Duke From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 1135 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1669 times:
I have for long considered graduated income tax to be a fair form of taxation. If you earn more, you pay more. If you earn less, less of a burden is placed on you. Being the rights-oriented socialist that I am, I would like such a system to replace property tax flat rates too (I.E. if you're unemployed, you don't pay a cent and you won't lose your property for it. If you're employed, then your property tax would be calculated based on a formula taking into account both your income and your property value, not just the latter).
But the issue of property tax aside, I am now considering something else. Slovakia recently replaced the classic tax system with one of a flat tax - for most purposes (income tax, sales tax etc) EVERYONE simply pays 15%. The idea is that as this is a low rate, more people would pay or get work due to a better economy, thus profiting the state coffers more in the long run. Here in Czechia, the President's party (ODS, the Civic Democrats) is suggesting doing the same thing.
Now I ask you - how do you like this idea? I can see the advantage of taxes being the same - yet low - for everyone. After all, in Czechia VAT is currently 19% on most products, so that would go down, and the lowest tax bracket is 15% anyway (so the only "disadvantage" would be that the first $1600 or so - a bit more than 2 months of the average salary - would be taxed, whereas currently it isn't). But I can see how this could be abused - if the government raised the tax rate drastically without exception for everyone and everything.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20860 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1652 times:
It's a subsidy for the wealhy paid for by the low-income population.
And it only works (sort of) as long as other EU countries are basically subsidizing the "newcomers" and give them the opportunity to lower their taxes (ultimately subsidizing the relocation of their own jobs to the new members).
It is not sustainable in the long run. At some point somebody will actually have to pay for infrastructure and other programs locally.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1646 times:
I'd like to see a flat income tax but with minimum wage not taxed. So multiply your local minimum wage by 2080 hours in a standard work-year and only the income above that amount is taxed - at a flat rate.
But that is well down my personal list of reforms aimed at weaning civil servants off my personal welfare tit.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
BHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1644 times:
Yes, I'd go for it. If you make the tax rate low enough and the penalties for not compliance high enough, you end up with MORE money in state coffers. Doesn't Russia have a flat rate of about 13% ? Low enough so EVERYBODY pays - not worth the risk not to. I know that this wouldn't suit every country, but I think here in Portugal it would work. Recently the government raised the tax on top rate payers and guess what, they had something like 90% "disappear" the next year. Evading taxes here has always been a bit of a game, with the rich declaring next to nothing (remember Loana Helmsley and her "only the little people pay taxes" speach before she got sent down). They put VAT up to 21%, and when I passed a hypermarket in the Spanish town of Huelva about 50km away, where VAT is 16% and prices lower anyway, about 70% of the cars in the car park had Portuguese plates (it was a holiday here). Like I said, yes to a flat rate but yes to stiff penalties for non compliance. Raising taxes doesn't always raise more revenue.
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1634 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 1): No, I don't like the idea of a flat tax. I support tax relief for the poor and the wealthy should pay a higher % of taxes.
First of all the wealth already pay a higher % of taxes, both marginally and overall.
Second of all, what level of taxation do you think the rich should pay? Don't just say more, state a case for an actual amount that would be fair. 40%? 50%? 60%? More? At what point are the weathly paying their fair share?
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3535 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1605 times:
I flat tax is a great idea as it does the most to stimulate economic growth (other than no tax at all). The problem is that Socialists do not like it at all, as they depend on the redistribution of wealth and keeping a permanant under class in order to maintain their power base.
The productivity of a population is inversly proportional to the size of their government.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38512 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1586 times:
Studies have shown that for the government (United States) to just be able to function it's bare-necessities, the flat-tax would have to be 25%. That would be a huge tax increase for the poor and a huge tax break for the rich.
Come to think of it, a flat-tax wouldn't be such a bad idea after all. The government would have a hard time finding money to start wars and fund Israel. Also I'd like to see how many Americans are willing to give up there homeowner's tax deduction and child tax credit. In a true flat taxation structure, that would disappear.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 10): That would be a huge tax increase for the poor and a huge tax break for the rich.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 1): I support tax relief for the poor and the wealthy should pay a higher % of taxes.
Again I ask, at what point do you believe that "wealthy" are paying enough taxes? 50%? 60%? 70%? Liberals are quick to say that the rich don't pay enough but I've never gotten an answer to the question - how much is enough?
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1573 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 12): The Kennedy tax cut which lasted until Ray-gun was a fair tax structure. Go and look at those numbers.
So you're saying a top marginal rate in excess of 70% is fair, because I know those numbers quite well. I for one think that having a minority interest in your own economic production is inherently unfair. Why should the government stand to benefit more than you do for every additional dollar you make?
Furthermore, if you'll recall the 1986 tax reform package closed a huge number of loopholes particularly in the real estate arena. Are you advocating that those loopholes be brought back? A tax code is more than just the marginal rate, it's the entire body of rules and regulations that affect what earnings are subject to tax and what expenses can be charged against those earning in order to come up with taxable income.
The problem with people like you is that you simply don't know enough about the tax code to really be able to intelligently debate the matter. All the talk about tax code simplification is a red herring. Over 75% of all tax returns filed in the US are either 1040A or 1040EZ where there is no itemization. The percentage of American workers who have ZERO federal income tax liability is approaching 50%, yet the left says that the "poor" pay too much in taxes. Add to that the fact that poor families with kids qualify for the earned income tax credit and you'll see that the federal income tax code is not biased against the poor but most poor families actually qualify for money that they never paid into the system.
Now, if you want to talk about a regressive tax, let's discuss the payroll tax system. But I've never heard a liberal advocate that we do away with the payroll tax? Do you want to come out and support that?
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38512 posts, RR: 80 Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
Quoting Pope (Reply 14): The problem with people like you....
Did I mess up your taxes?
If I 'simply don't know enough about the tax code' and you do, can I hire you to do my taxes? I pay almost 50% of my income to taxes. The government punishes me because I am smart enough to know that I (myself) am not ready to be married and have kids. I am smart enough to prioritize my career goals as well as travel and see the world instead 'settling down'. I would be rewarded with tax breaks if I got married and started having children.
Can you give me a tip tips on how I can save on my taxes Mr. Pope?
SATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1564 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 9): It also eliminates most tax loopholes and therefore derails the gravy train.
I love how issues like this get all screwed up. Both the lefties and the righties want to do something about the more egregious tax loopholes (or so they say) and yet the righties come up with crazy shit like flat taxes as the answer. The way to remove tax loopholes is to simply remove all our various pro-fraud deductions. Of course, if politicians were truly serious about removing tax loopholes you'd think that they wouldn't have allowed them in the first place.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1564 times:
I support the Fair Tax, not the Flat Tax.
In essence, the Fair Tax does away with income tax and instead puts a higher tax on retail goods, with the exception of the goods one needs to live. (Which means the poor don't have to pay as much as the rich, because there is a certain amount of expenditure for the month that isn't taxed.)
No, but you advocate policies that will increase my taxes without understanding the issues you're advocating.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 15): I would be rewarded with tax breaks if I got married and started having children.
Please tell what tax breaks you'd get. I have a wife and a kid and I'm completely phased out of all deduction and personal exemption. I'm absolute certain that you pay much less taxes, both in absolute and in percentage terms than I do so my friend which one of us is getting screwed? You then advocate policies that would further raise my taxes. How's that fair?
And still you haven't specifically answered how much I should pay in taxes before I've paid my fair share. That's a simple question - why do you duck it?
No you didn't you gave an evasive ambiguous answer not even fully understanding what you were supporting. It's a simple question, a what level of taxation does a weathly person pay their fair share? You liberals are always so quick to point out that the rich aren't taxed enough, I'd just like to know precisely how much would be enough. Don't pull a B744F just answer the question - no bullshit, just a real straightforward debate of idea and their merits. What are you scared of?
SATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18): Yeah, hence flat tax. It will never happen though since it's a self defeating prophecy with respect to politicians.
You can remove all the pro-fraud deductions without having to resort to a flat tax. These are two separate issues. Progressive tax structures recognize that the wealthy aren't as impacted by losing 15% of their income as the poor are impacted by losing 15% of their income. Even if I was making seven or eight figures I wouldn't be pushing for a flat tax just so I could buy some more shit I don't need. However, the flat tax will eventually become reality in America some day. The people who want it most are far too rich and powerful to fail, and even the people who won't benefit from it are too ignorant to realize that. Just look at what's happening with the Estate Tax to see what I'm talking about. People who have little if any chance of benefiting from the reduction or removal of the Estate Tax have been clamoring for it's demise. We've become a nation of greedy idiots who consider "nuke 'em all" to be a legitimate foreign policy.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...