A 10% flat income tax makes economic sense.
10%... No. Flat percentage, yes!!!!
The answer is:
$1,500 in taxes for a person making $15,000 is HUGE! That can be the difference between having electricity or not. The flat tax idea unfairly burdens the poor.
I doubt that would be sufficient. Even Hong Kong has (or had) a rate of 15%.
Or we could just have no income tax. That would be nice too
Hugely agree. It should be lower though.
I prefer the Fair Tax.
A flat income tax won't make sense regardless of the percentage.
So you are in favor of extortion to support these things?How you can justify using force to take what is not yours so that you can have what you want is beyond me. If you want something so be it, pay for it, do not rob from me to so so.
No, it makes zero economic sense, as a general rule. It may coincidentally work out to be right in a given year, but most of the time probably not.
Lower income less tax. Higher income more tax. Someone making over a million a year should not receive the same tax rate as someone working full time making 15k a year.
What happened to "fair"?
I cannot support the compulsory participation in government at any level. Taxation is compulsory, and is extortion by another name. If the services provided by government are so vital, then let me choose for which I pay.
If every individual chose for which those taxes would be used then it would defeat the purpose of taxing. No one would voluntarily give their taxes to support a school out of their district, pave a road they never drive on, etc. Bad neighborhoods
Would get worse and nice neighborhoods would become more exclusive.
You can even teach a first grader how "equal" does not mean fair
The idea that a flat tax is "fair" is ridiculous.
Better than a progressive income tax, but the income tax should really be eliminated entirely.
It would have to be about 25%, and a notional retail sales tax. And the poor wouldn't pay it at all. Income tax would be eliminated under this system.
The fairtax is 23% actually.
I rounded up. Got to keep the liberals happy.
As long as my poverty stricken a** is too poor to pay it, y'all can flat tax away all day.
No, there is simple no way that would ever work and it would truly be economically damaging. 50% of people would experience a tax hike (90% if you only include individual income tax). That would have serious repercussions for our economy.
Thank you. You always handle these tax questions better than I could!
Thanks sojourner, I just try to answer them the best I can. Haha, I'm certainly not the best though, but I appreciate the kind words.
Not even a little bit. Not economically, not pragmatically, and not from a perspective that remotely grasps basic fairness.
Economically, maybe not, but it certainly would be much more fair and equitable.
Question to Kscott: is it fair to take someone already struggling financially to pay their bills and provide food and take money that they need for that while the people more financially stable are barely affected by it?
Is it fair to make some who just happens to make more money a lot more in taxes than someone who makes a little less? And those same people are trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads to.
As a person from a poor family, we cannot handle losing as much money as someone with higher wealth. I'm not saying overtax them, not at all. Without the richer people having money, us poor people wouldn't get What money we have. Just don't (cont.)
(Cont.) ocertax the poor either.
Phlegm, that depends on the meaning of "a lot" and "a little," but yes, progressive taxation is the only reasonable and fair way to tax people. I say this as someone in one of the top tax brackets btw.
Pop, logically yes it would be fair. Emotionally no. Do the rich use more or less of the public services that those taxes pay for? Less. Is it feasible? No.
Bethany what's your take on tax breaks?
Which tax breaks? Are you talking about some specific proposal?
You just seem knowledgeable and I was wondering if you had any insights on how that factors into the progressive tax system. I've seen quite a few polls with people who are detractors of it and supporters and was just curious what your stance was.
Many wealthy benefit from a complicated tax code and many view a flat tax as a simplistic solution to closing the loopholes.
So when you ask about tax breaks do you perhaps mean itemized deductions? I certainly agree that they can be and are used in a way that disproportionately benefits the very wealthy and big corporations.
And of course, tax deductions can exist in either a flat or progressive tax regime.
Why wouldn't then the tiered system we have now administer/limit the amount of benefits the wealthy and corporations can take? It just seems like it'd make sense to limit the maneuverability of crafty accountants.
Which I'd guess is some of the logic behind a flat tax to begin with.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the logic of a flat tax? Regardless of the rate, the goal will always be to minimize your taxable income.
*from a reporting perspective. Obviously you still want to *actually* make as much money as possible.
Nope. I'm not in favor of regressive tax policies that hurt low income people.
So you must be in favor of the fairtax. The poor actually get money back and can pay no taxes at all if they choose.
The "fair" tax is still regressive. It just creates a little bell curve at the front to fool people.
So getting $ and not paying any taxes if you choose not too, is regressive. Exactly how so?
I don't understand your question. There's no way to opt out of the "fair" tax. Not buying anything isn't an option unless you already own everything you will ever need, which describes about zero poor and middle-class people.
The tax only applies to "new" things. You can buy clothes, cars, just about anything not new and pay no taxes. Obviously there is no used "food" so you pay taxes on that, unless to buy used fruit trees from someone or grow your own, which I do.
And buying stuff at thrift shops is what most poor people do anyways so, yes, no taxes....
I don't even know how you can say all of that with a straight face.
Right. So your "fair" tax relies on a convoluted regulatory regime that defines goods based on characteristics that we'll generously call potentially vague. Can't imagine how that might be subject to abuse by those with means.
Good thing the poor wouldn't need food! /s
Food is one thing that should have the lowest tax rate, considering you'll die without it. You can live without a car, house, clothes, electricity, even heat if you're south enough. But not food.
People, please read before all of your whining. The poor would pay zero taxes.
Lol. So worrying about the economic effects of a terrible and half-baked idea is "whining" in your book. That's useful. Thanks for you helpful contribution there.
Their faq states that food and medical would be taxed. So where exactly does that "zero taxes" come into play?
Sounds good. The federal govt doesn't need that much money. And since cutting isn't working, cutting its supply is the next step.
I don't think 10% would be enough, the Republican plan called for 17%, which is a fair tax rate.
If 10% is enough for the church, it's more than enough for the govt. Just shrink the bureaucracy to the size of Lincoln's.
If an economical model showing a 10% flat tax would run this country, WITH a surplus, then 10% it is.
Considering the Church doesn't run a military, a judicial system, and road maintenance, I'd hardly say what's more than enough for a Church is more than enough for a government. C'mon, Tom. You're smarter than this.
Agreed, there is more that the government does than 10% would support.
The point is that the government does WAY too much. It's time to end the nanny state. Constitutionally, we could abolish most government departments and send their function back to the states, where it belongs.
That would be in the 17% flat tax model. I agree on taking federal gov responsibilities and giving them over To the states
Sure, advocate for lower tax rates, but please don't spew this nonsense. Please. For your own reputation as a somewhat sensible person.
Don't laugh. God says a 10% tithe is sensible so why shouldn't a 10% tax rate be? Who are we to argue with da Lawd?
Is this an economic debate or a religious debate?
Economic. But, believe it or not, there are people (even on SOH) who use the 10% tithe in the Bible as an argument for a 10% flat tax rate. 'Merica, amirite?
"Give Ceasar what is Caesars" is what Jessie said in regards to taxes. And "Caesar's" economy won't operate at 10%. Unless people are reading the right scripture, they need to leave their bibles out of this.
I've only heard tithing used to support the concept of a flat tax, not the specific 10% number.