What happened to all the Fair/Flat Taxxers?

[Zippyjuan]

What would a flat tax rate need to be? First we need to know incomes. Total Adjusted Federal Gross Income in the US for 2016 was $11.25 trillion. http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/09/ben_carsons_10_percent_flat_ta.php#.WL8zVvnyuUk

Let's look at the big number- current $4 trillion spending and no other taxes and a balanced budget. That would require a 35% flat income tax rate paid by everybody to generate that much revenue for the government.

Get spending down to $3 trillion and it falls to 26%. (leave Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid alone and you have to axe 100% of the rest of the budget including all defense spending).

 

[nikcers]

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.

Yeah we don't want a big government zippy, we are going to have to cut most of it to make other things cheaper, we are going to have to get rid of Obamacare to make healthcare cheaper. We have to get rid of Medicare to completely fix healthcare. We don't need these big food programs when we can grow our own food.

 

[Madison320]

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.

I was talking about a flat income tax. If I had to pay more, that would be ok because I know in a few years I'll be paying less. Bill Gates would still be paying hundreds of times more than me with a flat tax.


Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

 

[Zippyjuan]

I was talking about a flat income tax. If I had to pay more, that would be ok because I know in a few years I'll be paying less. Bill Gates would still be paying hundreds of times more than me with a flat tax.


Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

I have added figures for what a flat tax would need to be a couple posts above.

 

[Madison320]

I have added figures for what a flat tax would need to be a couple posts above.

But we were talking about cutting the budget in half. The numbers you provided would make my assumption of 10-15% about right to get to 2 trillion in revenue.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

 

[Zippyjuan]

But we were talking about cutting the budget in half. The numbers you provided would make my assumption of 10-15% about right to get to 2 trillion in revenue.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

Assuming you could cut Social Security and Medicaid by enough and get re-elected (political suicide so it won't happen), then you can get by with an 18% tax rate for everybody.

 

[Madison320]

Assuming you could cut Social Security and Medicaid by enough and get re-elected (political suicide so it won't happen), then you can get by with an 18% tax rate for everybody.

It would be lower than that because as I mentioned the tax rate/tax revenue is not proportional. The Laffer Curve. Like I said 10-15% is a good guess.


Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

 

[otherone]

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.

The individual should have ZERO connection with the "federal" government. The fedgov's needs should be be filled by it's constituent states coffers.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It would be lower than that because as I mentioned the tax rate/tax revenue is not proportional. The Laffer Curve. Like I said 10-15% is a good guess.


Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

You are right- the necessary rate to collect that much money would likely be different. It would be higher. If, instead of most tax payers paying zero they were now asked to pay 17% they have less money to spend on stuff. That means employers are selling less and need less help- cutting staff. That shrinks the people with jobs and paying taxes so the rate would need to be raised to make up the difference. Probably closer to 20% to balance the budget at half of current spending levels. Assuming you even had a chance at cutting government spending by 50%.

 

[Madison320]

The individual should have ZERO connection with the "federal" government. The fedgov's needs should be be filled by it's constituent states coffers.

That's a good point. I just recently started understanding that concept. That's the idea of apportionment right? The way I understand it if the Feds want money they have to ask each state and then the state collects it as they see fit. And then the 16th amendment overrode that.

If I had the option of implementing only one law it would be some sort of law denying voting privileges to people that are net receivers of public welfare. To me that's where the whole system goes terribly wrong. I believe the best thing about that idea is that it would be self perpetuating since politician's number one priority is getting re-elected.

 

[otherone]

That's a good point. I just recently started understanding that concept. That's the idea of apportionment right? The way I understand it if the Feds want money they have to ask each state and then the state collects it as they see fit. And then the 16th amendment overrode that.

If I had the option of implementing only one law it would be some sort of law denying voting privileges to people that are net receivers of public welfare. To me that's where the whole system goes terribly wrong. I believe the best thing about that idea is that it would be self perpetuating since politician's number one priority is getting re-elected.

The states would have to agree with it first, knowing the impact it would have on their constituency and reps political careers. Residents would then be free to vote with their feet. Never happen, though. Banks love Deficit spending, not fiscal responsibility. IRT voting, individuals voting in anything "federal" is a joke with a lousy punchline.

 

[Madison320]

You are right- the necessary rate to collect that much money would likely be different. It would be higher. If, instead of most tax payers paying zero they were now asked to pay 17% they have less money to spend on stuff. That means employers are selling less and need less help- cutting staff. That shrinks the people with jobs and paying taxes so the rate would need to be raised to make up the difference. Probably closer to 20% to balance the budget at half of current spending levels. Assuming you even had a chance at cutting government spending by 50%.

