The Republican Party is Dead; Only the Name Survives the Deceased

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sorry Socr but that's niave. It will never happen. Everyone has issues that are important to them that they would love to see either of the major parties solidly and consistantly represent. You're right, that will never happen and I think it would be niave to have that sort of expectation of the major parties.

I mean, for example, I would view a "flat tax" as an agressive, hostile and even violent move by the upper classes against my best financial interest and I would be willing to fight like hell, to protect that interest against such regressive forms of taxation that penalize me financially while funneling money upwards towards those who need it the least.

The bolded portion is more ignorance from you. A flat tax with a standard deduction would:

1) INCREASE the effective tax rates on the wealthy

2) create a 'FAIR' tax system, would eliminate government loopholes and deductions that are currently provided for the wealthy

3) would tax ALL income at the same rate

4) would eliminate the need for much of the IRS, would LOWER/maintain the tax rates for low income and lower middle income individuals/families

5) A flat tax with standard deduction is a true PROGRESSIVE tax. Our current system is actually REGRESSIVE (due to the wealthy and elite being able to bribe (I mean lobby) for more deductions and loopholes from Congress)

The following is what I have proposed and is the type of flat tax system that I believe (from past discussions) Soc is referring to.

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

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.

To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $1 million (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.


So tell me Mott.... WHAT is 'regressive' about that tax structure?

hell... even IF you did not have the standard deduction, it still would not be regressive... it would be FLAT. We have a flat tax here in CO and it works quite well.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I am calling bullshit on the bolded portion. The two party system has repeatedly screwed this country for the past 50 years (at least). The public is largely responsible because we continue electing the same types of morons to public office and expecting different results. The two parties are masters of the wedge issues... they use them to rally 'their' side and infuriate the 'other' side.

Bottom line... saying that the two party system has 'worked well' is absurd. The two party system has completely failed us for at least the last fifty years.

Awww bullshit. We've presently have one of the highest standards of living in human history in this nation. That wouldn't be the case if our systems was completely disfunctional and didn't work. Is it ideal? No. Is it perfect? No. Is it working prefectly well, hell yes it is.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Awww bullshit. We've presently have one of the highest standards of living in human history in this nation. That wouldn't be the case if our systems was completely disfunctional and didn't work. Is it ideal? No. Is it perfect? No. Is it working prefectly well, hell yes it is.

Well, you got the first sentence correct... you did indeed spew forth a bunch of bullshit.

We have a high standard of living DESPITE the idiots in DC. We have managed in the past 50 years to raise our nations debt from about $286B to over $13.2 TRILLION. That kind of insanity has to stop. We can run deficits in the down years, but we MUST pay down the debt in the good economic years (something the so-called Keynesians like Krugman seem to forget is a part of Keynesian economic theory).

When you look at the endless amounts of waste permeating through all levels of government, to pretend the system is 'working' is absurd. Just because we manage to prosper despite the best efforts of the two parties to consolidate power doesn't mean the two party system is working 'perfectly well'.

We only have to look to the times when ONE party has control of all three Houses to see why having only two parties is bad for this country. When one goes out of favor and the public turns in frustration to the 'other' party and provides them with all 3 Houses, we get out of control spending and increased size of government. With MULTIPLE party systems, the government has to form coalitions of parties and it is unlikely that any one extreme will be reached as the parties will have to find common ground. Which typically moderates the end position.

The two party system is leading us to the edge of the abyss. It is time for REAL change.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The bolded portion is more ignorance from you. A flat tax with a standard deduction would:

1) INCREASE the effective tax rates on the wealthy

2) create a 'FAIR' tax system, would eliminate government loopholes and deductions that are currently provided for the wealthy

3) would tax ALL income at the same rate

4) would eliminate the need for much of the IRS, would LOWER/maintain the tax rates for low income and lower middle income individuals/families

5) A flat tax with standard deduction is a true PROGRESSIVE tax. Our current system is actually REGRESSIVE (due to the wealthy and elite being able to bribe (I mean lobby) for more deductions and loopholes from Congress)

The following is what I have proposed and is the type of flat tax system that I believe (from past discussions) Soc is referring to.

Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income.

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.

To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $1 million (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.


So tell me Mott.... WHAT is 'regressive' about that tax structure?

hell... even IF you did not have the standard deduction, it still would not be regressive... it would be FLAT. We have a flat tax here in CO and it works quite well.

No it's not it's regressive and slight of hand mathematics as presented in the fair tax doesn't change that.

First let's be clear. The "Fair Tax" is based on a fundamentally regressive sales tax. The reason these flat tax and VAT schemes are regressive is that those in the lower economic brackets spend a far larger portion of their income on purchasing the goods they need for existence then the wealthy do so a far larger portion of their income is subject to taxation then the wealthy would be.

Now, let's use your example of those making less then $30KPY or in the lowest 20% of earners. According to the "Fair Tax" ponzi scheme they would recieve a prebate of around $5,000 annually. The slight of hand here is that the lowest 20% of earners earned around $8000 in pre-tax income and spent around $18,500. Now according to Fair Tax schemers that family would be running at a deficit until they hit an income of $35,000. With a 23% sales tax they would pay $4,250 in taxes but since under the Fair taxk they recieved around $5000 in prebates then they would come out about $750 ahead.

But that's not how it really works. Because the prebate comes in the form of a check from the government it does not exempt them from the 23% sales tax on any of their spending. It simply boosts their income by $5,000. Giving them a real pre-tax income of $13,000 but there still spending $18,500 and still paying $4,250 in sales tax. taken as a percentage of their post prebate income that's an affective tax rate of $31% and not 0%.

Now under that scheme lets look at a family that makes $125,000 which places them in the top 20%. On average they will spend about $80,000. Boosting their income with the $5,000 prebate and then calculating their "fair tax" on their spending yeilds a tax rate of around 14% as you sited.

That's a classic example of regressive taxation and there's nothing fair about that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No it's not it's regressive and slight of hand mathematics as presented in the fair tax doesn't change that.

NOTE: LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAIR TAX AND FLAT TAX... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.


You are correct in that the FAIR tax IS regressive.

The FLAT tax is PROGRESSIVE... and it is actually "FAIR" as well (unlike the poorly named 'fair tax' that you describe)

 

[DamnYankee]

Awww bullshit. We've presently have one of the highest standards of living in human history in this nation. That wouldn't be the case if our systems was completely disfunctional and didn't work. Is it ideal? No. Is it perfect? No. Is it working prefectly well, hell yes it is.

This is the new argument circulating by Libtards: 'we've done well under capitalism burdened with liberalism so lets have more burden on capitalism'. Fucking retarded.

 

[Socrtease]

No it's not it's regressive and slight of hand mathematics as presented in the fair tax doesn't change that.

First let's be clear. The "Fair Tax" is based on a fundamentally regressive sales tax. The reason these flat tax and VAT schemes are regressive is that those in the lower economic brackets spend a far larger portion of their income on purchasing the goods they need for existence then the wealthy do so a far larger portion of their income is subject to taxation then the wealthy would be.

Now, let's use your example of those making less then $30KPY or in the lowest 20% of earners. According to the "Fair Tax" ponzi scheme they would recieve a prebate of around $5,000 annually. The slight of hand here is that the lowest 20% of earners earned around $8000 in pre-tax income and spent around $18,500. Now according to Fair Tax schemers that family would be running at a deficit until they hit an income of $35,000. With a 23% sales tax they would pay $4,250 in taxes but since under the Fair taxk they recieved around $5000 in prebates then they would come out about $750 ahead.

But that's not how it really works. Because the prebate comes in the form of a check from the government it does not exempt them from the 23% sales tax on any of their spending. It simply boosts their income by $5,000. Giving them a real pre-tax income of $13,000 but there still spending $18,500 and still paying $4,250 in sales tax. taken as a percentage of their post prebate income that's an affective tax rate of $31% and not 0%.

Now under that scheme lets look at a family that makes $125,000 which places them in the top 20%. On average they will spend about $80,000. Boosting their income with the $5,000 prebate and then calculating their "fair tax" on their spending yeilds a tax rate of around 14% as you sited.

That's a classic example of regressive taxation and there's nothing fair about that.

And NONE of this is a flat tax. VAT's are indeed regressive, but a flat tax with a standard deduction would insure that no one that made under 30k would EVER pay taxes EVER.