Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Flat Tax vs Progressive Tax

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 4:31:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd like to learn a little more about both of these... What are your thoughts about either of these two tax systems, and how do they and their slight variations operate? :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 6:05:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 10:06:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 4:31:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'd like to learn a little more about both of these... What are your thoughts about either of these two tax systems, and how do they and their slight variations operate? :)

The concept is pretty simple.

A flat tax is consistent for people among all income levels, while a progressive tax is weighted dependent on what income bracket a person falls under. Progressive taxes always get higher as the tax brackets do as well, otherwise it would be considered a regressive tax.

My opinion is pretty simple. I do not believe in forced taxation, rather a non-statist system called voluntary taxation.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 10:49:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 10:06:51 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 10/21/2015 4:31:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'd like to learn a little more about both of these... What are your thoughts about either of these two tax systems, and how do they and their slight variations operate? :)

The concept is pretty simple.

A flat tax is consistent for people among all income levels, while a progressive tax is weighted dependent on what income bracket a person falls under. Progressive taxes always get higher as the tax brackets do as well, otherwise it would be considered a regressive tax.

Alright... of these two (disregarding your opinion of voluntary taxation) do you believe would function best in the US?

My opinion is pretty simple. I do not believe in forced taxation, rather a non-statist system called voluntary taxation.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 10:52:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 10:49:28 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
Alright... of these two (disregarding your opinion of voluntary taxation) do you believe would function best in the US?

The immense effects of a huge change on the tax code like that are non-calculable. For this reason, the safer option is to stick with the status quo, and only make slight changes every so often when the damages can be accounted for.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 10:54:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whatever promises the least taxes, which in this case, is the flat tax, is overall better than the alternative. The USA is a bottomless money pit of waste and despair. The best social policy you could give the American people is relief on the burden of taxation.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 10:55:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 10:54:10 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
Whatever promises the least taxes, which in this case, is the flat tax, is overall better than the alternative. The USA is a bottomless money pit of waste and despair. The best social policy you could give the American people is relief on the burden of taxation.

Okay, thanks! :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 7:08:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 4:31:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'd like to learn a little more about both of these... What are your thoughts about either of these two tax systems, and how do they and their slight variations operate? :)
http://www.debate.org...
It's pretty obvious that progressive taxation is preferable. Think about it. Let's say we have a 20% flat tax rate.

A rich guy earning $20,000,000 per year is gonna have to give up $4,000,000, which affects him... how? Oh they won't be able to buy that new waterfront summer residence? That expensive yacht? How horrible.

An upper middle-class guy earning $100,000 per year is gonna have to give up $20,000, which is means less money to spend on important-but-not-essential things, like retirement savings, and their kids' college education.

A poor person earning $20,000 per year is gonna have to give up $4,000, which means less money for essentials, like mortgages, car loans, healthcare, and utilities. That sort of tax burden will crash their budget.

It's ridiculous to prioritize some abstract, arbitrary notion of equality over considerations of the relative impact on tax-payers' personal financial situations. Progressive taxation maximizes tax revenue while minimizing tax burden. Flat taxation does the exact opposite.

The choice is simple.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:07:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 7:08:32 PM, Insignifica wrote:
At 10/21/2015 4:31:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'd like to learn a little more about both of these... What are your thoughts about either of these two tax systems, and how do they and their slight variations operate? :)

It's pretty obvious that progressive taxation is preferable. Think about it. Let's say we have a 20% flat tax rate.

A rich guy earning $20,000,000 per year is gonna have to give up $4,000,000, which affects him... how? Oh they won't be able to buy that new waterfront summer residence? That expensive yacht? How horrible.

An upper middle-class guy earning $100,000 per year is gonna have to give up $20,000, which is means less money to spend on important-but-not-essential things, like retirement savings, and their kids' college education.

A poor person earning $20,000 per year is gonna have to give up $4,000, which means less money for essentials, like mortgages, car loans, healthcare, and utilities. That sort of tax burden will crash their budget.

It's ridiculous to prioritize some abstract, arbitrary notion of equality over considerations of the relative impact on tax-payers' personal financial situations.

Progressive taxation maximizes tax revenue while minimizing tax burden. Flat taxation does the exact opposite.

The choice is simple.

