Anyone supporting a flat tax should skip a step and just admit they want the poor to suffer.
Rant VIII: The Reckoning
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boat people
I don't necessarily agree. A flat tax for *everything*, as income tax for example, is patently silly. Some types of taxation, though, can and perhaps should, be based on a flat rate.
Before replying, do consider I'm Belgian - well over 60% of my income goes to the state under a variety of taxes, levies, obligated insurances, impositions, etc etc
, not including 21% VAT... Making any and all taxes progressive is a good way of killing off high-level jobs. Increasing someone's net income from about €1800 to €2100 requires the employer to pay about €1500 more (no, this is not an exaggeration - these are about my and my brother's net income, my gross is about €2800 and his is about €4300).
It just means that employers search in vain for all kinds of tax evasion loopholes, which are, of course, ever present all over. Which just complicates things
but doesn't make it any more fair.
Progressive income tax up to a point is a matter of fairness. After that, though, it's counterproductive, and taxes on consumption, pollution,... can be more effective.
Before replying, do consider I'm Belgian - well over 60% of my income goes to the state under a variety of taxes, levies, obligated insurances, impositions, etc etc
, not including 21% VAT... Making any and all taxes progressive is a good way of killing off high-level jobs. Increasing someone's net income from about €1800 to €2100 requires the employer to pay about €1500 more (no, this is not an exaggeration - these are about my and my brother's net income, my gross is about €2800 and his is about €4300).
It just means that employers search in vain for all kinds of tax evasion loopholes, which are, of course, ever present all over. Which just complicates things
but doesn't make it any more fair.
Progressive income tax up to a point is a matter of fairness. After that, though, it's counterproductive, and taxes on consumption, pollution,... can be more effective.
A flat tax is dumb. A graduated flat tax, based on income level with a handful of tax breaks based around charitable donation is great, but will never implemented.
GasBandit
Staff member
You guys are cute in thinking that the super rich pay the income tax rates as advertised. When you make that much more, you can spend that much more working loopholes and sheltering income. A flat tax, however, does unduly hurt the poor, and really - a lot of the megarich don't actually have "incomes" so to speak to get taxed.
The Fair Tax, however, would both relieve the burden on the poor AND get at the stockpiled wealth of the most wealthy. No income tax, so your paycheck immediately gets bigger for not having any withholding. There's a national sales tax, but the amount of tax that would have been on what you would be expected to spend to get the basic necessities is prebated every month - so the poorer you are, the less the tax bites you (in addition to getting your entire paycheck with no chunk taken out by FICA). However, the trust funders and the old money inheritors still spend money, and the tax gets them with the purchase of every dress, every bauble, every car and every golf club.
The Fair Tax, however, would both relieve the burden on the poor AND get at the stockpiled wealth of the most wealthy. No income tax, so your paycheck immediately gets bigger for not having any withholding. There's a national sales tax, but the amount of tax that would have been on what you would be expected to spend to get the basic necessities is prebated every month - so the poorer you are, the less the tax bites you (in addition to getting your entire paycheck with no chunk taken out by FICA). However, the trust funders and the old money inheritors still spend money, and the tax gets them with the purchase of every dress, every bauble, every car and every golf club.
Dave
Staff member
My only issue with the fair tax would be underhanded companies. As much as I don't trust the government, I trust corporations even less to do what's right. There's always loopholes.
This site has a lot of pro/con for the system and I totally agree that the rich would still benefit and possibly even benefit more from this as they'd rely on now-untaxed dividends and interest payments to do anything. It would free up a lot of their capital and they'd just end up buying their large goods overseas.
This site has a lot of pro/con for the system and I totally agree that the rich would still benefit and possibly even benefit more from this as they'd rely on now-untaxed dividends and interest payments to do anything. It would free up a lot of their capital and they'd just end up buying their large goods overseas.
Replacing pretty much anything with a VAT/sales tax style tax has its advantages, but it's only feasible if it's done continent-wide or coupled with some serious protectionism. Also, of course, the left feels the need to regulate the amount of taxes is placed on what. It makes sense to lift higher taxes on something like a jacuzzi than on a loaf of bread, but letting the government decide what's a luxury and what isn't (moreso than they already do - VAT gets separated by type of product, over here at least) is troublesome in its own right.
I think some sort of consumption/fair tax is an interesting idea. As long as it doesn't tax food and items that are required to live. The rich buy more things and so they would be taxed more. The poor would keep all of their income and should pay very little taxes. Sounds fair to me. Probably wouldn't work and folks would still get out of it somehow.
The real answer is to cut the government down.
The real answer is to cut the government down.
How about a flat income tax rate, with a sizeable one-and-only deduction? This might ensure that the poor aren't taxed out of house and home, while incentivizing people to contribute to the economy as their hard work won't get taxed up the wazoo every time they cross an income bracket?
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis said:
The trees are budding here. And I need to mow my lawn.
GasBandit
Staff member
I was afraid you were going to tell us that's your car antenna.
Wait..you play tinwhistle?
No. I lack any form of music talent. Me and a coworker stopped by a music shop during our lunch break while on in situ. Turned out it was run by an acquaintance of my coworker and we each bought something small to help out the store.
Update, mom managed to work it with the government down to 4500. So, that's a LITTLE better, but still gonna fuck me hard financially for a while.
Positive side, girlfriend, who I've been on a bit of a rough patch with lately decided to take me to fancy dinner to console me tonight before I had to take her to the airport. Sigh.
Positive side, girlfriend, who I've been on a bit of a rough patch with lately decided to take me to fancy dinner to console me tonight before I had to take her to the airport. Sigh.
Last edited:
I'm not sure. Universal Basic Income usually means an automatic handout from the government, while this would be more along the lines of the beginning portion of a person's income not being taxed. The main benefit, and, as I see it, the main thing needing to be fixed in a progressive taxation system, is tending to the often punishing marginal tax rate.PatrThom said:
Last edited:
You say that, but I think we're describing two different ways of arriving at approximately the same final condition. The only difference I see, is that in a UBI situation, the organization (in this case, the Government) takes wealth from everyone, and then redistributes it. In a Tithe situation, the people volunteer wealth, which is then redistributed.
In the situation you describe, saying, "You are not taxed on the first $75,000 you earn, after that there is tax" (big deduction) is effectively the same as saying, "Everyone is taxed X amount, but if this means you did not make at least $75,000, the difference will be subsidized" (UBI). The end result is the same, only the method of arriving there is different (unless I'm not fully understanding your proposal, which is possible given the amount of statistics in the document).
--Patrick
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. It is not my intention to suggest that if you do not make enough to meet the deductible figure (which would in my opinion be SUBSTANTIALLY less than 75000USD), then the government would subsidize the difference. My idea was simply to have a deductible. Welfare grants, such as unemployment benefits etc, would be a separate issue, and not linked to the amount of the deductible.
There are actually parts of the Maritimes where cars have been buried entirely.
GasBandit
Staff member
Can't. That's the sign over the entrance to my workplace.Here you go, just hang this from your mailbox and call it a day.
(Not really, but sometimes I wonder...)
The first time I saw that, it was written on the outside door to a house which I was pretty sure was a drug dealer's house. It was in huge letters, so you could read it from the road. It got me curious about where the quote came from and I ended up reading Inferno because of it.Here you go, just hang this from your mailbox and call it a day.
GasBandit
Staff member
Heh, when I was a teenager, I read Inferno just for the hell of it, because it sounded like something awesome to brag about. It was an interesting enough read I suppose, but not what my 14 year old brain had been expecting.
