[U.S.] Would it be better to have a "Flat Tax" system?

2010-01-11 02:03:11

#1

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5471|Ventura, California

At the moment, the United States has a tax system where the more you make, the higher the percentage of your earnings is going toward taxes. However, there are so many deductions and loopholes that high earners can practically pay nothing (A very little percentage).

What I'm suggesting is a system with no deductions, and everybody simply needs to pay 10% of what they earn between January and April 15th.

So if you're a high earner (Approximately 100,000$ a year and more) you would only pay 10% of that, which would be 10,000$. You would still have 90,000$ to put into other expenses.

Lets compare this to somebody only earning 12,000$ a year, this person has a monthly salary of 1000$. Again, between January and April 15th, this person would pay 1,200$.

Please explain why you would be for or against this system, backed up with reasons.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-01-11 02:09:53

#2

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6808|Nårvei

The "Flat Tax" system has been discarded as a rubbish system so many times it really isn't needed to back up opinions about it ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-01-11 02:14:39

#3

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6704|67.222.138.85

Because the fixed cost of living would force poor people to go further into debt every year, but any level low enough to allow them to subsist would mean fuck all as far as national revenue.

It's not your idea as you implied. Nobody worth a damn thinks it's a good idea. Go have fun with the five hypernationalist people actually in the U.S. that think it's a good idea and build sandcastles on the Mexican border or protest for complete economic isolationism.

2010-01-11 03:27:31

#4

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6150|what

A flat tax system gives you more reason to hide your true income.

2010-01-11 06:28:30

#5

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6540|Texas - Bigger than France

A flat tax system actually is worse for the lower income folks.

2010-01-11 06:29:16

#6

krazed: Admiral of the Bathtub; +619|6777|Great Brown North

i'm going to go with a no

2010-01-11 06:59:39

#7

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6220|teh FIN-land

I'm gonna go with troll.

2010-01-11 09:06:12

#8

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6466

ruisleipa wrote:
I'm gonna go with troll.

Naw, -Shitty- is just a moron.

2010-01-11 15:14:35

#9

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5696

stfu, you're not even american.

2010-01-11 16:20:53

#10

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6377|MN

AussieReaper wrote:
A flat tax system gives you more reason to hide your true income.

Don"t know why that would be true. Seriously curious to the reasoning.

Pug wrote:
A flat tax system actually is worse for the lower income folks.

True. I, even being the ultra conservative type, don't see a truly flat tax working very well. With the current government spending in the US anyways. In order to provide the services we have, the tax needs to have a pretty big curve.

In my perfect world, the cost of services would be drastically lower and thusly we could move to a flatter tax curve. The welfare would provide basic neccesities and would efficiently drive those on it to get off of it. I'll save that for a more related topic though.

ruisleipa wrote:
I'm gonna go with troll.

I chocked on my coffee when I read that.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-01-11 16:42:32

#11

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6403|North Carolina

If deductions are the concern, then just get rid of the regular income tax and replace it with a graduated AMT. The Alternative Minimum Tax is a percentage that people above a certain income have to pay no matter what. You can't deduct below it.

Just apply a graduated version of that to everyone and then deductions are no longer an issue.

2010-01-11 22:11:37

#12

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6679|Disaster Free Zone

Why not just get rid of the deduction?

I know... cause they are there for a reason.

2010-01-11 23:33:17

#13

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6150|what

LividBovine wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
A flat tax system gives you more reason to hide your true income.
Don"t know why that would be true. Seriously curious to the reasoning.

If you've got say 80-100k taxed 10%
100-120 taxed at 15%
120k + taxed at 30%

those above 120 are tempted to hide income to be in the range of 10% tax. But they are likely to get caught, it's a large amount to hide and add to the fact that if you're earning that much you're above average and in a small bracket of people who do earn that much. The amount of people who will try this is very small.

If however, we're talking about a flat tax system, which usually only kicks in for medium size incomes, and often exempt those earning winimum wages - it's easier to hide a small amount of income, there'll be more people within that tax bracket, and so more people who are going to hide their income in this situation.

Say if you earn minimum wage, and are exempt from the flat tax, you'll not be wanting to have a wage increase or if you do you'll hide it to avoid tax altogether.

But I know what you mean, the tax system in this case might not be what you were thinking of.

2010-01-12 00:03:16

#14

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6730|St. Andrews / Oslo

As said countless times, no.

First step is making the tax-lists (?) public, imo. There is no better surveillance than civilian surveillance.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
some may have noticed I was against this before.. Well, it's grown on me

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2010-01-12 15:35:09

#15

PureFodder: Member; +225|6283

If you have a flat tax system one of these three things almost certainly must happen:

1. The taxes on the poor remain the same, the tax rates for the rich are reduced. This will entirely cripple public spending and pretty much end the military, R&D, education, policing, firefighting and all the other things that will be fucked by the vast reductions in public spending.
2. The flat tax rate is set so that public spending is kept the same, this shifts a huge tax burden from the richest people onto the poorest. Widespread social collapse is sitting at the end of this route.
3. The middle ground in which the poor pay loads more tax and public spending is hugely reduced. Everyone get's screwed in this case.

There's a reason people don't go for flat tax systems in rich countries.

2010-01-12 15:36:33

#16

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5356|London, England

PureFodder wrote:
If you have a flat tax system one of these three things almost certainly must happen:

1. The taxes on the poor remain the same, the tax rates for the rich are reduced. This will entirely cripple public spending and pretty much end the military, R&D, education, policing, firefighting and all the other things that will be fucked by the vast reductions in public spending.
2. The flat tax rate is set so that public spending is kept the same, this shifts a huge tax burden from the richest people onto the poorest. Widespread social collapse is sitting at the end of this route.
3. The middle ground in which the poor pay loads more tax and public spending is hugely reduced. Everyone get's screwed in this case.

There's a reason people don't go for flat tax systems in rich countries.

Right. Ok. Then why don't state governments collapse since they provide the vast majority of services and all but a few have a flat tax?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-12 15:37:19

#17

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6647

Oh Brad...

2010-01-12 15:46:03

#18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6403|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Right. Ok. Then why don't state governments collapse since they provide the vast majority of services and all but a few have a flat tax?

That's not true for most American states.

34 states and Washington D.C. have graduated income tax systems. Apparently, D.C. citizens must pay both the federal income tax and a local income tax (sucks to be them).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

2010-01-12 15:48:49

#19

PureFodder: Member; +225|6283

JohnG@lt wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
If you have a flat tax system one of these three things almost certainly must happen:

1. The taxes on the poor remain the same, the tax rates for the rich are reduced. This will entirely cripple public spending and pretty much end the military, R&D, education, policing, firefighting and all the other things that will be fucked by the vast reductions in public spending.
2. The flat tax rate is set so that public spending is kept the same, this shifts a huge tax burden from the richest people onto the poorest. Widespread social collapse is sitting at the end of this route.
3. The middle ground in which the poor pay loads more tax and public spending is hugely reduced. Everyone get's screwed in this case.

There's a reason people don't go for flat tax systems in rich countries.
Right. Ok. Then why don't state governments collapse since they provide the vast majority of services and all but a few have a flat tax?

Because they suckle at the teat of the graduated federal system.

BF2S Forums [U.S.] Would it be better to have a "Flat Tax" system?

ruisleipa wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Pug wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Board footer