You "thoroughly" explain the flat tax, but don't show what exactly the progressive tax encompasses. It'd be helpful for the purposes of weighing the two together.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:13:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:07:35 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/31/2015 7:08:32 PM, Insignifica wrote:
At 10/21/2015 4:31:34 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'd like to learn a little more about both of these... What are your thoughts about either of these two tax systems, and how do they and their slight variations operate? :)

It's pretty obvious that progressive taxation is preferable. Think about it. Let's say we have a 20% flat tax rate.

A rich guy earning $20,000,000 per year is gonna have to give up $4,000,000, which affects him... how? Oh they won't be able to buy that new waterfront summer residence? That expensive yacht? How horrible.

An upper middle-class guy earning $100,000 per year is gonna have to give up $20,000, which is means less money to spend on important-but-not-essential things, like retirement savings, and their kids' college education.

A poor person earning $20,000 per year is gonna have to give up $4,000, which means less money for essentials, like mortgages, car loans, healthcare, and utilities. That sort of tax burden will crash their budget.

It's ridiculous to prioritize some abstract, arbitrary notion of equality over considerations of the relative impact on tax-payers' personal financial situations.

Progressive taxation maximizes tax revenue while minimizing tax burden. Flat taxation does the exact opposite.

The choice is simple.

You "thoroughly" explain the flat tax, but don't show what exactly the progressive tax encompasses. It'd be helpful for the purposes of weighing the two together.

I don't know the exact numbers, but for the purposes of simplicity, they could be something along the lines of 5% for the poor, 20% for lower-middle class, 30% for upper middle class, 40% for the rich, and 50% for the super-rich.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:14:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:13:32 AM, Insignifica wrote:
I don't know the exact numbers, but for the purposes of simplicity, they could be something along the lines of 5% for the poor, 20% for lower-middle class, 30% for upper middle class, 40% for the rich, and 50% for the super-rich.

So basically, you want no rich and no poor?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:25:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:14:55 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 12:13:32 AM, Insignifica wrote:
I don't know the exact numbers, but for the purposes of simplicity, they could be something along the lines of 5% for the poor, 20% for lower-middle class, 30% for upper middle class, 40% for the rich, and 50% for the super-rich.

So basically, you want no rich and no poor?

When the hell did I say that?
Assuming my hypothetical progressive tax system:

Poor ---> $20,000 pre-tax ---> $19,000 post-tax
LMC ---> $60,000 pre-tax ---> $48,000 post-tax
UMC ---> $100,000 pre-tax ---> $70,000 post-tax
Rich ---> $1,000,000 pre-tax ---> $600,000 post-tax
Super ---> $100,000,000 pre-tax ---> $50,000,000 post-tax

Those are still very distinct economic classes lol.

In retrospect, I would probably spread the tax rates even further apart. Like 1% for the poor, 10% for the LMC, 25% for UMC, etc.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:32:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:25:48 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/2/2015 12:14:55 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 12:13:32 AM, Insignifica wrote:
I don't know the exact numbers, but for the purposes of simplicity, they could be something along the lines of 5% for the poor, 20% for lower-middle class, 30% for upper middle class, 40% for the rich, and 50% for the super-rich.

So basically, you want no rich and no poor?

When the *censored* did I say that?

Lol, you didn't I was exaggerating... It was a joke, calm down lol.

Assuming my hypothetical progressive tax system:

Poor ---> $20,000 pre-tax ---> $19,000 post-tax
LMC ---> $60,000 pre-tax ---> $48,000 post-tax
UMC ---> $100,000 pre-tax ---> $70,000 post-tax
Rich ---> $1,000,000 pre-tax ---> $600,000 post-tax
Super ---> $100,000,000 pre-tax ---> $50,000,000 post-tax

Those are still very distinct economic classes lol.

Yeah. I just see the rich being significantly hurt.. I'd only support if the rich were taxed well under 50%...

In retrospect, I would probably spread the tax rates even further apart. Like 1% for the poor, 10% for the LMC, 25% for UMC, etc.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:34:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:32:00 AM, ColeTrain wrote:

Yeah. I just see the rich being significantly hurt.. I'd only support if the rich were taxed well under 50%...

Lol "significantly hurt."
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:35:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:34:39 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/2/2015 12:32:00 AM, ColeTrain wrote:

Yeah. I just see the rich being significantly hurt.. I'd only support if the rich were taxed well under 50%...