But it goes both ways. If we went to a flat tax the rich would have more incentive to work harder and expand their business. Anyway it's irrelevant. The point is we need a moral law that is a the same for all citizens.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes? (For the 5th time)

 

[Madison320]

The states would have to agree with it first, knowing the impact it would have on their constituency and reps political careers. Residents would then be free to vote with their feet. Never happen, though. Banks love Deficit spending, not fiscal responsibility. IRT voting, individuals voting in anything "federal" is a joke with a lousy punchline.

And they're not going to change anything until we go broke and the dollar collapses. It's the path of least resistance.

 

[otherone]

And they're not going to change anything until we go broke and the dollar collapses. It's the path of least resistance.

IDK.
As long as the US is the international muscle for the banking cartels, that will never happen.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

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).

Yes, I moved to TN.

 

[Dr.No.]

Most plans are just crap trying to replace the current level of taxation . They do not address the root cause . You should not need that level of taxation because you can run the country on less . Cut spending .

Ultimately, the government has to run a deficit. That is how the private sector nets financial savings (and at a balanced budget, the private sectory would be losing 500 some billion to the foreign sector every year).

Rand's math (as always) on the fair tax is terrible. The bottom-half of the country gets hit harder...

A good proposal I saw was to cut spending by about 1 trillion, and taxes by about 2 trillion, leaving a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Spending cuts come in the form of giant cuts to discretionary spending (including defense) with only some minor cuts to Medicare and Meidicaid.

In terms of taxes, start by basically eliminating all taxes. Make a progressive flat tax on income from 1% to 15% of income (without deductions) with the caveat that the tax rate is tied to the level of discretionary spending. Government spends less, you keep more; this should discourage government spending, especially when it comes to wars. Payroll tax and corporate income tax are gone. Capital gains tax is gone. Keep the death tax (we should discourage large transfers of wealth between generations, as this discourages innovation and investment). Introduce Pigovian taxes so that certain industries will realize the full costs of the goods they produce. Studies have found that pollution costs the economy 200-400 billion/year (mostly in the form of less productivty due to sickness); extract that from the abusers. I'd honestly be open to a soda tax or a fat tax...consumption of unhealthy food is everyone's right, and this is America, but in mass, this leads to higher levels of sickness, and we all bear the cost in terms of lowered producitivty and a greater strain on healthcare resources. I'd also experiment with a Wall street transaction tax to cut down on HFT, as well as a tax on certain instruments to cut down on CDS.

The natural opposition to these taxes will be that the government (or the people) are "passing judgement". Who are we to say that eating poorly is bad? Who are we to judget Wall Street traders and certain instruments?

I think the result of such an ideology is one where you treat all income as the same, even though it isn't. As it is now, the income tax generally taxes salary-wage-labor. What is wrong with wage-labor? The corporate income tax attacks profits. What is wrong with profits? The capital gains tax targets investments. What is wrong with investments? Even our excise taxes hit trade; what is wrong with trade? We want to encourage those things since they generally benefit society. Other things, objectively, don't. Seeing this leads to a more efficient tax system.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Ultimately, the government has to run a deficit. That is how the private sector nets financial savings (and at a balanced budget, the private sectory would be losing 500 some billion to the foreign sector every year).

Rand's math (as always) on the fair tax is terrible. The bottom-half of the country gets hit harder...

A good proposal I saw was to cut spending by about 1 trillion, and taxes by about 2 trillion, leaving a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Spending cuts come in the form of giant cuts to discretionary spending (including defense) with only some minor cuts to Medicare and Meidicaid.

In terms of taxes, start by basically eliminating all taxes. Make a progressive flat tax on income from 1% to 15% of income (without deductions) with the caveat that the tax rate is tied to the level of discretionary spending. Government spends less, you keep more; this should discourage government spending, especially when it comes to wars. Payroll tax and corporate income tax are gone. Capital gains tax is gone. Keep the death tax (we should discourage large transfers of wealth between generations, as this discourages innovation and investment). Introduce Pigovian taxes so that certain industries will realize the full costs of the goods they produce. Studies have found that pollution costs the economy 200-400 billion/year (mostly in the form of less productivty due to sickness); extract that from the abusers. I'd honestly be open to a soda tax or a fat tax...consumption of unhealthy food is everyone's right, and this is America, but in mass, this leads to higher levels of sickness, and we all bear the cost in terms of lowered producitivty and a greater strain on healthcare resources. I'd also experiment with a Wall street transaction tax to cut down on HFT, as well as a tax on certain instruments to cut down on CDS.

The natural opposition to these taxes will be that the government (or the people) are "passing judgement". Who are we to say that eating poorly is bad? Who are we to judget Wall Street traders and certain instruments?

I think the result of such an ideology is one where you treat all income as the same, even though it isn't. As it is now, the income tax generally taxes salary-wage-labor. What is wrong with wage-labor? The corporate income tax attacks profits. What is wrong with profits? The capital gains tax targets investments. What is wrong with investments? Even our excise taxes hit trade; what is wrong with trade? We want to encourage those things since they generally benefit society. Other things, objectively, don't. Seeing this leads to a more efficient tax system.

Unlike a handful of liberal posters on this forum--at least this guy is honest. He's not trying to be shrewd or play a game. He's not trying to fly under the radar. He doesn't just attack, attack, attack. He's not trying to derail the forum in a sneaky, underhanded way. He actually proposes what he would do. He's not just being contrary so as to troll.

I'll neg disingenuous crap til the cows come home, but I would not even neg something like this. Again, he's up front about it.

 

[Jesse James]

During the primary, the entire GOP and the candidates were tripping all over themselves trying to push THEIR Flat Tax or THEIR Fair Tax... it was all the rage! You would do your taxes on ONE SHEET OF PAPER! "Lower the tax rate for everyone, spread the taxes out to generate more revenue!"

And what do we hear now from the GOP? Nuts.... that's what.

There is some talk about Tax Reform, but it seems to be focused mainly on corporate taxes not individual income taxes.

What gives?

they became ancaps.

 

[gaazn]

Corporations and rich people don't want a flat tax. They want as many loopholes as possible.

 

[jllundqu]

Ultimately, the government has to run a deficit. That is how the private sector nets financial savings (and at a balanced budget, the private sectory would be losing 500 some billion to the foreign sector every year).

Rand's math (as always) on the fair tax is terrible. The bottom-half of the country gets hit harder...

A good proposal I saw was to cut spending by about 1 trillion, and taxes by about 2 trillion, leaving a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Spending cuts come in the form of giant cuts to discretionary spending (including defense) with only some minor cuts to Medicare and Meidicaid.

In terms of taxes, start by basically eliminating all taxes. Make a progressive flat tax on income from 1% to 15% of income (without deductions) with the caveat that the tax rate is tied to the level of discretionary spending. Government spends less, you keep more; this should discourage government spending, especially when it comes to wars. Payroll tax and corporate income tax are gone. Capital gains tax is gone. Keep the death tax (we should discourage large transfers of wealth between generations, as this discourages innovation and investment). Introduce Pigovian taxes so that certain industries will realize the full costs of the goods they produce. Studies have found that pollution costs the economy 200-400 billion/year (mostly in the form of less productivty due to sickness); extract that from the abusers. I'd honestly be open to a soda tax or a fat tax...consumption of unhealthy food is everyone's right, and this is America, but in mass, this leads to higher levels of sickness, and we all bear the cost in terms of lowered producitivty and a greater strain on healthcare resources. I'd also experiment with a Wall street transaction tax to cut down on HFT, as well as a tax on certain instruments to cut down on CDS.

The natural opposition to these taxes will be that the government (or the people) are "passing judgement". Who are we to say that eating poorly is bad? Who are we to judget Wall Street traders and certain instruments?

I think the result of such an ideology is one where you treat all income as the same, even though it isn't. As it is now, the income tax generally taxes salary-wage-labor. What is wrong with wage-labor? The corporate income tax attacks profits. What is wrong with profits? The capital gains tax targets investments. What is wrong with investments? Even our excise taxes hit trade; what is wrong with trade? We want to encourage those things since they generally benefit society. Other things, objectively, don't. Seeing this leads to a more efficient tax system.

Hell no I'll neg rep this to hell.

Death Tax? "We should discourage large transfers of PERSONAL PROPERTY between generations" FIFY. My grandfather owned a farm. Wasn't worth much when he bought it, but it was worth millions when he died... he lost almost everything due to your fucking death tax. People like you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that CONTROL and FORCE are EVIL.... you and your kind are just that. EVIL. It's people like you who seek power to control others and end up ruining fucking everything for people who essentially just want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor.