Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are reasons to be against a flat tax

Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:02:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Well, for:

1. flat tax system punishes the poor segment of people/of the group.

2. Low-income people and families all spend money on the same thing needs needed/demanded by higher-income people. However, after the needs are bought, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts.

Really, what it comes down to is that flat tax is unfair to the poor. Due to the reducing not important utility of money, a 10% flat tax reduces the well-being of those with poors more than it reduces the well-being of those with high incomes. Just as taxing flat dollar amounts communicates more disutility to those with less income, so too does taxing flat rates. If you are worried about fairness defined as equal disutility heavy loads, you want the progressive tax.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:08:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:02:39 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Well, for:

1. flat tax system punishes the poor segment of people/of the group.

2. Low-income people and families all spend money on the same thing needs needed/demanded by higher-income people. However, after the needs are bought, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts.

Really, what it comes down to is that flat tax is unfair to the poor. Due to the reducing not important utility of money, a 10% flat tax reduces the well-being of those with poors more than it reduces the well-being of those with high incomes. Just as taxing flat dollar amounts communicates more disutility to those with less income, so too does taxing flat rates. If you are worried about fairness defined as equal disutility heavy loads, you want the progressive tax.

I don't think I see how 10% of 100 dollars is a lot. ( this is only an example) Please do explain the progressive tax rate as well. Educate me.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:16:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:08:00 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:02:39 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Well, for:

1. flat tax system punishes the poor segment of people/of the group.

2. Low-income people and families all spend money on the same thing needs needed/demanded by higher-income people. However, after the needs are bought, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts.

Really, what it comes down to is that flat tax is unfair to the poor. Due to the reducing not important utility of money, a 10% flat tax reduces the well-being of those with poors more than it reduces the well-being of those with high incomes. Just as taxing flat dollar amounts communicates more disutility to those with less income, so too does taxing flat rates. If you are worried about fairness defined as equal disutility heavy loads, you want the progressive tax.

I don't think I see how 10% of 100 dollars is a lot. ( this is only an example) Please do explain the progressive tax rate as well. Educate me.

But think about a poor family, 10% of 100 is 10. $10 can easily feed one family member.

Progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The U.S income tax is considered progressive. Example: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket.

Basically, tax payers are categorized based on taxable income. The more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:20:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Then you have Head Tax which basically is that all tax payers pay the same amount, no matter what their income is.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:21:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:16:19 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:08:00 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:02:39 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Well, for:

1. flat tax system punishes the poor segment of people/of the group.

2. Low-income people and families all spend money on the same thing needs needed/demanded by higher-income people. However, after the needs are bought, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts.

Really, what it comes down to is that flat tax is unfair to the poor. Due to the reducing not important utility of money, a 10% flat tax reduces the well-being of those with poors more than it reduces the well-being of those with high incomes. Just as taxing flat dollar amounts communicates more disutility to those with less income, so too does taxing flat rates. If you are worried about fairness defined as equal disutility heavy loads, you want the progressive tax.

I don't think I see how 10% of 100 dollars is a lot. ( this is only an example) Please do explain the progressive tax rate as well. Educate me.

But think about a poor family, 10% of 100 is 10. $10 can easily feed one family member.

Progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The U.S income tax is considered progressive. Example: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket.

Basically, tax payers are categorized based on taxable income. The more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay.

Ok, I'm afraid I don't perceive that as fair; furthermore, If I had to live off of 90 dollars (even though it isn't possible in today's world) I would be a lot more careful where I spent it. I don't make much now and taxes are heavy. The part of a flat tax that I like is that I can see how much is actually being taken out. that's a lot simpler than what we have now.
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 1:43:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

The benefits of the US government is much greater for someone with $100 million in assets than someone with $10, just by the nature of various programs of the US.

The one with many assets gets or has opportunity to use:
- Free deposit insurance for up to $100,000 of funds deposited at a FDIC bank.
- Systems which establish and enforce torte law for business and other contractual matters.
- A national defense systems/orgs which protects their assets and performs other functions such as keeping shipping lanes and other commerce generating protections.
- Lower tax rates on capital gains so they can make income that is taxed less than income tax.
- National roadway and other transport structure which aids with commerce.

This list can go on and on. To put is succinctly the person with $100 million has much much much more to lose should China invade and take us over than the $10 guy.

