The Only Fair Tax is a Flat Tax

[bigmack]

You make $800/yr you pay the same rate the woman making $625K/yr.

End of starry.

Case closed.

[Tom]

I'm, for no taxes.
All volunteer army worked pretty good, let's try it on taxes.
If the government is good and earns respect, people will contribute.
What we don't take in, we don't spend.

[bigmack]

I wonder what problem NJ & Mostie would have with a flat tax -

People not paying the % of income their grouping "controls" of wealth and loss of IRS jobs?

That would be catastrophic.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...and loss of IRS jobs?

That would be catastrophic.

Something tells me this might go the other direction... especially on the enforcement/compliance/life ruination end of the agency.

[TJDave]

I'd love a flat tax. Which means it probably ain't fair. ;)

[boxcar]

I'd love a flat tax. Which means it probably ain't fair. ;)

But the Fair Tax is.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

But the Fair Tax is.
Get outta town. Yer blowin' me premise.

See. The ONLY fair tax is a FLAT tax.

That's all she wrote. This is NOT open for debate.

It's a no-brainer, which means Mostie is on board. :jump:

[Robert Goren]

The problem with the flat tax is it won't be flat. The Rich will aways be able to get deductions the middle class and poor won't be able to use. The result will be the same as Reagan's corporate tax rate cut and getting rid of the the deductions. less than 30 years later, the rate is the same or less and all the deductions are back with bunch more thrown in for good measure.

[boxcar]

Get outta town. Yer blowin' me premise.

See. The ONLY fair tax is a FLAT tax.

That's all she wrote. This is NOT open for debate.

It's a no-brainer, which means Mostie is on board. :jump:

No income tax is fair -- flat, round, octagonal or otherwise. The IRS must go. The 16th Amendment must be repealed. Then we can talk about what is fair.

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

been awhile since I was in college but doesn't a flat tax, by definition, have no exclusions?

[bigmack]

The problem with the flat tax is it won't be flat. The Rich will aways be able to get deductions the middle class and poor won't be able to use.
Somebody done gotta clue you in, @ FLATTAX LAND there AIN'T NO DEDUCTIONS. Put that in your pipe & inhale. Now hold it. Hold it...

Mush to your chagrin you can't bring up rich men & po' men.

[Actor]

You make $800/yr you pay the same rate the woman making $625K/yr.

End of starry.

Case closed.Now the case for the opposition.

Define "fair."

Never mind. Let me paraphrase a line from The Princess Bride.

"Life is not fair. Anyone who tells you different is selling something."

Income tax, as enabled by the 16th amendment was supposed to "soak the rich." The first income tax passed by Congress exempted a married couple making $10,000 per year. That's over $230,000 in today's money. Through inflation, temporary taxes to pay for wars and other increases the 1913 promise to soak the rich has been broken. Obama's proposal to shift taxes to those making over $250,000 is right in line with the 1913 promise.

What about the 47% who don't pay taxes? Well in 1939, just before WWII that 47% was the 95%. That's right, in 1939 95% did not pay income taxes. That left the top 5% to pay income taxes.

If we were to adopt a flat tax what would the rate have to be to be revenue neutral? If it's over 15% it would hit me hard while undoubtedly giving millionaires a break.

Bottom line, a flat tax is not the only fair tax because there is no fair tax. All taxation schemes screw somebody and even if a flat tax is the only fair tax, I'm against it.

[bigmack]

Now the case for the opposition.
Define "fair."
Never mind. Let me paraphrase a line from The Princess Bride.
"Life is not fair. Anyone who tells you different is selling something."
What the hell is this? A Princess Bride quote about life not being fair?

Look, Pal, if you're of the belief that life is not treating you fairly, (whatever that means) you're not bright enough to keep up.

Scram. Beat it.

[Actor]

What the hell is this? A Princess Bride quote about life not being fair?

Look, Pal, if you're of the belief that life is not treating you fairly, (whatever that means) you're not bright enough to keep up.

Scram. Beat it.Life does not treat anyone fairly (whatever that means). Not you. Not me. Not the homeless guy on the street. Not the richest guy on Wall Street. If you're looking for life to treat you fairly, forget it. It's not going to happen.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Life does not treat anyone fairly (whatever that means). Not you. Not me. Not the homeless guy on the street. Not the richest guy on Wall Street. If you're looking for life to treat you fairly, forget it. It's not going to happen.

Wouldn't that make it fair?

[JustRalph]

Wouldn't that make it fair?

:lol: :lol: That's great!

[mostpost]

You make $800/yr you pay the same rate the woman making $625K/yr.

End of starry.

Case closed.
Dumbest idea ever. Instead of your person making $800 a year, let's compare someone making $20,000 a year to your $625K woman. Many flat tax proposals use 15% as a rate.

Under the present rates our 20K worker pays $2565 in federal income taxes.
Under your proposal he pays $3000; an increase of 17% for the person who can least afford it.

The $625K woman pays $169,471.00 under current law.
Using a flat tax her obligation is reduced to $93,750. That is a 45% drop for the person who needs it the least.

Explain to me how that is fair. Equal and fair are not interchangeable terms.

[mostpost]

I'm, for no taxes.
All volunteer army worked pretty good, let's try it on taxes.
If the government is good and earns respect, people will contribute.
What we don't take in, we don't spend.
Apologies to Bigmack. His wasn't the dumbest idea ever. Yours is.

A volunteer army is a lot more expensive, per capita- than a conscripted army. You need to pay more to attract volunteers. How do you expect to pay for that army with volunteer taxes.

Let's assume we use your idea and just ask for contributions to run the government-kind of like churches do. Except churches have God behind them to encourage people to give. At one end of the scale we have people who are not working or working very little or working at jobs that don't pay much. You know, the 47% that you are constantly complaining don't contribute. Do you suddenly expect them to contribute now because it is voluntary?

On the other hand you have the 1% or 5% or 10%. You remember them. The guys who move factories overseas, or put their money in Swiss banks or the Caymen Islands. The spend millions to avoid taxes and now you expect that the will start to pay them because they don't have to?

Which leaves you and me. I don't know about you, but I try to contribute to my church on a weekly basis. Yet there are times when an expense comes up and I either reduce the amount in my weekly envelope or don't turn one in at all. I am sure my volunteer contribution to the government would be equally inconsistent.

[cj's dad]

The amount of money paid under the flat tax is not relevant.

It is fair because both pay at the same rate and receive the same government services and protection.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not that I'm going to defend the idea per se... but how is it that candidates seem to be able to raise about $1,000M just for one election? It's not like people, wealthy, and otherwise, don't ever volunteer to donate money to either support or reject government. You act like nobody in either category would part with a buck in support of policy.

[bigmack]

The $625K woman pays $169,471.00 under current law.
Using a flat tax her obligation is reduced to $93,750. That is a 45% drop for the person who needs it the least.

Explain to me how that is fair. Equal and fair are not interchangeable terms.
Has it DAWNED on you, that forever you've been harping about returning to the days when the rich were taxed 70+% and yet you NEVER said anything about that 'being unfair' because they would be forced to pay more than what they currently pony up.

NOW, you STRONGLY object because those at the lower end of the scale would have to pay more?

That's CLASSIC, hypocritical, one-way thinking. The kind we've come to expect coming out of your melon.

You're an island unto yourself.

[mostpost]

Has it DAWNED on you, that forever you've been harping about returning to the days when the rich were taxed 70+% and yet you NEVER said anything about that 'being unfair' because they would be forced to pay more than what they currently pony up.

NOW, you STRONGLY object because those at the lower end of the scale would have to pay more?

That's CLASSIC, hypocritical, one-way thinking. The kind we've come to expect coming out of your melon.

You're an island unto yourself.

Yes I object because of the effect paying more would have on those at the lower end of the scale. These are people who cannot afford what they are paying now and you want them to pay more. Yet you are perfectly OK with having the upper echelon pay less. Not only are you OK, but you think it is a more fair system for people. who do not have a problem paying the current rate, to get a smaller rate.

The one way thinking comes from you not me. You are the one advocating redistribution of wealth. Take from the poor by increasing their tax burden and give to the rich by decreasing theirs.

[Tom]

tpAOwJvTOio

[bigmack]

Yes I object because of the effect paying more would have on those at the lower end of the scale.
Paying more? Nearly half don't pay a NICKEL in Fed taxes. Now here's where you come back and say they pay sales tax. Then I say, PAY ATTENTION, I said Federal taxes. Then you come back and say, the rich NEVER pay enough.

See how flawed your brain is?

I'm going to learn the tuba just so I can follow you around and play it while you share your thoughts with the world.

You're thoughts are THAT wacky!

d0aIqx1McVI
[YT="But the upper income people do not get OBama phones!"]

Did you hear the company that was awarded that lucrative contract to hand out free phones is owned by a husBand & wifey team that were MAJOR donors to BO?

[mostpost]

The amount of money paid under the flat tax is not relevant.

It is fair because both pay at the same rate and receive the same government services and protection.

It is extremely relevant when you look at what a person can do or not do with the money left after taxes. The wealthy person has plenty of money left to support himself and his family after paying the fifteen percent flat tax. He has money left over for non essential items.

The poor man does not have sufficient money to support his family even before taxes.

Do you seriously believe that the rich and the poor receive the same services and protection from the government? Do you think a report of a burglary in Englewood ( a high crime, poor area of Chicago) is answered as quickly as a call from the North Shore? Do you think that a working mother in the city uses the roads as much as the entrepreneur selling produce to local grocers.
Do you think students in Baltimore get the same education as students in Chevy Chase?

[Valuist]

Institute a VAT and get rid of all personal income taxes. Let the IRS work on corporate stuff.

Too hard on the poor? Make it 5% for food and 20% for everything else. It polices itself. In good times, people are purchasing more and thus, more tax revenue is generated. In harder economic times, taxes should not be raised.

No more loopholes and disincentivize those who come here illegally. The tax code is too complicated. Lets get rid of it.

[Tom]

Do you seriously believe that the rich and the poor receive the same services and protection from the government?

Good point.
The guy who pays ore money should get more services, say, like his road gets plowed first, his mail get priority, his water is cleaner, his trash gets picked up three times a week.

You get what you pay for.

[boxcar]

Dumbest idea ever. Instead of your person making $800 a year, let's compare someone making $20,000 a year to your $625K woman. Many flat tax proposals use 15% as a rate.

Under the present rates our 20K worker pays $2565 in federal income taxes.
Under your proposal he pays $3000; an increase of 17% for the person who can least afford it.

The $625K woman pays $169,471.00 under current law.
Using a flat tax her obligation is reduced to $93,750. That is a 45% drop for the person who needs it the least.

Explain to me how that is fair. Equal and fair are not interchangeable terms.

I have good news and bad. The bad is that Equal defines Fair in an objective way! Treating people without partiality is fair! For example, giving the same respect, courtesy and consideration to people of all races, colors and creeds in the employment arena would be FAIR; for all would be treated equally. But giving "minorities" (I don't even like using the PC term anymore!!!) preferences under the color of a law called Affirmative Action is anything but fair, simply because it does not treat all people the same (i.e. equally).

But the good news is that I happen to agree with your statement insofar as taxation is concerned! (Mark this day on your calendar because this may never happen again!). In the example given above, all the applicants for a given job would not, obviously, be all equally qualified; therefore, all cannot nor should they be given consideration of equal weight. Equality, in the real world, can only be carried so far despite the lofty claims of the Declaration of Independence, which says all men are created equal. All men are equal in one sense and one sense only: Everyone is created in God's image. After that -- forget about it!.

So, whatever tax system is in place, special consideration should be given ("should" implying moral duty) to people, who by paying taxes (i.e. paying their "fair share"), would be placed with a "cruel and unusual burden" when trying to meet other normal and necessary life-sustaining obligations, such as housing, food and clothing.

