Flat Tax
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
Remember, people, we're not talking about how tax money should be spent, but rather how it should be collected within the context of individual income tax.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
That's what I thought we were talking about - well, "how much / why", not so much as just "how".
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="553258"]
Well, I thought that's what the original discussion was about, but then it switched to how the rich "owe" society and the people of that society for their wealth. I say that's baloney; those who are rich (let's assume for the moment I'm talking about people who are "legitmately" rich via production, and not just inheritence and/or corruption) already repay their "debt" to society by using their wealth to help generate more wealth (by investing, by buying lots of goods, by starting their own companies, etc.). Thus, taking more money via taxes is like a punishment for being successful; and the more successful you are the higher percentage of your income you have to pay. This creates an incentive to NOT produce as much as you can, because you'll just be hit by harder taxes.
Just for the record, I'm for the abolition of income tax and a switch to national sales tax. It's an "end-tax" rather than a "front-tax", so even though you will pay a lot in sales tax, you actually get something tangible for your money that benefits you directly (rather than an income tax, which is taken off the top, and you never see it except in an abstract case). The rich still end up contributing the most "overall' money in taxes (because, naturally, they buy a larger number of new goods). Your federal tax process would require filling out one sheet of paper where you list the number of dependents you have for rebate purposes (for instance, my brother and sister-in-law have 3 children, and would basically get all of the sales tax they'd pay back)
You know, I thought we were discussing taxes in general, not welfare in specific.[/quote]What I'm trying to convey is that this sort of forced redistribution gradually drives wealth down over a period of time because you keep having to take more and more from the top and give it to those at the bottom.
Well, I thought that's what the original discussion was about, but then it switched to how the rich "owe" society and the people of that society for their wealth. I say that's baloney; those who are rich (let's assume for the moment I'm talking about people who are "legitmately" rich via production, and not just inheritence and/or corruption) already repay their "debt" to society by using their wealth to help generate more wealth (by investing, by buying lots of goods, by starting their own companies, etc.). Thus, taking more money via taxes is like a punishment for being successful; and the more successful you are the higher percentage of your income you have to pay. This creates an incentive to NOT produce as much as you can, because you'll just be hit by harder taxes.
Just for the record, I'm for the abolition of income tax and a switch to national sales tax. It's an "end-tax" rather than a "front-tax", so even though you will pay a lot in sales tax, you actually get something tangible for your money that benefits you directly (rather than an income tax, which is taken off the top, and you never see it except in an abstract case). The rich still end up contributing the most "overall' money in taxes (because, naturally, they buy a larger number of new goods). Your federal tax process would require filling out one sheet of paper where you list the number of dependents you have for rebate purposes (for instance, my brother and sister-in-law have 3 children, and would basically get all of the sales tax they'd pay back)
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
"This creates an incentive to NOT produce as much as you can, because you'll just be hit by harder taxes. "
Then its not a properly balanced system... Even if you lose a greater percentage of money to taxes, you should still, on the whole, be making a greater sum of money than you would be if you didn't make more of an effort.
Like, let's say, if you make a thousand dollars, you pay 10% in taxes. And if you pay two thousand dollars, you pay 20% in taxes.
If you make the effort to make a thousand dollars, you go home with $900. If you make the extra effort to make two thousand dollars of pretax income, you go home with $1800.
You pay more in taxes, but you also get more money total. So you still have an incentive to work harder, because you still make more money. I must be missing something, because I don't quite see your point.
(also, wait, you're against an income tax, but FOR giving people money for having kids? Wha?)
Then its not a properly balanced system... Even if you lose a greater percentage of money to taxes, you should still, on the whole, be making a greater sum of money than you would be if you didn't make more of an effort.
Like, let's say, if you make a thousand dollars, you pay 10% in taxes. And if you pay two thousand dollars, you pay 20% in taxes.
If you make the effort to make a thousand dollars, you go home with $900. If you make the extra effort to make two thousand dollars of pretax income, you go home with $1800.
You pay more in taxes, but you also get more money total. So you still have an incentive to work harder, because you still make more money. I must be missing something, because I don't quite see your point.