The other option to do it fairly is to place a sales tax on all goods and services including loans and stock transactions through a broker. Let's talk about a sales tax on EVERYTHING and people soon understand this silly fairness argument to support a flat tax has nothing to do with fairness, but rather than giving more benefit to the rich.

I can hear it now too. You might be thinking that it is still fair that the rich get to leverage the US systems to their benefit, but anyone can get rich and take advantage of that. We are not talking hypothetical. First and foremost it is not possible that everyone can be rich. The math will never work on that even if everyone spent 80 hours per week trying to get rich. Secondly we are talking about actual advantages the rich receive.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 4:16:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Flat taxes can actually have exemptions for the poor, and the vast majority of research indicates progressive taxes harm the economy.

The two best proposals are the progressive consumption tax, which eliminates the income tax while still retaining a progressive structure, and the KISS flat tax, which is a 20% flat tax on income and 20% on everything else (like a VAT). There are exemptions for the poor in order to not ruin their lives, and it would likely increase revenue overall.

The arguments a flat tax are weak if you take exemptions into account. A flat tax isn't necessarily ideal, but the KISS flat tax is the best one (it is explained in Lawrence Lindey's "The Growth Experiment Revisited").

Click here for a debate I did on progressive taxation:
http://www.debate.org...

And taxes in general: http://www.debate.org...
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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 4:20:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 4:16:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Flat taxes can actually have exemptions for the poor, and the vast majority of research indicates progressive taxes harm the economy.

The two best proposals are the progressive consumption tax, which eliminates the income tax while still retaining a progressive structure, and the KISS flat tax, which is a 20% flat tax on income and 20% on everything else (like a VAT). There are exemptions for the poor in order to not ruin their lives, and it would likely increase revenue overall.

The arguments a flat tax are weak if you take exemptions into account. A flat tax isn't necessarily ideal, but the KISS flat tax is the best one (it is explained in Lawrence Lindey's "The Growth Experiment Revisited").

Click here for a debate I did on progressive taxation:
http://www.debate.org...

And taxes in general: http://www.debate.org...

TBH I probably prefer a progressive consumption tax that reduces progressivity compared to the current system and not a pure flat tax. I would take KISS over the current system, though.
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
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 2:32:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:16:19 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:08:00 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:02:39 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Well, for:

1. flat tax system punishes the poor segment of people/of the group.

2. Low-income people and families all spend money on the same thing needs needed/demanded by higher-income people. However, after the needs are bought, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts.

Really, what it comes down to is that flat tax is unfair to the poor. Due to the reducing not important utility of money, a 10% flat tax reduces the well-being of those with poors more than it reduces the well-being of those with high incomes. Just as taxing flat dollar amounts communicates more disutility to those with less income, so too does taxing flat rates. If you are worried about fairness defined as equal disutility heavy loads, you want the progressive tax.

I don't think I see how 10% of 100 dollars is a lot. ( this is only an example) Please do explain the progressive tax rate as well. Educate me.

But think about a poor family, 10% of 100 is 10. $10 can easily feed one family member.

Progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The U.S income tax is considered progressive. Example: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket.

Basically, tax payers are categorized based on taxable income. The more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay.

Why? Is this a moral act, to penalize someone with harsher taxes because they earn more than another? I thought success was a reward, not a punishment.

If you want a fair society, everyone contributes equally. Someone making $100,000 a year with 20% flat tax will pay the same ratio of their income to someone making $100,000,000 a year with a 20% flat tax. The rich always will pay more in taxes, whether it is flat or progressive, since they make more money.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 2:47:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 2:32:46 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:16:19 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:08:00 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:02:39 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Well, for:

1. flat tax system punishes the poor segment of people/of the group.

2. Low-income people and families all spend money on the same thing needs needed/demanded by higher-income people. However, after the needs are bought, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts.

Really, what it comes down to is that flat tax is unfair to the poor. Due to the reducing not important utility of money, a 10% flat tax reduces the well-being of those with poors more than it reduces the well-being of those with high incomes. Just as taxing flat dollar amounts communicates more disutility to those with less income, so too does taxing flat rates. If you are worried about fairness defined as equal disutility heavy loads, you want the progressive tax.

I don't think I see how 10% of 100 dollars is a lot. ( this is only an example) Please do explain the progressive tax rate as well. Educate me.