Lol "significantly hurt."

So funny, isn't it?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:38:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:35:50 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2015 12:34:39 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/2/2015 12:32:00 AM, ColeTrain wrote:

Yeah. I just see the rich being significantly hurt.. I'd only support if the rich were taxed well under 50%...

Lol "significantly hurt."

So funny, isn't it?

Not at all, sir. It is truly horrifying how the government forces these poor multi-millionaires live off a measly $50 million.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:39:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:38:02 AM, Insignifica wrote:
Not at all, sir. It is truly horrifying how the government forces these poor multi-millionaires live off a measly $50 million.

Sarcasm at its best.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
johnlent
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:32:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since no one gave you a good argument, here's a more detailed explanation.
A flat tax, with no or almost no deductions, is good because it simplifies an incredibly complicated tax code. This reduces the financial burden on small businesses and individuals who no longer need accounting professionals, and it reduces or eliminates tax avoidance in large companies by making it more or less impossible, since there are pretty much, no loopholes.
There would still be accounting complexities (what is "profit", "income", etc.) But they would be many fewer.
Most people who support a flat tax are corporate villains, so you rarely hear about the idea of a flat tax AFTER an allowance for basic standard of living (what today would be called an EXEMPT amount).
I think probably the best model would be a Flat Tax, Exemption Amount Tied to External Factors (living wage guidelines), and a Basic Income Guarantee (if you earn less than a living wage, the government in effect pays you the difference).
Very predictable, immediately solves all of the poverty related problems.
And then, ideally, you add a requirement that the tax pool goes FIRST into the BIG fund, and then remainder is available for government spending on other programs (roads, bridges, wars etc.)
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 8:22:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:32:45 PM, johnlent wrote:
Since no one gave you a good argument, here's a more detailed explanation.

Lol.

A flat tax, with no or almost no deductions, is good because it simplifies an incredibly complicated tax code. This reduces the financial burden on small businesses and individuals who no longer need accounting professionals, and it reduces or eliminates tax avoidance in large companies by making it more or less impossible, since there are pretty much, no loopholes.

Okay, sounds pretty convincing. But I think the OP is trying to gain the superiority of one policy over another. So I ask: why is this *better* than a progressive tax?

There would still be accounting complexities (what is "profit", "income", etc.) But they would be many fewer.
Most people who support a flat tax are corporate villains, so you rarely hear about the idea of a flat tax AFTER an allowance for basic standard of living (what today would be called an EXEMPT amount).
I think probably the best model would be a Flat Tax, Exemption Amount Tied to External Factors (living wage guidelines), and a Basic Income Guarantee (if you earn less than a living wage, the government in effect pays you the difference).
Very predictable, immediately solves all of the poverty related problems.
And then, ideally, you add a requirement that the tax pool goes FIRST into the BIG fund, and then remainder is available for government spending on other programs (roads, bridges, wars etc.)

Hmm. Okay. Fair enough. I still want to see how this is objectively better than a progressive tax (though I agree with what you've been saying).
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:36:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.wsj.com...
- Ted Cruz
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:52:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 1:48:48 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 11/11/2015 1:36:14 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
http://www.wsj.com...
- Ted Cruz

Most reliable source I've ever seen.

I hope you're kidding. ;P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 5:25:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Trickle down theory" shows that when the rich have more money, they either employ lower-wage earners or buy products that require lower wage labor. So if the rich are able to keep more of their money, the poor would be better off. If we took a cut of the rich guys income and spread it amongst the poor, all we have is consumption without any tangible wealth. On the other hand, buying products creates demand and in order to keep up with demand more would need to be supplied. So there's an argument to be made on both sides. If we're talking about whatever ensures maximal economic growth, assuming Keynesian multipliers, a flat tax would result in much more economic growth.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 10:52:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 5:25:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Trickle down theory" shows that when the rich have more money, they either employ lower-wage earners or buy products that require lower wage labor. So if the rich are able to keep more of their money, the poor would be better off. If we took a cut of the rich guys income and spread it amongst the poor, all we have is consumption without any tangible wealth. On the other hand, buying products creates demand and in order to keep up with demand more would need to be supplied. So there's an argument to be made on both sides. If we're talking about whatever ensures maximal economic growth, assuming Keynesian multipliers, a flat tax would result in much more economic growth.

I generally agree.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW