.

Lordknuckle, do you support the NIT?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 7:56:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 7:09:48 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/3/2012 6:55:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, with what moral justification can two people who use the same governmental resources pay no taxes and taxes respectively?

The purpose of the government is to promote the common good. Thus, a guy who pays no taxes but because of this stays out of poverty, it is in the general interest of society to do so.

Poverty is an artificial distinction.

And most Americans hate the idea of paying the same percentage of income who owns thousands of times more wealth than they do.

Ad populum. No logical basis.

Lordknuckle, do you support the NIT?

On a moral basis, I support no safety net whatsoever. On a practical basis, I would support a 15% NIT.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
SayWhat
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:04:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry guys, but I'm with Contra on this one. And I don't just support progressive taxation because of the extra revenue it provides; also because I give a sh*t about the middle class and income equality.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:08:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:33:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
I was reading a website for a fair tax (NRST, http://www.fairtax.org... ) and it sees to be good. Questions:

1. What do you support

Flat

2. Why do you support it?

Simple rates that lower revanue - means the state is forced to shrink

3. Which would be better for the economy?


The heritage foundation has a good counter article that explains all:

http://www.heritage.org...
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:09:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I favor the progressive tax because libertarians don't like it. I'm also not liberal or progressive, because I don't favor government intervention in the marketplace. This puts me in a unique class of my own.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:10:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:04:22 PM, SayWhat wrote:
Sorry guys, but I'm with Contra on this one. And I don't just support progressive taxation because of the extra revenue it provides; also because I give a sh*t about the middle class and income equality.

Equality?! Have fun with that dream and dead economy
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:12:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:10:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:04:22 PM, SayWhat wrote:
Sorry guys, but I'm with Contra on this one. And I don't just support progressive taxation because of the extra revenue it provides; also because I give a sh*t about the middle class and income equality.

Equality?! Have fun with that dream and dead economy

Total equality might not be a desirable thing, but the United States could have a lower gini coefficient and still have strong economic growth. You don't need millions and millions of dollars to motivate you to work.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:14:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:12:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:10:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:04:22 PM, SayWhat wrote:
Sorry guys, but I'm with Contra on this one. And I don't just support progressive taxation because of the extra revenue it provides; also because I give a sh*t about the middle class and income equality.

Equality?! Have fun with that dream and dead economy

Total equality might not be a desirable thing, but the United States could have a lower gini coefficient and still have strong economic growth. You don't need millions and millions of dollars to motivate you to work.

That's true. To motivate you to work, you ought to have little. Should the government take away possessions to make everybody have little goods?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:19:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:14:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:12:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:10:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:04:22 PM, SayWhat wrote:
Sorry guys, but I'm with Contra on this one. And I don't just support progressive taxation because of the extra revenue it provides; also because I give a sh*t about the middle class and income equality.

Equality?! Have fun with that dream and dead economy

Total equality might not be a desirable thing, but the United States could have a lower gini coefficient and still have strong economic growth. You don't need millions and millions of dollars to motivate you to work.

That's true. To motivate you to work, you ought to have little. Should the government take away possessions to make everybody have little goods?

Don't see what would be the point of producing more goods and services if nobody is going to obtain them.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:30:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:10:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/3/2012 8:04:22 PM, SayWhat wrote:
Sorry guys, but I'm with Contra on this one. And I don't just support progressive taxation because of the extra revenue it provides; also because I give a sh*t about the middle class and income equality.

Equality?! Have fun with that dream and dead economy

As we all know in the 1950s the US had a very progressive tax structure the welfare state limited the ability to become super rich, and thus the richest of society slowly faded away until the 1970s onwards. With less income inequality, there is a stronger consumer base and thus more growth and investment. However total equality and extreme inequality are both undesirable.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:36:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Keep in mind that a progressive income tax doesn't affect most of the extremely wealthy, who rely mainly on investments (taxed as capital gains). A progressive tax deals the biggest blow to those in the upper-middle class (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but not the super-rich.