(also, wait, you're against an income tax, but FOR giving people money for having kids? Wha?)
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="553271"]"This creates an incentive to NOT produce as much as you can, because you'll just be hit by harder taxes. "
Then its not a properly balanced system... Even if you lose a greater percentage of money to taxes, you should still, on the whole, be making a greater sum of money than you would be if you didn't make more of an effort.
Like, let's say, if you make a thousand dollars, you pay 10% in taxes. And if you pay two thousand dollars, you pay 20% in taxes.
If you make the effort to make a thousand dollars, you go home with $900. If you make the extra effort to make two thousand dollars of pretax income, you go home with $1800.
You pay more in taxes, but you also get more money total. So you still have an incentive to work harder, because you still make more money. I must be missing something, because I don't quite see your point.
[/quote]
Well, first, you'd only end up with $1600 post-tax (20% of 2000 is 400, so you'd have 1600 left). I'm not disputing the fact that you still end up with a higher sum of money if you do more work, but it's basically a law of diminishing returns; it becomes less incentive to work harder as you earn more because the real value of your work decreases. Plus, if instead of only having 1600, you actually had 1800, that's $200 more you can spend on other endeavors (buy the better car, the more expensive siding for the house, etc.) I'm saying that, overall, is better for the economy and society in general. Obviously that extra 200 is intended to go back into "society", but I saw it already does go back into society when you use it and exercise your own economic freedom.
The fair tax is designed to be "revenue neutral" during hte first year, earning no more than the current income tax system. But, it's expected to generate more revenue in subsequent years due to growth in the economy (thanks to a much larger volume of money changing hands due to elimination of the income tax)
Then its not a properly balanced system... Even if you lose a greater percentage of money to taxes, you should still, on the whole, be making a greater sum of money than you would be if you didn't make more of an effort.
Like, let's say, if you make a thousand dollars, you pay 10% in taxes. And if you pay two thousand dollars, you pay 20% in taxes.
If you make the effort to make a thousand dollars, you go home with $900. If you make the extra effort to make two thousand dollars of pretax income, you go home with $1800.
You pay more in taxes, but you also get more money total. So you still have an incentive to work harder, because you still make more money. I must be missing something, because I don't quite see your point.
[/quote]
Well, first, you'd only end up with $1600 post-tax (20% of 2000 is 400, so you'd have 1600 left). I'm not disputing the fact that you still end up with a higher sum of money if you do more work, but it's basically a law of diminishing returns; it becomes less incentive to work harder as you earn more because the real value of your work decreases. Plus, if instead of only having 1600, you actually had 1800, that's $200 more you can spend on other endeavors (buy the better car, the more expensive siding for the house, etc.) I'm saying that, overall, is better for the economy and society in general. Obviously that extra 200 is intended to go back into "society", but I saw it already does go back into society when you use it and exercise your own economic freedom.
http://www.fairtax.org explains it better than I probably can. Basically, your "tax rebate" for national sales tax is based on the size of your family, the poverty level, and some other factors (single, married, etc.). This rebate is basically a percentage, and hence "levels off" after a certain point. This keeps the effect of the rich paying a higher proportion of taxes than the poor, but it does so in a much more "fair" way. The rich still get to spend all of the money they earn; they are only taxed when they actually spend it. Everyone receives a tax rebate, regardless of how much you spend or earn each year (but, to the rich, it's pretty much insignificant, but to those in the lower income brackets, an extra few thousand a year can make a big difference.(also, wait, you're against an income tax, but FOR giving people money for having kids? Wha?)
The fair tax is designed to be "revenue neutral" during hte first year, earning no more than the current income tax system. But, it's expected to generate more revenue in subsequent years due to growth in the economy (thanks to a much larger volume of money changing hands due to elimination of the income tax)
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
Ow, you're right, and I'm an idiot.Well, first, you'd only end up with $1600 post-tax (20% of 2000 is 400, so you'd have 1600 left).
Well, you're right when it comes to the math, at least. :p
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="553271"]Like, let's say, if you make a thousand dollars, you pay 10% in taxes. And if you pay two thousand dollars, you pay 20% in taxes.