But think about a poor family, 10% of 100 is 10. $10 can easily feed one family member.

Progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The U.S income tax is considered progressive. Example: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket.

Basically, tax payers are categorized based on taxable income. The more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay.

Why? Is this a moral act, to penalize someone with harsher taxes because they earn more than another? I thought success was a reward, not a punishment.

If you want a fair society, everyone contributes equally. Someone making $100,000 a year with 20% flat tax will pay the same ratio of their income to someone making $100,000,000 a year with a 20% flat tax. The rich always will pay more in taxes, whether it is flat or progressive, since they make more money.

Lol, you're completely wrong. I will respond to this later.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 6:29:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 2:32:46 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:16:19 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:08:00 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:02:39 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Well, for:

1. flat tax system punishes the poor segment of people/of the group.

2. Low-income people and families all spend money on the same thing needs needed/demanded by higher-income people. However, after the needs are bought, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts.

Really, what it comes down to is that flat tax is unfair to the poor. Due to the reducing not important utility of money, a 10% flat tax reduces the well-being of those with poors more than it reduces the well-being of those with high incomes. Just as taxing flat dollar amounts communicates more disutility to those with less income, so too does taxing flat rates. If you are worried about fairness defined as equal disutility heavy loads, you want the progressive tax.

I don't think I see how 10% of 100 dollars is a lot. ( this is only an example) Please do explain the progressive tax rate as well. Educate me.

But think about a poor family, 10% of 100 is 10. $10 can easily feed one family member.

Progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The U.S income tax is considered progressive. Example: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket.

Basically, tax payers are categorized based on taxable income. The more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay.

Why? Is this a moral act, to penalize someone with harsher taxes because they earn more than another? I thought success was a reward, not a punishment.

If you want a fair society, everyone contributes equally. Someone making $100,000 a year with 20% flat tax will pay the same ratio of their income to someone making $100,000,000 a year with a 20% flat tax. The rich always will pay more in taxes, whether it is flat or progressive, since they make more money.

The moral argument bears no impact for either side in my opinion. Flat tax proponents will say it's fair because everybody pay's the same percentage, thus every is treated equally. Progressive tax proponents will say the rich can afford to pay more, thus it's more fair putting less burden on the poor, who need more of their money to buy necessities. We need to look at which system actually is more beneficial. Looking at how countries like Russia have implemented a flat tax, not a whole lot of economic growth. I do this support implementing a progressive consumption tax, which is sort of like the Fairtax.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 6:35:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 6:29:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 1/30/2016 2:32:46 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:16:19 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:08:00 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:02:39 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Well, for:

1. flat tax system punishes the poor segment of people/of the group.

2. Low-income people and families all spend money on the same thing needs needed/demanded by higher-income people. However, after the needs are bought, the poorer taxpayers, because they earn less, will have less money left over to pay taxes, at the same rate as those earning higher income amounts.

Really, what it comes down to is that flat tax is unfair to the poor. Due to the reducing not important utility of money, a 10% flat tax reduces the well-being of those with poors more than it reduces the well-being of those with high incomes. Just as taxing flat dollar amounts communicates more disutility to those with less income, so too does taxing flat rates. If you are worried about fairness defined as equal disutility heavy loads, you want the progressive tax.

I don't think I see how 10% of 100 dollars is a lot. ( this is only an example) Please do explain the progressive tax rate as well. Educate me.

But think about a poor family, 10% of 100 is 10. $10 can easily feed one family member.

Progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The U.S income tax is considered progressive. Example: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket.

Basically, tax payers are categorized based on taxable income. The more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay.

Why? Is this a moral act, to penalize someone with harsher taxes because they earn more than another? I thought success was a reward, not a punishment.

If you want a fair society, everyone contributes equally. Someone making $100,000 a year with 20% flat tax will pay the same ratio of their income to someone making $100,000,000 a year with a 20% flat tax. The rich always will pay more in taxes, whether it is flat or progressive, since they make more money.

The moral argument bears no impact for either side in my opinion. Flat tax proponents will say it's fair because everybody pay's the same percentage, thus every is treated equally. Progressive tax proponents will say the rich can afford to pay more, thus it's more fair putting less burden on the poor, who need more of their money to buy necessities. We need to look at which system actually is more beneficial. Looking at how countries like Russia have implemented a flat tax, not a whole lot of economic growth. I do this support implementing a progressive consumption tax, which is sort of like the Fairtax.

There isn't economic growth in Russia because their currency is worthless and they have great amounts of sanctions. Bernie's progressive tax plan will eliminate 6 million jobs and slow down our GDP growth by 9.5%
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
WAM
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 3:06:28 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
By all means, a higher tax rate for different income levels benefits mostly the individuals located in the lower social 'hierarchy', while a flat tax is in the middle, though being more beneficial to the higher earners, due to a diminished infrastructure (which the rich don't care about), while the '0% tax' places are either for the 'super rich' and then are fully developed (UAE) or the places were you don't really want to be, because they are not developed at all...

However, if I am in a position were I am creating wealth regardless of my global position, I for sure won't hang around somewhere where I have to pay 50%+ tax.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 2:03:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 4:20:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:16:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Flat taxes can actually have exemptions for the poor, and the vast majority of research indicates progressive taxes harm the economy.

The two best proposals are the progressive consumption tax, which eliminates the income tax while still retaining a progressive structure, and the KISS flat tax, which is a 20% flat tax on income and 20% on everything else (like a VAT). There are exemptions for the poor in order to not ruin their lives, and it would likely increase revenue overall.

The arguments a flat tax are weak if you take exemptions into account. A flat tax isn't necessarily ideal, but the KISS flat tax is the best one (it is explained in Lawrence Lindey's "The Growth Experiment Revisited").

Click here for a debate I did on progressive taxation:
http://www.debate.org...

And taxes in general: http://www.debate.org...

TBH I probably prefer a progressive consumption tax that reduces progressivity compared to the current system and not a pure flat tax. I would take KISS over the current system, though.

Interesting info, I'll look more into this.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 2:31:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 6:29:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
The moral argument bears no impact for either side in my opinion.

I don't believe this is even remotely true. :P

Flat tax proponents will say it's fair because everybody pays the same percentage, thus every is treated equally.

This is true. Percentage-wise, the SAME amount of their income is taxed.

Progressive tax proponents will say the rich can afford to pay more, thus it's more fair putting less burden on the poor, who need more of their money to buy necessities.

This is objectively false. It's not *fair* to force someone to pay more simply based upon their success. It would seem this would deter the pursuit of success, to some degree, if the progressivity rates are too high (which, in most cases, they are).

We need to look at which system actually is more beneficial. Looking at how countries like Russia have implemented a flat tax, not a whole lot of economic growth.

What? It's increased revenue, reduced fraud, and helped compliance. [http://www.imf.org...] It stimulated (in eastern Europe) labor as it incentivized work by lowering the marginal rate, which is a good thing. [https://economics.stanford.edu...]
In essence, read 16k's debate.
"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
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 7:08:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 2:31:16 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 1/30/2016 6:29:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
The moral argument bears no impact for either side in my opinion.

I don't believe this is even remotely true. :P

I said that because the moral argument is right in both cases for me. Which is why I said "my opinion"

Flat tax proponents will say it's fair because everybody pays the same percentage, thus every is treated equally.

This is true. Percentage-wise, the SAME amount of their income is taxed.

Progressive tax proponents will say the rich can afford to pay more, thus it's more fair putting less burden on the poor, who need more of their money to buy necessities.

This is objectively false. It's not *fair* to force someone to pay more simply based upon their success. It would seem this would deter the pursuit of success, to some degree, if the progressivity rates are too high (which, in most cases, they are).

That's very incorrect. Success has never been deterred in America, and there the United States has the most billionaires in the world. If you are paying more already, why not pay a little more, so you put less burden on the lower classes?

And this is why the moral argument bears no impact. In your opinion, you don't believe it's fair, but other will say so. Everybody has different morals.

The flat tax is a flawed concept. If rich were really meant to pay the same, then were would need a regressive tax rate, meaning the rich would pay a lower % in order to pay the same. I'm sure you think a regressive tax rate is a ridiculous idea. A flat tax would require the U.S to increase the tax rate on the lower class, to make up for the lost money generated by taxes.


We need to look at which system actually is more beneficial. Looking at how countries like Russia have implemented a flat tax, not a whole lot of economic growth.

What? It's increased revenue, reduced fraud, and helped compliance. [http://www.imf.org...] It stimulated (in eastern Europe) labor as it incentivized work by lowering the marginal rate, which is a good thing. [https://economics.stanford.edu...]
In essence, read 16k's debate.

Ok, I concede this, but remember the U.S is not Russia. We are still highly dependent on the extra revenue.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 7:55:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 7:08:12 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/1/2016 2:31:16 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 1/30/2016 6:29:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
The moral argument bears no impact for either side in my opinion.

I don't believe this is even remotely true. :P

I said that because the moral argument is right in both cases for me. Which is why I said "my opinion"

I know. ;) I was just disagreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded too harsh.

Flat tax proponents will say it's fair because everybody pays the same percentage, thus every is treated equally.

This is true. Percentage-wise, the SAME amount of their income is taxed.

Progressive tax proponents will say the rich can afford to pay more, thus it's more fair putting less burden on the poor, who need more of their money to buy necessities.

This is objectively false. It's not *fair* to force someone to pay more simply based upon their success. It would seem this would deter the pursuit of success, to some degree, if the progressivity rates are too high (which, in most cases, they are).

That's very incorrect. Success has never been deterred in America, and there the United States has the most billionaires in the world. If you are paying more already, why not pay a little more, so you put less burden on the lower classes?

Look at our tax code, bro. It's alllllll messed up.

And this is why the moral argument bears no impact. In your opinion, you don't believe it's fair, but other will say so. Everybody has different morals.

Yeah, you're right. :) I just don't realize how anyone could find it fair, by that definition, that person A has to pay a higher percentage than person B. Oh well. ;)

The flat tax is a flawed concept. If rich were really meant to pay the same, then were would need a regressive tax rate, meaning the rich would pay a lower % in order to pay the same.

No, that's not what I'm advocating at all. I'm saying the percent should be the same. That's the only way taxation can functionally and logistically be "the same."

I'm sure you think a regressive tax rate is a ridiculous idea.

Hmm. That's interesting. Lol, yah, it's pretty horrendous.

A flat tax would require the U.S to increase the tax rate on the lower class, to make up for the lost money generated by taxes.

Not if it was done by percentage rather than actual quantitative value.

We need to look at which system actually is more beneficial. Looking at how countries like Russia have implemented a flat tax, not a whole lot of economic growth.

What? It's increased revenue, reduced fraud, and helped compliance. [http://www.imf.org...] It stimulated (in eastern Europe) labor as it incentivized work by lowering the marginal rate, which is a good thing. [https://economics.stanford.edu...]
In essence, read 16k's debate.

Ok, I concede this, but remember the U.S is not Russia. We are still highly dependent on the extra revenue.

Which, I think, in time a flat tax would produce at a superior level. It doesn't prohibit economic freedom on a more personal level, so it allows people to actually get rich if they try. I guess the disparity on views is probably the biggest factor at play in regards to progressive vs flat taxes, 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
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 8:03:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 7:55:55 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/1/2016 7:08:12 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/1/2016 2:31:16 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 1/30/2016 6:29:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
The moral argument bears no impact for either side in my opinion.

I don't believe this is even remotely true. :P

I said that because the moral argument is right in both cases for me. Which is why I said "my opinion"

I know. ;) I was just disagreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded too harsh.

Nah It's ColeTrain, he could never be harsh :)

Flat tax proponents will say it's fair because everybody pays the same percentage, thus every is treated equally.

This is true. Percentage-wise, the SAME amount of their income is taxed.

Progressive tax proponents will say the rich can afford to pay more, thus it's more fair putting less burden on the poor, who need more of their money to buy necessities.

This is objectively false. It's not *fair* to force someone to pay more simply based upon their success. It would seem this would deter the pursuit of success, to some degree, if the progressivity rates are too high (which, in most cases, they are).

That's very incorrect. Success has never been deterred in America, and there the United States has the most billionaires in the world. If you are paying more already, why not pay a little more, so you put less burden on the lower classes?

Look at our tax code, bro. It's alllllll messed up.

Yes, I agree. I'm not saying we need to keep the current system. It's horrible, and tax evasion is crazy. I do not believe a flat tax is the answer though, since it will create more problems.

And this is why the moral argument bears no impact. In your opinion, you don't believe it's fair, but other will say so. Everybody has different morals.

Yeah, you're right. :) I just don't realize how anyone could find it fair, by that definition, that person A has to pay a higher percentage than person B. Oh well. ;)

I find both moral arguments just, so that's why I can't decide between the two.

The flat tax is a flawed concept. If rich were really meant to pay the same, then were would need a regressive tax rate, meaning the rich would pay a lower % in order to pay the same.

No, that's not what I'm advocating at all. I'm saying the percent should be the same. That's the only way taxation can functionally and logistically be "the same."

But why does it have to stay the same? If you are paying more already, why not pay a little more to reduce the burden on the poor? I

I'm sure you think a regressive tax rate is a ridiculous idea.

Hmm. That's interesting. Lol, yah, it's pretty horrendous.

A flat tax would require the U.S to increase the tax rate on the lower class, to make up for the lost money generated by taxes.

Not if it was done by percentage rather than actual quantitative value.

What do you mean? I don't really understand.

We need to look at which system actually is more beneficial. Looking at how countries like Russia have implemented a flat tax, not a whole lot of economic growth.

What? It's increased revenue, reduced fraud, and helped compliance. [http://www.imf.org...] It stimulated (in eastern Europe) labor as it incentivized work by lowering the marginal rate, which is a good thing. [https://economics.stanford.edu...]
In essence, read 16k's debate.

Ok, I concede this, but remember the U.S is not Russia. We are still highly dependent on the extra revenue.

Which, I think, in time a flat tax would produce at a superior level. It doesn't prohibit economic freedom on a more personal level, so it allows people to actually get rich if they try. I guess the disparity on views is probably the biggest factor at play in regards to progressive vs flat taxes, etc.

I actually oppose the Progressive Tax rate we have now. I believe we need a progressive consumption tax. It makes the most sense, since you are being taxed on your consumption rather than savings, but it still maintains the progressive structure. It's basically a comprise between flat tax and progressive tax.

http://www.forbes.com...
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 8:22:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I know. ;) I was just disagreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded too harsh.

Nah It's ColeTrain, he could never be harsh :)

Lol :P

This is objectively false. It's not *fair* to force someone to pay more simply based upon their success. It would seem this would deter the pursuit of success, to some degree, if the progressivity rates are too high (which, in most cases, they are).

That's very incorrect. Success has never been deterred in America, and there the United States has the most billionaires in the world. If you are paying more already, why not pay a little more, so you put less burden on the lower classes?

Look at our tax code, bro. It's alllllll messed up.

Yes, I agree. I'm not saying we need to keep the current system. It's horrible, and tax evasion is crazy.

Lol yep.

I do not believe a flat tax is the answer though,

It's better than a progressive tax. ;P

since it will create more problems.

Not proven.

And this is why the moral argument bears no impact. In your opinion, you don't believe it's fair, but other will say so. Everybody has different morals.

Yeah, you're right. :) I just don't realize how anyone could find it fair, by that definition, that person A has to pay a higher percentage than person B. Oh well. ;)

I find both moral arguments just, so that's why I can't decide between the two.

Flat > Progressive

The flat tax is a flawed concept. If rich were really meant to pay the same, then were would need a regressive tax rate, meaning the rich would pay a lower % in order to pay the same.

No, that's not what I'm advocating at all. I'm saying the percent should be the same. That's the only way taxation can functionally and logistically be "the same."

But why does it have to stay the same? If you are paying more already, why not pay a little more to reduce the burden on the poor? I

Because if you're taxed too much, you won't be able to support the jobs that you do, the most simplicity I can fathom.

I'm sure you think a regressive tax rate is a ridiculous idea.

Hmm. That's interesting. Lol, yah, it's pretty horrendous.

A flat tax would require the U.S to increase the tax rate on the lower class, to make up for the lost money generated by taxes.

Not if it was done by percentage rather than actual quantitative value.

What do you mean? I don't really understand.

I'm saying that it doesn't have to be regressive like you mentioned. If we go by percentages than actual numerical figures (i.e. everyone pays 1k, for example) then it's definitely plausible.

We need to look at which system actually is more beneficial. Looking at how countries like Russia have implemented a flat tax, not a whole lot of economic growth.

What? It's increased revenue, reduced fraud, and helped compliance. [http://www.imf.org...] It stimulated (in eastern Europe) labor as it incentivized work by lowering the marginal rate, which is a good thing. [https://economics.stanford.edu...]
In essence, read 16k's debate.

Ok, I concede this, but remember the U.S is not Russia. We are still highly dependent on the extra revenue.

Which, I think, in time a flat tax would produce at a superior level. It doesn't prohibit economic freedom on a more personal level, so it allows people to actually get rich if they try. I guess the disparity on views is probably the biggest factor at play in regards to progressive vs flat taxes, etc.

I actually oppose the Progressive Tax rate we have now. I believe we need a progressive consumption tax. It makes the most sense, since you are being taxed on your consumption rather than savings, but it still maintains the progressive structure. It's basically a comprise between flat tax and progressive tax.

http://www.forbes.com...

Fair enough.
"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
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 1:00:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
1) Its unfair to poor and really really generous to the rich

Whats the current flat tax rate plan? 16 percent? maybe 20?

For poor people that's too much and the rich are getting 30 percent of their taxes cut away

2) Why? If you got rich in America you gotta pay America back for the opportunity.
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:51:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 4:16:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Flat taxes can actually have exemptions for the poor, and the vast majority of research indicates progressive taxes harm the economy.

The two best proposals are the progressive consumption tax, which eliminates the income tax while still retaining a progressive structure, and the KISS flat tax, which is a 20% flat tax on income and 20% on everything else (like a VAT). There are exemptions for the poor in order to not ruin their lives, and it would likely increase revenue overall.

The arguments a flat tax are weak if you take exemptions into account. A flat tax isn't necessarily ideal, but the KISS flat tax is the best one (it is explained in Lawrence Lindey's "The Growth Experiment Revisited").

Click here for a debate I did on progressive taxation:
http://www.debate.org...

And taxes in general: http://www.debate.org...

Why is it a good idea to exempt the poor from paying taxes?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 2:44:07 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
A low flat tax would stimulate economic growth. More money in people's pockets = higher investment and consumption = increased productivity = higher average real wages. It benefits every social class.

It also would simplify the labrynth of a tax code that currently exists. Spending our resources on tax compliance is costing us about $500 billion per year. That's sheer deadweight loss. Nothing is being produced. Free up people's time and resources for other productive causes by simplifying the tax code with a straightforward flat tax.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 5:21:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:51:47 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:16:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Flat taxes can actually have exemptions for the poor, and the vast majority of research indicates progressive taxes harm the economy.

The two best proposals are the progressive consumption tax, which eliminates the income tax while still retaining a progressive structure, and the KISS flat tax, which is a 20% flat tax on income and 20% on everything else (like a VAT). There are exemptions for the poor in order to not ruin their lives, and it would likely increase revenue overall.

The arguments a flat tax are weak if you take exemptions into account. A flat tax isn't necessarily ideal, but the KISS flat tax is the best one (it is explained in Lawrence Lindey's "The Growth Experiment Revisited").

Click here for a debate I did on progressive taxation:
http://www.debate.org...

And taxes in general: http://www.debate.org...

Why is it a good idea to exempt the poor from paying taxes?

Mostly for moral reasons. They can't afford to pay them. Not all poor would be exempt, but many would, especially if they have families.
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
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 3:41:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 8:03:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
I actually oppose the Progressive Tax rate we have now. I believe we need a progressive consumption tax. It makes the most sense, since you are being taxed on your consumption rather than savings, but it still maintains the progressive structure. It's basically a comprise between flat tax and progressive tax.

http://www.forbes.com...

Specifically, which progressive consumption tax formulation do you like? (e.g. Bradford X-tax) How would you propose the transition from a progressive tax to a PCT?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 5:41:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 5:21:39 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:51:47 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:16:58 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:52:03 PM, liltankjj wrote:
I'm just curious as to why someone would oppose a flat tax rate? What are the thoughts behind opposition?

Flat taxes can actually have exemptions for the poor, and the vast majority of research indicates progressive taxes harm the economy.

The two best proposals are the progressive consumption tax, which eliminates the income tax while still retaining a progressive structure, and the KISS flat tax, which is a 20% flat tax on income and 20% on everything else (like a VAT). There are exemptions for the poor in order to not ruin their lives, and it would likely increase revenue overall.

The arguments a flat tax are weak if you take exemptions into account. A flat tax isn't necessarily ideal, but the KISS flat tax is the best one (it is explained in Lawrence Lindey's "The Growth Experiment Revisited").

Click here for a debate I did on progressive taxation:
http://www.debate.org...

And taxes in general: http://www.debate.org...

Why is it a good idea to exempt the poor from paying taxes?

Mostly for moral reasons. They can't afford to pay them. Not all poor would be exempt, but many would, especially if they have families.

I don't think the poor would lose much. They get taxed now. Say 10% for example. That's not much. I'm not far from poverty myself. I've even lived through it as a kid. In this nation poor really isn't poor.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 12:43:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 3:41:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/1/2016 8:03:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
I actually oppose the Progressive Tax rate we have now. I believe we need a progressive consumption tax. It makes the most sense, since you are being taxed on your consumption rather than savings, but it still maintains the progressive structure. It's basically a comprise between flat tax and progressive tax.

http://www.forbes.com...

Specifically, which progressive consumption tax formulation do you like? (e.g. Bradford X-tax) How would you propose the transition from a progressive tax to a PCT?

Certainly the Bradford Tax. It makes the progressive structure which still allows the government to tax those who make more, but the savings are untouched.

This would need to be a slow transition. We would slowly need to lower things like the corporate tax rate, and get rid of stuff like the estate tax, but we need to make sure we don't do it too abruptly since, the government still needs revenue. The whole aim of the progressive consumption tax, is that it gives investment a boost, so we still need investment to flourish before we implement it.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 12:48:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/11/2016 3:41:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/1/2016 8:03:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
I actually oppose the Progressive Tax rate we have now. I believe we need a progressive consumption tax. It makes the most sense, since you are being taxed on your consumption rather than savings, but it still maintains the progressive structure. It's basically a comprise between flat tax and progressive tax.

http://www.forbes.com...

Specifically, which progressive consumption tax formulation do you like? (e.g. Bradford X-tax) How would you propose the transition from a progressive tax to a PCT?

I didnt' explain it very well, since I have to go to school, but I'll go in more detail later.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 2:37:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 12:43:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/11/2016 3:41:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/1/2016 8:03:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
I actually oppose the Progressive Tax rate we have now. I believe we need a progressive consumption tax. It makes the most sense, since you are being taxed on your consumption rather than savings, but it still maintains the progressive structure. It's basically a comprise between flat tax and progressive tax.

http://www.forbes.com...

Specifically, which progressive consumption tax formulation do you like? (e.g. Bradford X-tax) How would you propose the transition from a progressive tax to a PCT?

Certainly the Bradford Tax. It makes the progressive structure which still allows the government to tax those who make more, but the savings are untouched.

This would need to be a slow transition. We would slowly need to lower things like the corporate tax rate, and get rid of stuff like the estate tax, but we need to make sure we don't do it too abruptly since, the government still needs revenue. The whole aim of the progressive consumption tax, is that it gives investment a boost, so we still need investment to flourish before we implement it.

How would lowering the corporate tax rate affect the implementation of an X-tax?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 3:59:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/12/2016 2:37:27 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/12/2016 12:43:53 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/11/2016 3:41:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/1/2016 8:03:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
I actually oppose the Progressive Tax rate we have now. I believe we need a progressive consumption tax. It makes the most sense, since you are being taxed on your consumption rather than savings, but it still maintains the progressive structure. It's basically a comprise between flat tax and progressive tax.

http://www.forbes.com...

Specifically, which progressive consumption tax formulation do you like? (e.g. Bradford X-tax) How would you propose the transition from a progressive tax to a PCT?

Certainly the Bradford Tax. It makes the progressive structure which still allows the government to tax those who make more, but the savings are untouched.

This would need to be a slow transition. We would slowly need to lower things like the corporate tax rate, and get rid of stuff like the estate tax, but we need to make sure we don't do it too abruptly since, the government still needs revenue. The whole aim of the progressive consumption tax, is that it gives investment a boost, so we still need investment to flourish before we implement it.

How would lowering the corporate tax rate affect the implementation of an X-tax?

Because of investment. Higher corporate taxes hurt investment, since companies are going to go to countries with lower corporate taxes (AKA tax inversion), if we want the full benefit of the PCT, then we need to make America an attractive country to invest in. Companies simply cannot ignore the American Market, since it's still the most important market. When more people are investing, then capital gains will go up, and that will be taxed.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k