it sounds fair until you stop looking at amount paid and look what the money would be spent on instead if taxes were different. If people are paying taxes instead of their rent, there's a social problem there, assuming we're talking about a reasonable rent. If it's a matter of flying second-class instead of first when the family goes on vacation, you don't have the same desperate flavor to the choices. You may still feel that there are inequities, but they won't be those inequities.
Cam and I had a huge thread on this a couple of years ago. Assuming I understood him, he feels sure that a flat tax would only apply past a certain income level. It is possible that if that "certain income level" is high enough, you might avoid the worst consequences of this structure. In other words, you wouldn't be taxing money people need to live. We did not agree on where "a certain level" would be, and it may depend a lot on the local cost of living, the situation and the actual legislation that might pass. However, a tax would still be not be "progressive" because that's defined as a tax structure model where the percentage of income paid in tax goes at higher income levels. Larry may correct me here, but I don't think it would be "regressive" either, as the proportion is, well, flat. An example of a regressive tax is Social Security, which only taxes the first 80-something thousand, so Bill Gates pays proportionately much less into that system than you do. It's tempting to want to simplify the tax code, god knows, but everybody likes the deductions they get to use, so it's hard to get consensus behind eliminating loopholes. Also, the usual number I hear bandied about in flat tax proposals is 10%, also, which would represent a considerable tax cut for upper-income taxpayers. Whether eliminating deductions would balance that out is a good question. On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK..I can see it now. > > FWIW - My thought has been for a while that we rework the tax code so > that there are no deductions...at all..none. > > Its simple...how much money did you make, regardless of where it came > from, from January 1 to Dec 31? Ok, you owe us this much. > > Of, course, there would be a progressive scale there as well. > > That would likely put a lot of people out of business, though. > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > OK lets see how bad of a hash I can make of this. A sales tax hits > > lower income people far more than those who make more, as a percentage > > of income. > > > > 10% of a grocery bill of $100 is less of a hit to someone making > > $100,000 a year than someone making $20,000. > > > > Its still a hit but a much greater hit for the person making $20,000. > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> First, let me say, I am not advocating a 'flat tax' . These are > >> legitimate questions (not trolling). I really don't understand (and > >> want to) > >> > >> How would it 'hit the poor far more than any other group'? > >> > >> How would they (the poor) be paying for 'the rich or upper class > >> indulgences'? If the rich purchase 'indulgences' wouldn't that benefit > >> everyone - more money spent = more tax revenue, would it not? > >> > >> Again...not trying to be a shit stirrer (this time). I really just > >> don't understand how this would be considered a 'poor tax'. > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> the issue of the flat tax (which is what this is in sheep's clothing), > it > >>> that it is retrogressive, it hits the poor far more than any other > group. > >>> Why should they pay for the rich or upper class indulgences? Frankly > all > >>> the proposal I've seen on this could only be classified as a Poor Tax. > >>> > >>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> "The solution isn't to just raise taxes. It's to also put rules in > place > >>> to > >>>>> safe-guard and penalize against hiding your money to avoid paying the > >>>>> taxes." > >>>>> > >>>>> Or ditch the monstrosity that is the progressive income tax and move > to a > >>>>> national sales tax. > >>>> > >>>> I can certainly get behind reforming the tax code to steamline it and > >>>> remove most (if not all) of the specialized deductions that keep > >>>> adding entropy to the system. I certainly can't agree on the wisdom of > >>>> switching from a progressive income tax to a national sales tax > >>>> though. A progressive income tax is still, philosophically, the right > >>>> way to go in my opinion. Obviously its current implementation leaves > >>>> something to be desired. > >>>> > >>>> Judah > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:348183 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