This is one of the reasons, by the way, I strongly favor the Fair Tax, which, of course, is a consumption-based tax. Apart from getting into a lot of details (for which I have no time), strongly and easily enforceable regulated exceptions could be built into such a system that would at once protect all productive, responsible tax payers from the burden of over-taxation due to abuses by their counterparts, while at the same time affording a limited measure of relief to those counterparts (the poor) by the government issuing a tax-exempt I.D. card for only specific types of items, such as food, clothing, legal drugs, etc. This system would guarantee no abuses because if the poor want to buy cigarettes or alcohol or any kind of luxury item, they would have to pay the tax. And this tax-exemption privilege should come under review at least once a year, but preferably twice annually. Again, such a system would help keep all the indigent honest, while also protecting hard-working tax payers from being abused by fraudsters.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

The poor man does not have sufficient money to support his family even before taxes?

Did you ever consider the totally conservative ideal that you shouldn't have a family unless you can afford it?

How about the totally out of date notion that having a home and a family were goals to be pursued by those with character and resolve, to pursue the much broader ideal of "The American Dream"

Yet the 60's Liberal agenda undermined the entire character of the country. LBJ and his cronies created a permanent underclass, imprisoning an entire class of people. They, mostly minorities, reveled in the handouts being given them. Never stopping to understand the underpinnings of what later set the stage for the wholesale corruption of their culture. They were immediately set aside, not unlike the American Indian. The only difference being the reservation for minorities was within the confines of government housing projects and inner cities where those able participated in white flight to the burbs.

Minorities were later victims of their own shallow evolution that coupled with the wholesale loss of morality brought on by the free love and drug culture which became the "freedom" mantra of the late 60‘s and early 70’s. This wholesale attitude of progressive ideas tossed aside personal responsibility and those strict morally indecent norms that had served the country so well. The uncool who waited for marriage to have kids and saved twenty percent down payments on houses were well on their way to extinction.

The government enabled and rushed along this cultural degradation by handing out excuses and checks. So now we can't have a fair tax becase it is ultimately "unfair?" Get real. This is the same mindset that prevailed in fostering a society where 7 of every 10 black kids in Cincinnati are born to an unwed mother. Where 7 of every 10 pregnant black females in Washington DC is under 20 years of age. 7 of 10 black women who have been pregnant in America's larget cities have also had an abortion. Many have had multiple abortions.

The fact that a "fair" tax is no longer fair, is a reflection of our own willingness to redefine fair as we perceive it. In the case of taxes, fair is a simple math problem. Cultural and perceived unfairness is not germane to the discussion.

Unless you are an advocate of social injustice based on liberal idealogy and the same progressive ideals that have ruined a country and created that permanent underclass, you are not against a "fair tax" you are "for" an unfair tax, plain and simple. You've been successful for six decades.

[Let's Roll]

Brilliant post, JustRalph. Thanks.

[boxcar]

Brilliant post, JustRalph. Thanks.

It was indeed an excellent post. In fact, everything JR touched upon is moral in nature! Thanks to liberalism, liberals have succeeded in enabling, promoting and propagating the moral decadence of this society as a whole. Instead of government exerting all its energies in extolling, elevating and encouraging virtue, the state has become the evil-enriched soil from which which the root of most of society's evils draws its poison.

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

A super post by J.R.

J.R......? I see you are now in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?

Do you ever catch the Sundaynight/Monday morning Overnight with Charley Jones on KRLD?
Jones interviews a guy called "Mike in East Texas".
He's been on since 2008.
Best show on economics anywhere I've heard.
I think you'll be very interested. Jones puts up podcasts:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/category/watch-listen/overnight-with-charley-jones/

El Kabong turned us on to this show about 3 years ago.
Many people I know in California now listen to it.
Check it out, JR, you'll find like minded guys there.

[elysiantraveller]

FWIW I prefer a zero deduction 3 bracket system... 7.5%, 12.5%, and 20%.

Short term capital gains and dividends taxed as ordinary income for the middle and top bracket. Long Term at 10%.

BOOM!

Just solved the debt crises.

Your welcome. :cool:

[ElKabong]

A super post by J.R.

J.R......? I see you are now in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?

Do you ever catch the Sundaynight/Monday morning Overnight with Charley Jones on KRLD?
Jones interviews a guy called "Mike in East Texas".
He's been on since 2008.
Best show on economics anywhere I've heard.
I think you'll be very interested. Jones puts up podcasts:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/category/watch-listen/overnight-with-charley-jones/

El Kabong turned us on to this show about 3 years ago.
Many people I know in California now listen to it.
Check it out, JR, you'll find like minded guys there.

Mike in East Tx is good.

On my way to work I listen to The Morning Bell (LeCamp and Reddell) on 1190am / kfxr. 0730-0900 Mon-Fri Dallas time. More and more Mike is getting his data/ info from there it seems. Lecamp and Reddell have excellent regular guests on Wed & Thurs at 8am. Best 45 minutes or so of radio here for Finance. In addition to that they've had Richard Fischer (Dallas Fed Prez) on for interviews.

For pure stats on oil, Ed Wallace's show on Sat mornings, 570am (5 hr show, not that great overall). From approx 0900 for 10 minutes he runs down his "oil report". In 2008 when everyone was screeching "supply and demand"was the reason for $4 gas, Ed was calling bullshit on it....and he was right.

[PaceAdvantage]

A volunteer army is a lot more expensive, per capita- than a conscripted army. You need to pay more to attract volunteers.And you have to PAY volunteers more, don't you? If you have a conscripted army, you don't have to PAY them as much, do you, since they have no choice.

Interesting that you're NOT ok with the guy making $25K paying a little more in taxes under a flat tax scheme, but you ARE ok with a conscripted army where the serviceman will undoubtedly be PAID LESS to fight for his country.

[bigmack]

FWIW I prefer a zero deduction 3 bracket system... 7.5%, 12.5%, and 20%.

Short term capital gains and dividends taxed as ordinary income for the middle and top bracket. Long Term at 10%.

I DO like the way your brain works.

Let's run that up the Mostie flagpole and see how it plays.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/flag.gif

[cj's dad]

[QUOTE=Let's Roll]Brilliant post, JustRalph. Thanks.[/QUOTE'

Ditto- guys like mostie will never ever get what JR posted.

[PaceAdvantage]

I DO like the way your brain works.

Let's run that up the Mostie flagpole and see how it plays.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/flag.gifI'll give you one thing. You come up with the best graphics...

[Tom]

mostie did not win this debate. :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'll give you one thing. You come up with the best graphics...

Yeah, I want my own flag now too.

[bigmack]

I'll give you one thing. You come up with the best graphics...
That's the fourth 'one thing' you've given me. Not as if I give a rats...

Point being, Dick was wrong for so long. Dick figured everybody's brains woiked the way HIS did. Turns out, they don't.

Turns out ya gotta figure out how to use multiple tabs in like a Chrome er somethin'. Then ya let yer mind go creative. (HUGE problem for moist. Scratch that, most)

Then you get a picTour or ANImated gif, as they're called.

Anyway, it's easy and takes a mere minute or two, iffin' you know what you're do-ING. In this case I used mostie flagpole, Goo'd "animated gif flagpole generator" and voila. Right clicked on mosties avaTar, savored it, ran it through a site that pops that out fer free. Right clicked on that, saved that, upped to PhotoBucky - one click 'img' url. Clicky here and paste. 3 minutes, tops!

Dick feels 99.9% of photos/gifs posted lack taste. Dick likes to use tasteful, axing for creative input material.

Yers always,

D. Drago.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/dickd.png

[ElKabong]

I'll give you one thing. You come up with the best graphics...

I wonder if an enterprising type can sell rolls of toilet paper with that face on each sheet? Kinda like the roll I bought in the late 70s with Barry Switzer's face on each sheet (true story). Lots of $$ to be made here, folks....

[so.cal.fan]

:lol: "I wonder if an enterprising type can sell rolls of toilet paper with that face on each sheet? Kinda like the roll I bought in the late 70s with Barry Switzer's face on each sheet (true story). Lots of $$ to be made here, folks...."

Love it!

[ElKabong]

Do you ever catch the Sundaynight/Monday morning Overnight with Charley Jones on KRLD?
Jones interviews a guy called "Mike in East Texas".
He's been on since 2008.
.

A 2 hour show this week?! Didn't know that, (will keep me up till midnite tonite).....Listening to the start, now. Thanks!

[elysiantraveller]

Yeah, I want my own flag now too.

Not before the inspiration that is the "Swayze Express" flies high over these parts.

[bigmack]

I wonder if an enterprising type can sell rolls of toilet paper with that face on each sheet? Kinda like the roll I bought in the late 70s with Barry Switzer's face on each sheet (true story). Lots of $$ to be made here, folks....
Costco is sold out while China is feverishly churning out more to be shipped.

C.O.D.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/ObamaToiletPaper-FathersDayGifts-FunSlurpcom.png

[JustRalph]

Thanks for the kind words.


Thanks for the Radio Tip Diane. Hope you are well.

[ElKabong]

Do you ever catch the Sundaynight/Monday morning Overnight with Charley Jones on KRLD?


Thought this sounded familiar....the latest show they have up is from 2 weeks ago....last nites show s/b up tomorrow sometime.

Btw, Charley's show (with or without Mike) is quite good, I just wish it were on a decent hour....But he prefers the night life so to speak. He made some national waves on the Waco Davidian story. He cut thru the politics on that event, it was the only source of non slanted info you could find....anywhere. No taking sides, just facts as unfolded

Unique show, no ranting, no screaming, he is a thoughtful host with ideas and listens to his callers. Rare trait these days.

[Actor]

Did you ever consider the totally conservative ideal that you shouldn't have a family unless you can afford it?Great idea but totally impractical.

There is no 100% effective method of birth control. Therefore, you are in effect suggesting that people abstain from sex until they can afford children. Or that they have themselves sterilized and then hope the sterilization can be reversed when they can afford children.

Not going to happen. People will have sex and will "accidentally" procreate.

[JustRalph]

Great idea but totally impractical.

There is no 100% effective method of birth control. Therefore, you are in effect suggesting that people abstain from sex until they can afford children. Or that they have themselves sterilized and then hope the sterilization can be reversed when they can afford children.

Not going to happen. People will have sex and will "accidentally" procreate.

This is why you are who you are. You miss the point I made.

It's not about the "accidental" children. :bang:

Funny how prior to the great society programs, the war on poverty and welfare programs, women and couples as a whole devised a way to avoid falling into the same traps that afflict todays "poor".

What could have changed? I wonder........

[cj's dad]

Therefore, you are in effect suggesting that people abstain from sex until they can afford children. Or that they have themselves sterilized and then hope the sterilization can be reversed when they can afford children.



Complete lib b-----hit.

You bring children into this world, you take care of them. Need to work 2 jobs ? work 2. Need to work 3 ? work 3. If you can't take care of your children, then keep it in your pants or keep your knees together.

Oh wait, maybe I can get the gubmint to helps me out wif my chilluns. Kno what I'm sayin.

[highnote]

I wonder if an enterprising type can sell rolls of toilet paper with that face on each sheet? Kinda like the roll I bought in the late 70s with Barry Switzer's face on each sheet (true story). Lots of $$ to be made here, folks....


Aqueduct Racetrack used to sell toilet paper in the giftshop with the Aqueduct logo on each sheet. Very fitting. I wish I would have bought a roll of it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Aqueduct Racetrack used to sell toilet paper in the giftshop with the Aqueduct logo on each sheet. Very fitting. I wish I would have bought a roll of it.When was this?