Flat tax

[squidmaster]

A flat tax has only one tax bracket not multiple. Tax should be 15% at point of sale. Done. No income tax, no deductions, no punishing success.
When I first started work I made $14.50hr and got an xtra $1.50 for afternoon shift. When I worked afternoon shift I took home $40 a week LESS! Graduated systems punish success.

Again, lets say it all together.
Flat
Tax
Systems
Have
Only
One
Tax
Bracket

That means the guy who makes $1,000,000 pays $150,000. But then again you sound like a lefty so Im guessing you are eyeballing the other $850,000. Also under this system if you make $50,000, you pay $7,500.
Do you get it?!?

A TRUE flat tax system has only one income bracket, however I cannot cite a single government that placed a TRUE flat tax system into place. There are about 8 different variations of flat tax systems, and the only ones that the US has seriously considered have been capped, marginal, and negative.

Let's take a look at this direct quotation:
"For example, in 2010, the United States payroll tax assessed a flat rate of 15.3% on all income under $106,800 and only 1.45% above that level. Thus, someone earning $100,000 paid $15,300 (a rate of 15.3%) while someone earning $1,000,000 paid $28,350 (a rate of 2.8%)."

HEARD OF GOOGLE? Try it out next time.

[canadiankid]

So in summary, over 20 countries have a flat tax system and it just doesnt work, but no country has a true flat tax system. So how do we know it will fail? Being a little two faced arent we squid?

If it doesnt have only one tax bracket it should not be referred to in any way as flat. Flat tax is a black and white issue. Either its flat or its not.

[squidmaster]

You said Fair Tax was sickening with stupidity. I said taxing income instead of consumption is stupid. Don't make unsupported claims if you don't know what you are talking about.

unsupported claims? lolololol

I mean to put "flat tax" for the more sickening one. Still, fair tax isn't without it's flaws. It is more of a burden on the middle class but does provide relief for lower class. Though the rich, again, see the most benefits from it.

[mrsleeve]

^

Your class envy. Is kinda scary

[squidmaster]

So in summary, over 20 countries have a flat tax system and it just doesnt work, but no country has a true flat tax system. So how do we know it will fail? Being a little two faced arent we squid?

If it doesnt have only one tax bracket it should not be referred to in any way as flat. Flat tax is a black and white issue. Either its flat or its not.

Obviously it's NOT a black and white issue or these all wouldn't be called "flat tax." You may personally see it as a two tone issue, however the rest of the world doesn't.

I did a quick "google" to see who had a true flat tax system. turns out romania does. turns out that it's also failing.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-07-14/wall_street/30012944_1_progressive-tax-tax-system-vat

"Flat taxes have been enthusiastically promoted by a range of conservative think tanks. Proponents claim they attract inwards investment and deter tax evasion. In practice they have achieved neither, and the majority of Eastern European countries such as Romania have suffered mounting fiscal deficits and rising inequality since their introduction."

http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2010/05/imf-and-romania-tackle-flat-tax-failure.html

Don't forget though that in many flat tax systems the taxation is only based on "earned" income, or income through payroll. It exempts investments, options, shares, and other forms of income. This would mean that out of the over 30 million/yr that richard branson gets, he'd only be taxed on 6.5mil of that because that's all his "salary" dictates.

[canadiankid]

Thats why income tax is stupid. You think the superrich have payroll?!? 15% tax at point of sale. Done. No evasion. No deductions. No unfairness. Everyone pays the same. Its just too simple isnt it.

[z31maniac]

Thats why income tax is stupid. You think the superrich have payroll?!? 15% tax at point of sale. Done. No evasion. No deductions. No unfairness. Everyone pays the same. Its just too simple isnt it.

Actually to provide the US gov't with the same funding levels, you would need a 23% national sales tax (fairtax), which does not include any city/county/state sales tax.

In most places you would end up with an effective "Sales tax" of 30-32% on goods.

[squidmaster]

Right, but 23% of final price must be taxes. Meaning if an item costs 100, the retailer would have to sell it at 130, because 23% if 130 is 30 (meaning 100 is the price of the actual item. Essentially making the effective tax rate 30%.

There would be just as many people avoiding this tax than the system we have in place.

[z31maniac]

Right, but 23% of final price must be taxes. Meaning if an item costs 100, the retailer would have to sell it at 130, because 23% if 130 is 30 (meaning 100 is the price of the actual item. Essentially making the effective tax rate 30%.

There would be just as many people avoiding this tax than the system we have in place.

There is no way to avoid unless you don't buy any new goods. Which I don't know anyone to whom this does not apply. It provides relief for those at the poverty level and encourages savings/investment/retirement because those gain are no longer taxed.

It also taxes the "underground cash economy" as well. It also doesn't require ANYONE to file taxes, meaning we can dramatically reduce the size of the IRS, as now businesses only have to turn in a set % of their sales.

No depreciation, no write-offs, no loopholes, nothing.

[z31maniac]

The bottom line is that NO tax system is going to be perfect.

But the www.fairtax.org would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

[Wiglaf]

Squid, show some respect. Sleeve knows his shit and makes his points logically, and has been for years. no need to be a troll, it doesn't make what you say sound any more convincing.

I've considered a variation of flat tax. Feel free to bash, but if you're going to tax income I think this would be the most simplistic way to make it fair and be friendly to the lower bracket:
x%+y across the board, no exceptions.

x is the income % such as 15%. Y is a rebate check; it replaces welfare, food stamps, social security, etc. It is applied across the board, ideally on a monthly basis. It probably wouldn't be able to functionally replace welfare if it were less common than that. You have to file to get money, there are no other qualifications.
It does not matter if you're a middle class white guy with no kids. It's the same as a hoodrat with 12 kids or a millionare. x%+y
There are no deductions or tricks, no special cases. just file income and it's as simple as that.


despite how much more efficient I think that would be, I'm also more inclined to go with fairtax. taxing income will always have issues. If it was all handled on the sales side then most individuals wouldn't even have to file, it a much more abuse-resistant approach.

[evandael]

when taxing consumption.. wouldn't gas be like $10 a gallon, and food and clothes cost a ton more? would states start cracking down on used car sales to get more money (ie, making sure you pay 15% on book value of that nice e30 you picked up, regardless of how good a deal you got on it).


it just seems like taxing consumption is antithetical to the american approach to the economy.. it would hinder consumption (even as I get more money in the bank, I am still a cheapskate and save everywhere I can), thus hindering industry and thus the economy. then income levels would drop compared to the prices of goods.



i still just don't understand why we can't all pay 15% of our incomes. I make $30K a year.. okay, $4500 to the feds. My neighbor makes $300k a year, $45k to the feds... and the guy across town pulls in $3mil, well shucks, he can pay $450k! Then we all buy things that we need/want relative to our incomes and everything works out alright.

[rwh11385]

unsupported claims? lolololol

I mean to put "flat tax" for the more sickening one. Still, fair tax isn't without it's flaws. It is more of a burden on the middle class but does provide relief for lower class. Though the rich, again, see the most benefits from it.

So we the subject is about flat tax but others mention fair tax... So you say that fair tax is not flat tax... But flat tax is much stupider than flat tax?

Given lower income accommodations and the increase in the economy, do you have a problem with Fair Tax? Which is what most support and seemed like you were against.

[squidmaster]

Squid, show some respect. Sleeve knows his shit and makes his points logically, and has been for years. no need to be a troll, it doesn't make what you say sound any more convincing.

I've considered a variation of flat tax. Feel free to bash, but if you're going to tax income I think this would be the most simplistic way to make it fair and be friendly to the lower bracket:
x%+y across the board, no exceptions.

x is the income % such as 15%. Y is a rebate check; it replaces welfare, food stamps, social security, etc. It is applied across the board, ideally on a monthly basis. It probably wouldn't be able to functionally replace welfare if it were less common than that. You have to file to get money, there are no other qualifications.
It does not matter if you're a middle class white guy with no kids. It's the same as a hoodrat with 12 kids or a millionare. x%+y
There are no deductions or tricks, no special cases. just file income and it's as simple as that.


despite how much more efficient I think that would be, I'm also more inclined to go with fairtax. taxing income will always have issues. If it was all handled on the sales side then most individuals wouldn't even have to file, it a much more abuse-resistant approach.

The problem with having a FEDERAL set tax on people living below the poverty line is that another 15% off of their $240/week paychecks is another two meals that they can't eat or a tank of gas. It's placing more burden on local government (food stamps) as well as federal aid systems and could end up costing more than it'd bring in. There are plethora of reasons why taxing the poor MORE doesn't workout for anyone, but I'm sure you can breeze through a few articles that would explain it better than me.

[squidmaster]

So we the subject is about flat tax but others mention fair tax... So you say that fair tax is not flat tax... But flat tax is much stupider than flat tax?

Given lower income accommodations and the increase in the economy, do you have a problem with Fair Tax? Which is what most support and seemed like you were against.

Read my above post about taxing the poor more than they already are.

Listen, when I was younger and on food stamps and could only spent $25 a week on food for two people, having a 30% tax on the food we bought would have been way worse than only having to pay state taxes on our paychecks. To a lot of people that make MORE than federal poverty level it's not as much of an issue.
In 2010 over 12% of people in the US were living below the poverty level. about 50% of all americans will spend at least a year below the poverty line. If we increase the price of essential goods while relaxing their measly state income taxes it won't add up for them. It'll end up, in most cases, costing more for them to live.