Gainzo

You didn't read my post. Thanks for being ignorant.

chicowalker

You still haven't explained how you're reaching that conclusion -- what assumptions are you making? Because a true flat tax would be neither regressive nor progressive. It's not a sales tax.

Real World

That's called reality pal. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is. I bought four 93% lean burgers at the super market tonight on my way home. While I was doing that, I'm sure someone else who makes a lot more than me was buying Filet. It is what it is. I drive a 2004 Jeep, someone else drives a 2011 Bentley.

BTW, corps pay taxes. They pay corporate taxes, commercial property taxes, real estate taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, matching payroll taxes...

I like the plans that offer the base exemption so that lower end earners, or earnings, get to keep more of their money. I think Gainzo missed the exemption in his calculations. A fair, or flat tax will never fly though. It doesn't allow either party, or the government in general, to manipulate, shape, control, or dictate our lives. They want control. Control = power.

He won't either. Jack always makes statements he says are facts, never proves them to be true, but then repeats his unproven statements time and time again, as if he's proved them to be accurate. Anyhow...

I'm going to try to give jack a hand here and see if I can sort of explain what I think his point is. The notion of those who oppose a flat, fair, or consumption tax (a tax that has always peaked my interest btw), is that it disproportionatley affects lower end earners. The idea is that a 17% confiscation rate affects a $25,000 earner more harshly than it would someone who earns say $200,000. Of course, this is where that base exemption would come into play. Allowing a person to keep something like the first $15,000 (just a number I'm tossing out there for discussions sake), plus $X per dependent would help alleviate those concerns.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

patsfan13

You are correct as to why the pols don't want it. They want to use the tax code to expand their power and get those donations. Reminds me of the Mafia shaking down shopkeepers in the 1920's.





BTW in a plan like Forbes's Flat tax every dependent gets the same personal exemption.

The consumption tax is interesting, however I see 2 problems both political. In every country where a National Sales tax has been instituted they eventually ended up with a VAT tax, horrible, and the Income tax stayed on top of that. I would not want a consumption tax unless the 16th amendment were repealed which is not really possible.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

chicowalker

Maybe that's what he's saying (jack, is it?), but it's simply not regressive. (Not saying you believe it is, btw) The 2 citizens in the example both are paying 17% without any exemptions.

With an exemption, the "flat" tax goes from being neutral to being progressive, ranging from 0% for people making $15k or less and approaching 17% as income increases. (Citizen A now pays 6.8%, Citizen B pays 15.7%. If a citizen C is thrown in who made $1mm, their tax rate would be 16.7%)

JackBauer

I'm not making any assumptions. It's the very definition of a regressive tax: in the case of an income tax, one in which everyone pays the same proportion of their income in taxes.

That in and of itself makes it regressive.

JackBauer

Perhaps you could give some examples? Since you say I "always" do this, it shouldn't be very difficult for you to do.

I didn't know I needed to "prove" anything since I figured the definition of a regressive tax is common knowledge. Just like I don't need to provide a link when I say the sky is blue or our atmosphere contains ~78 percent nitrogen.

JackBauer

Just so you know, your second sentence completely contradicts the first.

chicowalker

Well, now I have my answer -- thanks.

That isn't what a regressive tax is. A regressive tax is one where the rate increases on lower income levels. Your sales tax example was, in fact, an example of a regressive tax (in practice, anyway).

(Take your pick of sources -- if you google "regressive tax" each of the first 4 results makes this clear just on the results page: regressive tax - Google Search)

and given that, no, the 2nd sentence doesn't completely contradict the first

JackBauer

You're simply incorrect.

From the IRS link, which you claimed corroborated your assertion: