Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do you support a Flat Tax a Fair Tax or a Progressive Tax ?

Page 2 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Jul 2011, 8:50 am

marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The whole "prebate" nonsense of it is just cleverly disguised welfare, basically a family of 4 for receive a $400-500 check every month from the government, a massive new entitlement program. While the idea of sales tax replacing the progressive income tax isn't a bad idea, the FairTax plan is terrible.

Ugh. You have absolutely no shame do you? You can't get blood from a stone so shifting the tax burden onto the poor will only force the US into a 3rd world banana republic.


I don't support FairTax, do you? I'm not sure what you're upset about here. The "prebate" would essentially be a monthly check that the government sends out to every citizen that qualifies(it's based on like family size so have more kids get more money) as a I guess a way to offset the taxes on essential goods which would all be taxed at a flat rate of about 30%. We really don't need the government sending out anymore monthly checks, this would essentially put everyone in the country on the dole.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jul 2011, 8:54 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
em_tsuj wrote:
flat tax (people get taxed, not corporations)

i believe in equality. why should people get punished for making a lot of money?
How is everyone paying the same percentage of taxes "punishment"?


.


A truly flat rate system ignores the marginal utility of money. If you tax a poor person even five percent you guarantee his starvation.

ruveyn



PaleBlueDotty
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 190

22 Jul 2011, 9:01 am

This might be slightly off topic, but what about Land value tax and Henry George?
Wiki Land Value Tax
Land Value Tax



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jul 2011, 9:02 am

PaleBlueDotty wrote:
This might be slightly off topic, but what about Land value tax and Henry George?
Wiki Land Value Tax
Land Value Tax


Think of what happens to Old Widow Jones when a big box store opens up down the block from her.

ruveyn



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

22 Jul 2011, 9:34 am

I support a fairly flat progressive tax that ranges from 10-30%.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jul 2011, 9:36 am

What about Milton Friedman's negative income tax scheme?

It is welfare for the poor without the welfare burocracy. No wonder it was rejected.

ruveyn



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

22 Jul 2011, 9:37 am

ruveyn wrote:
What about Milton Friedman's negative income tax scheme?

It is welfare for the poor without the welfare burocracy. No wonder it was rejected.

ruveyn
Never heard of it, how does it work?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,991
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Jul 2011, 9:40 am

em_tsuj wrote:
flat tax (people get taxed, not corporations)

i believe in equality. why should people get punished for making a lot of money?


Well I don't believe in taxing people more then they make or more then half of what they make, so there would have to be a limit on who could be taxed.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jul 2011, 9:42 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
What about Milton Friedman's negative income tax scheme?

It is welfare for the poor without the welfare burocracy. No wonder it was rejected.

ruveyn
Never heard of it, how does it work?


A minimum income level would be decreed by law. Anyone making under that threshold would receive a check for the difference from the IRS. Anyone over the threshold would pay an income tax of some sort. It could be progressive or flat-ish. I thin Friedman was showing his humor but he correctly pointed out that an automatic redistribution scheme would almost completely eliminate the welfare burocracy which costs a bundle.

In a way we are doing that now. The Congress keeps extending the dole to the unemployed so they can pay the rent and buy food for the kids.

If the powers that be had listened to Frieman 30 years ago we would not be going through our current travails.


ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,991
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Jul 2011, 9:44 am

Everyone should get taxed the same precentage, in my opinion.....so yeah everyone who has taxable income can be taxed the same percentage. The government can quit working for the pigs or 1% of the population that can get around paying any taxes anyways.......and we would have more then enough to help out people who are on the bottom like the poor and homeless. Sorry they are not garbage they are people and deserve to be treated as such.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,991
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Jul 2011, 9:46 am

ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
What about Milton Friedman's negative income tax scheme?

It is welfare for the poor without the welfare burocracy. No wonder it was rejected.

ruveyn
Never heard of it, how does it work?


A minimum income level would be decreed by law. Anyone making under that threshold would receive a check for the difference from the IRS. Anyone over the threshold would pay an income tax of some sort. It could be progressive or flat-ish. I thin Friedman was showing his humor but he correctly pointed out that an automatic redistribution scheme would almost completely eliminate the welfare burocracy which costs a bundle.

In a way we are doing that now. The Congress keeps extending the dole to the unemployed so they can pay the rent and buy food for the kids.

If the powers that be had listened to Frieman 30 years ago we would not be going through our current travails.


ruveyn


That sounds good except I think we should abolish the IRS and create a more honest less corrupt orginization to handle those things. Oh and welfare is not really a Bureaucracy.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jul 2011, 9:53 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

That sounds good except I think we should abolish the IRS and create a more honest less corrupt orginization to handle those things. Oh and welfare is not really a Bureaucracy.


It is, in the United States.

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,991
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Jul 2011, 10:00 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

That sounds good except I think we should abolish the IRS and create a more honest less corrupt orginization to handle those things. Oh and welfare is not really a Bureaucracy.


It is, in the United States.

ruveyn


How is welfare a Bureaucracy when that word means: A formal organization with a hierarchy of authority, clear cut division of labor, empasis on written rules, communications and records and impersonality of positions.? the only way I can see that is if you are referring to the fact that it is difficult for people who actually need welfare or disability for instance to get on it.....then its a bit of stretch but I can see it.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

22 Jul 2011, 10:07 am

ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
What about Milton Friedman's negative income tax scheme?

It is welfare for the poor without the welfare burocracy. No wonder it was rejected.

ruveyn
Never heard of it, how does it work?


A minimum income level would be decreed by law. Anyone making under that threshold would receive a check for the difference from the IRS. Anyone over the threshold would pay an income tax of some sort. It could be progressive or flat-ish. I thin Friedman was showing his humor but he correctly pointed out that an automatic redistribution scheme would almost completely eliminate the welfare burocracy which costs a bundle.

In a way we are doing that now. The Congress keeps extending the dole to the unemployed so they can pay the rent and buy food for the kids.

If the powers that be had listened to Frieman 30 years ago we would not be going through our current travails.


ruveyn
Sounds good. I don't support high minimum wages so this is a great way for people to get their foot in the door without putting too much of a burden on businesses.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,991
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Jul 2011, 10:09 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
What about Milton Friedman's negative income tax scheme?

It is welfare for the poor without the welfare burocracy. No wonder it was rejected.

ruveyn
Never heard of it, how does it work?


A minimum income level would be decreed by law. Anyone making under that threshold would receive a check for the difference from the IRS. Anyone over the threshold would pay an income tax of some sort. It could be progressive or flat-ish. I thin Friedman was showing his humor but he correctly pointed out that an automatic redistribution scheme would almost completely eliminate the welfare burocracy which costs a bundle.

In a way we are doing that now. The Congress keeps extending the dole to the unemployed so they can pay the rent and buy food for the kids.

If the powers that be had listened to Frieman 30 years ago we would not be going through our current travails.


ruveyn
Sounds good. I don't support high minimum wages so this is a great way for people to get their foot in the door without putting too much of a burden on businesses.


Hopefully you mean small buisnesses and not huge multi-national corporations that are f*cking everyone over to begin with.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

22 Jul 2011, 10:20 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
What about Milton Friedman's negative income tax scheme?

It is welfare for the poor without the welfare burocracy. No wonder it was rejected.

ruveyn
Never heard of it, how does it work?


A minimum income level would be decreed by law. Anyone making under that threshold would receive a check for the difference from the IRS. Anyone over the threshold would pay an income tax of some sort. It could be progressive or flat-ish. I thin Friedman was showing his humor but he correctly pointed out that an automatic redistribution scheme would almost completely eliminate the welfare burocracy which costs a bundle.

In a way we are doing that now. The Congress keeps extending the dole to the unemployed so they can pay the rent and buy food for the kids.

If the powers that be had listened to Frieman 30 years ago we would not be going through our current travails.


ruveyn
Sounds good. I don't support high minimum wages so this is a great way for people to get their foot in the door without putting too much of a burden on businesses.


Hopefully you mean small buisnesses and not huge multi-national corporations that are f*cking everyone over to begin with.
High minimum wages affect small businesses the most but I also had big businesses in mind. With a minimum wage that isn't ridiculously high, it would also be reasonable to eliminate all corporate welfare and tax loopholes so that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Socialized losses and capitalized gains are what made them as big as they are.