What happened to all the Fair/Flat Taxxers?

[Ender]

It has already been derailed if you haven't noticed. It keeps happening in most threads that involve those two posting. Again, why criticize me when I am not responsible for their behavior which by any reasonable standard are creating a real contentious environment. We aren't calling out simply those pro or anti Trump because of their positions on the administration.

I'll bold and caps this for you so you pay attention:
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE ON A POSITION.
WE DON'T CARE IF YOU HATE OR LOVE TRUMP.

Frankly, a lot of us believe not a lot policy-wise will change in the end. The deep state however is being challenged or undergoing real changes as a result of the election AND people within the intelligence community. That and a lot of us are hoping to be giddy like Ron Swanson when the episode of Parks and Rec when they announced they were fire government fat, and scuttle agencies. There is a lot to be hopeful for and not get our hopes up for.

And my $h!t tier spelling is the least of your worries. You are too gullible and naive, and yet somehow a priest with less worldly knowledge than he should have for such an important position. To translate in the real world application, would you allow your real life congregation to be assaulted with social justice warriors posing as members of the flock with the goal of dissolving your congregation with gender fluidity, focus on homosexual advancement and homophobia attack tactics, and etc?

Even if you wanted to advise them on the real meaning of god, you'd still have to separate them from the community to stop their assaults.

I mean frannkly, I'dd raather have my vice then yurs. Wisen up pastoir.

Ahh.... so now your tactics are to make fun of me and belittle my faith and chosen path.

Interesting how Trumpateers call names, insult their chosen "shills", take over threads and then blame everyone else.

Sad days at RPF.

 

[Athan]

Ahh.... so now your tactics are to make fun of me and belittle my faith and chosen path.

Interesting how Trumpateers call names, insult their chosen "shills", take over threads and then blame everyone else.

Sad days at RPF.

Not really. You may be a pretty damn cool dude to kick back with, and well loved for your services to the community. However, you ARE being gullible and naive on the issue. That much I am afraid I can not improve my diplomacy in. You either aren't experienced in what is happening, or you are letting yourself being mislead by their feint. A modern pastor has to be knowledgeable in this; otherwise all you will do is dispense bad advice on the topic.

Which IS specifically what you are doing now.

 

[jllundqu]

Not really. You may be a pretty damn cool dude to kick back with, and well loved for your services to the community. However, you ARE being gullible and naive on the issue. That much I am afraid I can not improve my diplomacy in. You either aren't experienced in what is happening, or you are letting yourself being mislead by their feint. A modern pastor has to be knowledgeable in this; otherwise all you will do is dispense bad advice on the topic.

Which IS specifically what you are doing now.

Back to the OP or GTFO...

This thread is about FAIR/FLAT TAX proposals and the like.... I'll start flagging junk posters here quick

 

[Athan]

Back to the OP or GTFO...

This thread is about FLAT TAX proposals and the like.... I'll start flagging junk posters here quick

A fair point. I did provide my opinion on the matter though. They threw their lot in with Cruz, and haven't done much to try to get leeway with Trump. Perhaps they should focus on state level tax systems that clearly need it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I like the consumption tax, but it has one big problem in my opinion. It puts the burden of collection, and threat of jail time on a small minority (retailers). Unless there's a way to decriminalize non payment, I'm still favoring a flat tax since it punishes everyone equally.

Each type of tax has its merits and bad points. Consumption tax hits those at lower income levels harder than those at the higher end since they spend a higher percent of their income purchasing goods.

Let's say we wanted to tax all retail sales to fund the government. Let's also assume we have our current level of spending ($4 trillion proposed for FY 2017). How high of a tax would we need to balance that budget just with a sales tax?

Retail sales in 2015 were about $5 trillion. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Retail-Sales-Near-5-Trillion-2016/1013368 To get $4 trillion in taxes from retail sales, you would need a tax rate of 80%. That nearly doubles the price you currently pay on almost everything. If you imposed an 80% tax, of course sales would drop drastically and you would need an even higher rate. Exempt things like food and you need even more. And that does not include any state sales taxes which would be on top of that.

Europe uses a Value Added Tax which works like a sales tax. Their rate in most countries is 25% (the highest allowed by ECB rules).

 

[Madison320]

Each type of tax has its merits and bad points. Consumption tax hits those at lower income levels harder than those at the higher end since they spend a higher percent of their income purchasing goods.

Everything hits the poor harder. It's not an excuse to steal from people.

Let's say we wanted to tax all retail sales to fund the government. Let's also assume we have our current level of spending ($4 trillion proposed for FY 2017). How high of a tax would we need to balance that budget just with a sales tax?

Way too high. We'd have black market in retail.

We need a flat tax with no deductions. Or user fees. Laws need to be applied equally. It's not fair to have different laws for different citizens. If the rate is to high for the poor, lower the rate. If revenue is too low, reduce spending. Enslaving a minority is not the answer.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Everything hits the poor harder. It's not an excuse to steal from people.





Way too high. We'd have black market in retail.

We need a flat tax with no deductions. Or user fees. Laws need to be applied equally. It's not fair to have different laws for different citizens. If the rate is to high for the poor, lower the rate. If revenue is too low, reduce spending. Enslaving a minority is not the answer.

Negatives on the flat tax is that it would reduce taxes paid by those at higher incomes and raise the taxes for those at the lower end. Since about half of all income tax filers owe no net Federal taxes probably about 2/3rds of the population would see their taxes owed rise- mostly those struggling to pay for things already. (that is assuming tax dollars collected stay the same). Especially if as you suggest no exemptions or deductions. (allowing these makes it more progressive of a tax though).

 

[TheCount]

Way too high. We'd have black market in retail.

This is the reason why I would prefer an income tax to a sales tax. From an economic perspective, a sales tax would change consumer behavior - it would promote certain types of spending and discourage others. An income tax would affect all things equally, assuming that it's flat and fair.

We need a flat tax with no deductions.

Even a no-deduction version of the income tax current system would be an amazing improvement. You could throw out 99% of the tax code as well as likely 60+% of the time, expense, and administration involved in handling current tax returns. I wonder how much the rates themselves would change if it were strictly as-is, with no deductions.

 

[TheCount]

Negatives on the flat tax is that it would reduce taxes paid by those at higher incomes and raise the taxes for those at the lower end. Since about half of all income tax filers owe no net Federal taxes probably about 2/3rds of the population would see their taxes owed rise- mostly those struggling to pay for things already. (that is assuming tax dollars collected stay the same).

Madison seems to be saying that if the rate you're taxing is too high for the poor, that means you're spending too much. Lower the burden until all can bear it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Good article comparing progressive taxation, flat taxes, and fair taxes (consumption tax): https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyp...e-fair-tax-whats-the-difference/#3bc2740c5561

 

[CaptUSA]

I like the consumption tax, but it has one big problem in my opinion. It puts the burden of collection, and threat of jail time on a small minority (retailers). Unless there's a way to decriminalize non payment, I'm still favoring a flat tax since it punishes everyone equally.

There's an even bigger problem with it in my opinion. It's in the transition from an income tax to a consumption tax. If you have already been taxed on your income, you will be taxed again when it becomes a consumption tax. This hurts retired people most. They were taxed their entire working lives on their income. And now, when they have no income, they would be taxed again on every purchase. Even if you could somehow give them some type of tax "line of credit" where they wouldn't have to pay consumption taxes until they hit a certain level, there's no way you could possibly ensure a steady stream of revenue while dong it.

So yeah, you'd pretty much have to start from scratch in order to do it without double taxation. And if you're starting from scratch, you might as well just keep the tax at zero!

 

[phill4paul]

Progressive, flat or fair it doesn't alter the fact than any tax other than voluntary is theft.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Madison seems to be saying that if the rate you're taxing is too high for the poor, that means you're spending too much. Lower the burden until all can bear it.

Cut the budget in half (including the sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and defense spending) and you still need a 40% tax to balance your budget. Leave off those items from the current budget and the best you can do is about $500 billion in cuts- and that assumes you cut EVERYTHING else to zero.

 

[CPUd]

I prefer a consumption based tax over an income based tax.
You can choose to not buy stuff, or buy less stuff, you really can't choose to not have income.
It is one of the reasons I moved to a state with no income tax on wages or pensions, but instead uses a higher sales tax.

I would love to see the federal government do the same thing.

That's what it is in TN. There are different rates for type of items, like foods. Sometimes there are tax holidays for certain items related to back-to-school stuff (includes certain electronics like laptops).

 

[Ender]

Progressive, flat or fair it doesn't alter the fact than any tax other than voluntary is theft.

Exactly my POV.

 

[Madison320]

Negatives on the flat tax is that it would reduce taxes paid by those at higher incomes and raise the taxes for those at the lower end. Since about half of all income tax filers owe no net Federal taxes probably about 2/3rds of the population would see their taxes owed rise- mostly those struggling to pay for things already. (that is assuming tax dollars collected stay the same). Especially if as you suggest no exemptions or deductions. (allowing these makes it more progressive of a tax though).

That's not a negative. That's correcting a wrong. High income earners are immorally overtaxed. The law should be the same for all citizens.

 

[Madison320]

Madison seems to be saying that if the rate you're taxing is too high for the poor, that means you're spending too much. Lower the burden until all can bear it.

Exactly.

 

[Madison320]

Cut the budget in half (including the sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and defense spending) and you still need a 40% tax to balance your budget. Leave off those items from the current budget and the best you can do is about $500 billion in cuts- and that assumes you cut EVERYTHING else to zero.

How do you figure that? We're spending about 4 trillion. Half is 2 trillion. We're collecting about 3 trillion with a top rate of 39% so the average rate would be maybe 20%. So we'd need maybe 10-15% to collect 2 trillion (remember that tax rate/tax revenue is not proportional). If the poor can't afford 10-15% then cut spending some more.

 

[Zippyjuan]

How do you figure that? We're spending about 4 trillion. Half is 2 trillion. We're collecting about 3 trillion with a top rate of 39% so the average rate would be maybe 20%. So we'd need maybe 10-15% to collect 2 trillion (remember that tax rate/tax revenue is not proportional). If the poor can't afford 10-15% then cut spending some more.

I assumed a balanced budget with the flat tax paying for all of it (no more corporate taxes, no more tariffs, etc and no deficit). But if you are raising $2 trillion in taxes, you need a rate of 40% for your consumption tax assuming retail sales stay at $5 trillion.

First problem would be cutting the budget in half. How would you achieve that?

You don't mind paying more if it means Bill Gates gets to pay less since it would be more fair.

 

[Madison320]

Progressive, flat or fair it doesn't alter the fact than any tax other than voluntary is theft.

I agree but I'm also not an anarchist. If we could defend ourselves from foreign attacks and support a court system with a voluntary tax then I'm all for it. If somehow you could prove that a nation could not exist with a voluntary tax then I think the next best thing is to figure out a way to put a self perpetuating limit on taxes and spending.

Some ideas would be:

Flat tax with no deductions so that the law would apply equally and all citizens would feel pain in tax increases.

Remove the criminal penalty for non payment. Make it a civil penalty the same as private debt, not a criminal penalty. Why is there only a debtors prison for government debt, not private debt? Not paying private debt is worse than government debt because you AGREED to pay the debt. With taxation the debt was decided against your will by someone else so you haven't broken a valid contract.

Restrict voting to only people that are paying more in taxes than they get in benefits.