Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

flat tax

Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 4:44:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 4:42:08 PM, Kahvan wrote:
I am curious. what are the arguments against a fat tax rate?

stupid ones made by cowards who are afraid of change.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 4:47:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 4:44:16 PM, Marauder wrote:
At 4/20/2010 4:42:08 PM, Kahvan wrote:
I am curious. what are the arguments against a fat tax rate?

stupid ones made by cowards who are afraid of change.

I am all for flat tax, that is why my teacher put me on the opposite side for a debate lol. so i need some ideas.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 5:07:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 4:42:08 PM, Kahvan wrote:
I am curious. what are the arguments against a fat tax rate?

To my understanding, it's primary regarding the difference in the financial makeup of the individual vs. small business vs. large business vs. governmental entity vs. public/non-profit entity.

For example, corporations supposedly need less taxation to satisfy overhead and maintain profitability, people with more money need less taxation to invest substantial funds that will improve the health of the economy, and public services need no taxes in order to sustain since they do not concentrate on profit.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 5:20:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've never seen a good argument in favour of a flat tax.

In all honesty, I'd give those that espouse it a thumbs up on principle. It's fair. Every individual is taxed at the same rate, and there are no favourites. It's a nice, fair, idea.

However, principle and reality work differently. Flat taxes shift what is in my mind a very unfair burden on those with lower incomes. While it might seem like a nice idea to make the individuals who tend to use government services most pay the most, in really just messes things up, because not only will you usually get less amount coming in, you'll also cut down on their disposable income much, much more than the current progressive tax rate takes away from higher income individual's disposable income.

And the same reasoning for the flat tax - lower income individuals consume more government services - then starts to work against you, because lower income individuals consume a lot more than do higher income individuals - which simply doesn't work out. The less disposable income they have, the less spending they'll do, and the more the economy begins to slow down, which then effects every other individual, higher or lower income, and how much income you'll be able to tax from them.

So you then have a choice. Either cut spending majorly, or institute a progressive tax. With a progressive tax, those with lower incomes have generally the same amount (% wise) of disposable income that higher income individuals do. And really, no one can say that those with higher incomes are destitute. Despite being taxed more, they still have huge amounts of disposable income and afford to buy private islands, for Christ's sake. I don't think their at a loss.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 7:15:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
echo volkov.

Flat tax, in some other economic system, would be a good idea. But not one in a system with a huge income disparity! That would be like a wal-mart with a flat-price for everything, which sells high-end computers and TVs as well as candy bars and ramen noodles. Put that in your paper kid.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 7:21:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 7:15:58 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
echo volkov.

Flat tax, in some other economic system, would be a good idea. But not one in a system with a huge income disparity! That would be like a wal-mart with a flat-price for everything, which sells high-end computers and TVs as well as candy bars and ramen noodles. Put that in your paper kid.

Except that's more like a flat charge, not a flat rate, which still increases with income.

One huge problem with progressive taxes, though, is that if the rich are too highly taxed, they will move to some high-income-friendly country, and we end up with no taxes at all.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 10:40:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Flat tax, in some other economic system, would be a good idea. But not one in a system with a huge income disparity! That would be like a wal-mart with a flat-price for everything, which sells high-end computers and TVs as well as candy bars and ramen noodles. Put that in your paper kid.

Except that's more like a flat charge, not a flat rate, which still increases with income.

One huge problem with progressive taxes, though, is that if the rich are too highly taxed, they will move to some high-income-friendly country, and we end up with no taxes at all.

What about a global initiative to curb income disparity? If the UN were stronger, and all countries agreed to tax the rich more, they wouldn't have any reason to leave. Unfortunately the UN is weak because we are scared of the biggest, baddest demon of them all. Not just big USA gov't but a WORLD GOVERNMENT. A NEW WORLD ORDER. Sends chills down your spine, doesn't it? Isn't it a little strange that the world's governments holding hands and cooperating in unison, in harmony, so that things can really get done, is viewed by many as the ultimate conspiracy theory? Big-business/the rich know their gooses are cooked when governments can work together for mutual benefit. The reason is, that mutual benefit is not what the rich want, is not what conservatives want either by principle. Greed, individualism, and free enterprise is what they want. You can't have these 3 things while everyone else is well-off!
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2010 10:41:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 7:21:13 PM, mongeese wrote:

One huge problem with progressive taxes, though, is that if the rich are too highly taxed, they will move to some high-income-friendly country, and we end up with no taxes at all.

lol
President of DDO
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 6:18:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
question, if we went to flat tax wouldn't alot of people lose jobs? The current taxx system generates software and people to help with taxes, without that alot of people would lose jobs developing software and such to help people with taxes?

Also is there anyway to make the above idea sound better?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 7:00:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/20/2010 4:42:08 PM, Kahvan wrote:
I am curious. what are the arguments against a fat tax rate?

http://www.fairtax.org...

Everything you need is right here.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:01:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
argue how the change will be too drastic causing our economic system to collopse. That is what its opponents have argued to me before outside this website.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:10:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 6:18:02 AM, Kahvan wrote:
question, if we went to flat tax wouldn't alot of people lose jobs? The current taxx system generates software and people to help with taxes, without that alot of people would lose jobs developing software and such to help people with taxes?

Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow,*1 when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"
1.7

Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.
1.8

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.
1.9

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.
1.10

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.
1.11

Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.
1.12

If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs' worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.
1.13

And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.
1.14

Now let us consider James Goodfellow.
1.15

On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window.
1.16

On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window.
1.17

Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window.
1.18

From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed," and at this aphorism, which will make the hair of the protectionists stand on end: "To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment," or more briefly: "Destruction is not profitable."
1.19

What will the Moniteur industriel*2 say to this, or the disciples of the estimable M. de Saint-Chamans,*3 who has calculated with such precision what industry would gain from the burning of Paris, because of the houses that would have to be rebuilt?
1.20

I am sorry to upset his ingenious calculations, especially since their spirit has passed into our legislation. But I beg him to begin them again, entering what is not seen in the ledger beside what is seen.
1.21

The reader must apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that common cliché: "What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any windows?"

--Bastiat
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2010 10:09:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
a flat tax rate of 3% in America. I need help finding sources to disprove this.

my opponents are arguing that a flat tax rate of 3% would be enough to support Americas current system. What do we really need (this seems way too low) and why is this too low. (plz include sources as i stink at finding them lol)
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2010 2:11:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/26/2010 10:09:16 AM, Kahvan wrote:
a flat tax rate of 3% in America. I need help finding sources to disprove this.

my opponents are arguing that a flat tax rate of 3% would be enough to support Americas current system. What do we really need (this seems way too low) and why is this too low. (plz include sources as i stink at finding them lol)

anything plz!?!? cmon i am goin to the experts here
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2010 3:13:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://siteresources.worldbank.org...

That's the US gross national income 2008

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

That's the US government spending.

That's about 36 percent. And GNI is a generous estimate at best.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.