If you make the effort to make a thousand dollars, you go home with $900. If you make the extra effort to make two thousand dollars of pretax income, you go home with $1800.[/quote]
Your math is a little off. 90% of $1000 is indeed $900, but 80% of $2000 is only $1600. In a flat tax scenario, it'd be $1800, which means the person who made $2000 still pays twice as much in taxes as the person who only made $1000.
If you make the effort to make a thousand dollars, you go home with $900. If you make the extra effort to make two thousand dollars of pretax income, you go home with $1800.[/quote]
Your math is a little off. 90% of $1000 is indeed $900, but 80% of $2000 is only $1600. In a flat tax scenario, it'd be $1800, which means the person who made $2000 still pays twice as much in taxes as the person who only made $1000.
At what point does it break to 20% in your theoretical model?You pay more in taxes, but you also get more money total. So you still have an incentive to work harder, because you still make more money. I must be missing something, because I don't quite see your point.
Yeah, I didn't get that one, either.(also, wait, you're against an income tax, but FOR giving people money for having kids? Wha?)
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
Already fessed up about the bad math.Your math is a little off. 90% of $1000 is indeed $900, but 80% of $2000 is only $1600. In a flat tax scenario, it'd be $1800, which means the person who made $2000 still pays twice as much in taxes as the person who only made $1000.
And obviously, I'm not advocating a "ten per cent per grand" tax scheme - it was just way over simplified and reduced to make a clear example that (well, clear to me) there WAS still incentive.
Posted Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:17 am:
Hm..?At what point does it break to 20% in your theoretical model?
Sorry, I'm a bit out of it. Screwed up my math, and now I'm now not quite sure what you're asking ...
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
Oh...yeah, um, ninja'ed on the math.
At what point do you stop being taxed 10% and start being taxed 20%? And why are you taxing 20% at that point instead of keeping the same percentage for all? If you ask me, you really ought to have to justify why you take more money away from people rather than demanding to know why people ought to be able to keep the same percentage of what's theirs.
At what point do you stop being taxed 10% and start being taxed 20%? And why are you taxing 20% at that point instead of keeping the same percentage for all? If you ask me, you really ought to have to justify why you take more money away from people rather than demanding to know why people ought to be able to keep the same percentage of what's theirs.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
Well if you ask me, both sides - or all people involved, really ought to have to explain why they hold the position they hold, not just one viewpoint.
Why should the tax burden be even? Desertfox and Deacon, if people with higher incomes contribute more, why should they pay the same than those who contribute less to society AND take more from the government, hm?
And yes I realize I haven't explained where I'm coming from. I'm still working on that.
Why should the tax burden be even? Desertfox and Deacon, if people with higher incomes contribute more, why should they pay the same than those who contribute less to society AND take more from the government, hm?
And yes I realize I haven't explained where I'm coming from. I'm still working on that.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="553279"]why should they pay the same than those who contribute less to society AND take more from the government, hm?[/quote]
They shouldn't pay the same. They should pay MORE. But at the same rate as everyone else. The poor should pay taxes as should the rich. The rich will be writing far larger checks than the poor, but not for disproportionately larger percentages. The rich still enjoy the many generalized fruits of tax dollars, as inefficient and pork-flavored as they are.
They shouldn't pay the same. They should pay MORE. But at the same rate as everyone else. The poor should pay taxes as should the rich. The rich will be writing far larger checks than the poor, but not for disproportionately larger percentages. The rich still enjoy the many generalized fruits of tax dollars, as inefficient and pork-flavored as they are.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
-
Seraphim
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 5:36 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, Michigan
Wouldn't that discourage spending and stunt the economy? Think about it, if you keep all you spend only what you have to, and invest or save the rest you end up with more money in the long run. It would be an incentive to not be a consumer. It seems to me that a system like that would cause a recession.Just for the record, I'm for the abolition of income tax and a switch to national sales tax. It's an "end-tax" rather than a "front-tax", so even though you will pay a lot in sales tax, you actually get something tangible for your money that benefits you directly (rather than an income tax, which is taken off the top, and you never see it except in an abstract case).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest