Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Barkey, why do you support a flat tax?
A flat tax will either be set too high (and thus, hurt the poor/middle class, who need a far greater percentage of their income for basic necessities) or set too low, and thus, be non-stimulatory/encourage money collecting at the top, and reduce government funding for important social, infrastructure, and debt-paying works?
As far as I can tell, flat taxes are one of those things that look fair on paper, but once you start thinking about the implementation, you realize that there are better options.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:55:52 PM by DrTentacles
![]()
You know what? fine.
If being confused when someone makes a vague argument and being insulted when someone says that I've been deliberately misunderstanding it for whatever inane reason is the behavior of an asshole, then fine.
If repeatedly trying to clarify my position is the behavior of an asshole, then fine.
I'm done with this stupid conversation.
Representative Markey ties Republican opponent to Mitch McConnell in Massachusetts Senate race
edited 1st Jun '13 11:49:14 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Deviant Braeburn, could you please just discuss the topic? It's a misunderstanding and the position is clarified. There's no need to discuss the old post when it's exactly known what Ace means now.
And I agree with Ace. The taxes are currently done badly at this time. It hurts too many at this time.
![]()
If everybody made a huge amount of money and weren't very poor at all, a flat tax would be acceptable. Unfortunately, this is not the case whatsoever.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:59:41 PM by Irene
Shadow?Surely Deviant Braeburn is allowed a shadow of a doubt. It's not like text on the internet is the easiest medium to communicate effectively with.
Sure.
edited 1st Jun '13 9:04:38 PM by AnSTH
But that's a story for another time.
Let's just drop it.
It's not worth arguing about anymore and (as Irene pointed out) it is derailing this thread
edited 1st Jun '13 9:11:03 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016We could always try what Alberta, Canada
is doing and discourage "crotch watching". Got to love this part:
"Distracted by your crotch again, huh?" asks the urinal puck. "Well, it's fine to do it here, but it can kill behind the wheel. Keep your eyes up. Don't text and drive. We know what you're doing down there."
Most people in my state pay over 30 percent after federal and state income tax are taken out, so at least here, in one of the highest taxed states in the US(Cali), even the poor would be making more money.
The people I'm targeting are the ones who make lots of money and only pay 14 % or what-not. There's no reason the rich should be paying a lower percentage, and it wouldn't nuke the poor. There's also no reason the rich need to be paying a higher percentage, seeing as it is, after all, their money. Overall they are paying more dollars, so I'm fine with them paying the same percent as everyone else. I'm not into the whole "redistribution of wealth" thing, where the people who make lots of money are taxed into oblivion and thus leave. A lot of companies and highly paid specialists are leaving my state because our taxes are so high. Income is bleeding out of my state like it's a severed artery here because of our taxes.
We shouldn't make the rich feel like they are being punished, but they do need to pay around the same as everyone else.
Basically no one here has a problem with that. It is just that a true "flat tax" doesn't get us there in a way that simultaneously protects lower income people/families.
One of those terms you have to be careful using.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Barkey, it's not actually "their money". It's only their money after paying the appropriate taxes. They still need to give a percent to the government for allowing them to make the money in the first place.
The poor should be paying less as is, so they can have the option of a basic luxury like say... an extra dessert or maybe some Playing Cards(basic ones, not TCG/OCG/whatever). They barely have that. More Middle Class people can afford quite a fair amount and have fairly a fairly decent tax rate. If they have a huge cash flow and working two jobs, or have Social Security or Disability. For an average Middle class, they can barely pay the bills and have a slight bit of luxury.
Finally, we come to the Rich. They pay the least amount of taxes, and have tons of cash left over. While some do give to charities, which is awesome, not all do. They can afford higher taxes. They make more money because the Government allows to get more. In addition, increasing their tax rate will still give them far more money than the Middle or Lowest class.
A flat tax rate does not work, because it screws over the poor, who can barely live. Middle class gets by slightly better. Rich gets by, and then some, and then has a giant amount of cash left over.
The purpose of removing a flat tax is to actually make sure everyone can live well and have luxuries , and still make sure the Government gets enough money in taxes to keep the rest of the country going well. This includes fixing roads, building schools, making sure people have healthy food, and all kinds of important stuff absolutely needed.
A flat tax idea will never ever fix the world and will only hurt people who work way too hard for too little. It's a terrible idea because it doesn't help anyone but the Rich. And they don't need any help at all.
Shadow?![]()
![]()
![]()
I dispute the fact that a higher tax will make the rich move. I also feel that rich benefit more from society and laws more than the poor, and due to their wealth, they have greater power, thus, they have a greater responsibility.
However, I will agree that Rich need to actually pay the tax that they're supposed to on paper, and that California's spending/taxation policy is retarded.
(One interesting possibility that we came up with in the Economics thread was a 90% max tax rate for the super-wealthy, with pretty much 1:1 deductions down to 30-40 percent for *any* spending. This would help prevent wealth hording/liquidity traps like the one we're in.)
Edit: Whoa. Barkey dogpile. Let's try not to drown him out.
edited 1st Jun '13 9:39:22 PM by DrTentacles
A Flat Tax would be acceptable if and only if every citizen got a government-supplied tax-free Minimum Income that was enough to live on. (As in, welfare for everybody.)
edited 1st Jun '13 10:14:44 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Or just an absurdly high (by current standards) "tax floor" below which you don't have to pay any taxes. I'd be okay with flat taxes if it only counted toward income made above 50 grand or something.
Of course, then that gets all weird because a decent living wage in a rural area can leave you able to afford food OR rent but not both in the city. So it's really hard to draw a line above which you should start paying (flat) taxes.
The other thing to remember is that the reason the tax code is so damn complicated is because it benefits rich people. Your average working class income tax filing takes out a few basic things; kids, mortgage, that's about it. It's the high-income people who can afford to hire accountants to get them every last deduction on the books.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Yes, they spend more money on leisure activities, but what they spend on those activities neatly fits within the surplus of money I spend to survive.
Chances are you also spend a hell of a lot more on debt interest than they do for every large purchase you ever have to make.
edited 1st Jun '13 11:39:33 PM by Pykrete
Judge orders Google to release data to FBI
Car salesman pays $32K to lobby Obama for 2 minutes
edited 1st Jun '13 11:57:06 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016@Barkey: We have empirical data which shows that rich people do not move based on increases to taxes. As can be seen here, which cites three papers showing it.
edited 2nd Jun '13 12:43:51 AM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryYeah, I've never really understood how they got the whole "rich leave because of taxes". I mean, people generally move for reasons a lot more involved than taxes, particularly if they've got well established businesses running successfully.
![]()
I heard about that. Not sure how it's related to the topic, but it seems like a pretty serious environmental issue. This seems like one of the rare occasions where eradicating a species is actually the safer thing to do. Yeesh.
Yet we've had such people here in France. Lately Gerard Depardieu, who moved to the "great democracy" (his words) of Russia.
I wouldn't be all that against a flat tax if all "necessary spendings" were deduced first. The problem would be determining what counts as "necessary spendings" for different persons (based on costs where they live (food etc.), availability of public transit to where they work (transports/fuel etc.), and other factors). It could possibly be even more of an administrative nightmare than current taxes are.
edited 2nd Jun '13 3:30:17 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Karl Rove Says Good Riddance To Michele Bachmann: She ‘Did Nothing’
RNC chief Priebus responds to Dole, says GOP ‘open for repairs’
Representative Issa slams Jay Carney as a 'paid liar'

edited 1st Jun '13 9:13:54 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016