Huckabee's fair tax

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

Damocles, try this...Pick a topic. Debate it. Whine when you lose.

You will either agree with me, or you will lose. It is that simple. Try to do otherwise.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

You and your "friends" can make fun of me. You will all lose. Try.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

TRY. Otherwise, run as you will.

 

[Socrtease]

WTF are you going to debate? that flat tax is good? Bad? Harmful to the rich or the poor? What the FUCK are you going to debate?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

WTF are you going to debate? that flat tax is good? Bad? Harmful to the rich or the poor? What the FUCK are you going to debate?

I don't think he's certain of that.

 

[Beefy]

Originally posted by

Beefy. Like me. You'll find yourself on the better half of this in the long run.

You see, I DO like you. I think you're probably the best debater on this board now that Ihategovernmet has left. You'd crush me in any debate, you crush most people you debate with. What comes to mind most is the Eminent Domain debate, which, I think you won, even though you were wrong. You're a better debater than most, for certain.

Its your bizarre personality quirks that make you interesting though. The 50 unanswered posts in a row, the citation of obscure logical fallacies, the constant "comic book guy attitude.

I think you rule. If you had a fan club, I'd join it.

Anyhow, carry on....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

17% flat tax on all money earned and realized in a year regardless of where it comes from. No taxes on the first 35k or so for every working stiff in a family or corporation. No deductions, no loopholes. Businesses also wouldn't pay employment tax for the first 35k they paid employees. And as Top has pointed out the biggest complainers are the ones that complain the biggest now about the system. The Wealthy would HATE a flat tax because they could not hide income. If they ever converted to liquid funds it would be taxed at 17%. I would also eliminate the Death Tax. Vote for me

Well, other than you saying 17% to my 20%, we are essentially in agreement.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Supporters of the "flat tax" want to have their cake and eat it too. It's bad for the rich AND it's good for the rich at the same time. It will brush your teeth and wipe your ass.

The reason I support a progressive consumption tax is that it's simply what is best for the economy.

A flat tax with a standard deduction is NOT regressive... it is progressive. It is the most progressive option available. A consumption tax is REGRESSIVE unless you somehow twist it to include capital gains and dividend income as "consumption". The current system is obviously regressive due to all the loopholes and deductions allowed. Which is why we have situations where CEOs have lower effective tax rates than many of their employees.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Mike Gravel is for fair tax too but I'm not. I just am not sure about it. I do however like having some sort of national sales tax for certain products cause that can maybe bring in more money nationally to pay off the debt we have.

 

[uscitizen]

I would like to see a constitutional ammendment requiring X percentage of tax revenue to go towards the national debt.

 

[Annie]

A flat tax with a standard deduction is NOT regressive... it is progressive. It is the most progressive option available. A consumption tax is REGRESSIVE unless you somehow twist it to include capital gains and dividend income as "consumption". The current system is obviously regressive due to all the loopholes and deductions allowed. Which is why we have situations where CEOs have lower effective tax rates than many of their employees.

How are you defining progressive and regressive taxes?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How are you defining progressive and regressive taxes?

Progressive.... rich pay a higher effective tax rate than the middle income who pay a higher effective tax rate than the lower income

Regressive... when the rich pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle income or middle income pay lower than the poor (though the latter rarely occurs, thus primarily the former in this case)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I would like to see a constitutional ammendment requiring X percentage of tax revenue to go towards the national debt.

It is sad that should be required, but it may be the only way to get the idiots in DC to pay down the debt. The problem lies in the fact that the bribes they receive (I mean lobbying efforts) will never allow for this to happen.

 

[Obfuscate]

17% flat tax on all money earned and realized in a year regardless of where it comes from. No taxes on the first 35k or so for every working stiff in a family or corporation. No deductions, no loopholes. Businesses also wouldn't pay employment tax for the first 35k they paid employees. And as Top has pointed out the biggest complainers are the ones that complain the biggest now about the system. The Wealthy would HATE a flat tax because they could not hide income. If they ever converted to liquid funds it would be taxed at 17%. I would also eliminate the Death Tax. Vote for me

You have my vote!

Sounds alot like the Steve Forbes plan which I fully support.

 

[Annie]

Progressive.... rich pay a higher effective tax rate than the middle income who pay a higher effective tax rate than the lower income

Regressive... when the rich pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle income or middle income pay lower than the poor (though the latter rarely occurs, thus primarily the former in this case)

Ours our close, mine:

A progressive tax is defined as a tax whose rate increases as the payer's income increases. That is, individuals who earn high incomes have a greater proportion of their incomes taken to pay the tax.

A regressive tax, on the other hand, is one whose rate increases as the payer's income decreases.​

 

[Annie]

Now defined, how would a 'fair tax' or 'flat tax' be more fair?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ours our close, mine:

A progressive tax is defined as a tax whose rate increases as the payer's income increases. That is, individuals who earn high incomes have a greater proportion of their incomes taken to pay the tax.

A regressive tax, on the other hand, is one whose rate increases as the payer's income decreases.​

True, they are pretty much the same.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Now defined, how would a 'fair tax' or 'flat tax' be more fair?

I hate to use qualifiers, but it depends on how they are structured. If you somehow morphed the fair tax to somehow include taxes on capital gains and dividend income, then it could be progressive. But without that caveat, it is regressive.... because the wealthy invest more than they consume. The bulk of their assets would not be taxed and I believe you would end up with a reduction in revenue to the Fed. Given the Feds spending habits this would not be a good thing.

The fair tax is better than our current system, but I think it is more complex than the flat tax in coming up with a way to eliminate fed taxes on the poor.

The flat tax by itself would be just that.... flat. Everyone would pay the same percentage on each dollar they earn. I would not promote it on its own as it would hurt the lower income families. I would add in a standard deduction of say 30k per adult. In this way it would eliminate federal income tax for the lower income families. It would also create a progressive effective tax rate as the more you earn, the closer to the 20% (my proposal) flat tax rate you would get.

As I mentioned to others, given the level of debt we have created, I would not be opposed to adding one other bracket... say 30% on all income earned over $5mm. I would then take the money from that additional bracket and use that to pay down the national debt. I would adjust the $5mm limit by inflation each year.

The flat tax would be on all income.... earned, cap gains, dividends. Other than the standard deduction, no other deductions or loopholes. Which means the end of the IRS as we know it.

 

[Annie]

I hate to use qualifiers, but it depends on how they are structured. If you somehow morphed the fair tax to somehow include taxes on capital gains and dividend income, then it could be progressive. But without that caveat, it is regressive.... because the wealthy invest more than they consume. The bulk of their assets would not be taxed and I believe you would end up with a reduction in revenue to the Fed. Given the Feds spending habits this would not be a good thing.

The fair tax is better than our current system, but I think it is more complex than the flat tax in coming up with a way to eliminate fed taxes on the poor.

The flat tax by itself would be just that.... flat. Everyone would pay the same percentage on each dollar they earn. I would not promote it on its own as it would hurt the lower income families. I would add in a standard deduction of say 30k per adult. In this way it would eliminate federal income tax for the lower income families. It would also create a progressive effective tax rate as the more you earn, the closer to the 20% (my proposal) flat tax rate you would get.

As I mentioned to others, given the level of debt we have created, I would not be opposed to adding one other bracket... say 30% on all income earned over $5mm. I would then take the money from that additional bracket and use that to pay down the national debt. I would adjust the $5mm limit by inflation each year.

The flat tax would be on all income.... earned, cap gains, dividends. Other than the standard deduction, no other deductions or loopholes. Which means the end of the IRS as we know it.

Ok, fair assessment of your read, appreciated. Here's what I see from flat/fair more or less, depending on the proponent. Everyone would pay the same percentage, some making a deviation below a certain point. Some make some deductions, other no. I believe it's the fair tax that includes a sales tax.

In any case, to my way of thinking both are regressive, as all of my purchases are necessities. When it comes to sales tax in the great state of Illinois, the state, city, county and sometimes township get in on it. I live in DuPage, which has a substantially lower tax than Cook, (Chicago).

Most of my neighbors have much higher incomes, 3-10 times my income. That the roast we buy might have all bought for Christmas dinner is taxed exactly the same, is by my definition, (the normal definition), regressive.

I'll stop here, see what others have to say.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ok, fair assessment of your read, appreciated. Here's what I see from flat/fair more or less, depending on the proponent. Everyone would pay the same percentage, some making a deviation below a certain point. Some make some deductions, other no. I believe it's the fair tax that includes a sales tax.

In any case, to my way of thinking both are regressive, as all of my purchases are necessities. When it comes to sales tax in the great state of Illinois, the state, city, county and sometimes township get in on it. I live in DuPage, which has a substantially lower tax than Cook, (Chicago).

Most of my neighbors have much higher incomes, 3-10 times my income. That the roast we buy might have all bought for Christmas dinner is taxed exactly the same, is by my definition, (the normal definition), regressive.

I'll stop here, see what others have to say.

That is the same problem I have with the fair tax. But the flat tax is progressive. (when you use a standard deduction)

A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.

A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.

A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.

A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.

A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%

Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.