- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why is a flat tax bad?
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:17 pm
I know this has been discussed but I can’t find the thread. What are the cons of us going to a flat tax?
By flat tax I mean a set tax on sales tax. No income tax. Only taxes that would be collected would be when you purchase something.
By flat tax I mean a set tax on sales tax. No income tax. Only taxes that would be collected would be when you purchase something.
This post was edited on 10/9/20 at 4:42 pm
15
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:25 pm to GAFF
First define how you want to apply a flat tax.
Certain percent of earned income?
National sales tax?
A combination?
Certain percent of earned income?
National sales tax?
A combination?
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:31 pm to GAFF
The problem with a flat tax is that there is no problem with a flat tax
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:34 pm to GAFF
I am assuming you referring to the idea of a flat national income tax.
I guess the argument is that it is "regressive", similar to sales taxes.
I guess the argument is that it is "regressive", similar to sales taxes.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:45 pm to GAFF
quote:
flat tax?
As long as it's 0%, I'm ok with it.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:51 pm to GAFF
Because the Left thinks anyone making over (make up some arbitrary number here) should give a higher percentage of their money to the gov't.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:51 pm to GAFF
You talking about "fair tax"? where sales tax is like 25% or something and there is no income tax?
I always thought it was a good idea.
I always thought it was a good idea.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:54 pm to GAFF
The argument is that the more money you make the less important those later dollars are to your livelihood. If I make 10k and you make 100k, my entire 10k is more important to my livelihood than your 100k. Because that 10k is all I have to pay bills, it shouldn't be taxed very much if at all. Whereas you have 100k and have plenty of money to pay bills plus some to spare, so you should pay progressively more.
Not saying that's right or wrong, but that's the main argument I've heard.
Not saying that's right or wrong, but that's the main argument I've heard.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:56 pm to FinleyStreet
quote:
Not saying that's right or wrong, but that's the main argument I've heard.
I've never heard that argument.
It usually goes like this, "that 100k doesnt pay their fair share". And then repeats.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 2:59 pm to meansonny
quote:
I've never heard that argument.
It usually goes like this, "that 100k doesnt pay their fair share". And then repeats.
I've never heard that one either. It goes like this, " hey just make the billionaires pay for it all"
And definitely don't pull out your calculator and figure out how much money you could make if you taxed our billionaires at 100%, and how long the green plan could go on that money. Dont think logically, dont consider math.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 3:06 pm to GAFF
quote:it's a tax
What are the cons of us going to a flat tax?
Posted on 10/9/20 at 3:11 pm to meansonny
quote:
I've never heard that argument.
It usually goes like this, "that 100k doesnt pay their fair share". And then repeats.
Well, I definitely hear that too. It's all based around the concept of marginal income utility in economics.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 3:26 pm to GAFF
Bc the left wants equal outcomes not equal opportunity. If I make more than you then they want me to get knocked down a peg to your level
Posted on 10/9/20 at 3:33 pm to FinleyStreet
I’ve heard this argument unlike the other posters. I get the merit of it, and I agree to an extent that poor people are disproportionately effected by paying taxes. However taxes and government assistance should be two separate issues. Everyone should be taxed the same way and equally, then those that need government assistance should be given that separately, ideally in a more targeted form than just money (food stamps, housing assistance, etc). If you taxed this way, you also remove all loopholes and simplify our tax code substantially, saving the country millions of dollars on things like the IRS
Posted on 10/9/20 at 3:36 pm to GAFF
Posted on 10/9/20 at 3:42 pm to fallguy_1978
One of the arguments to taxing income and not spending is that income is a guaranteed tax, while spending is not. People are a lot more likely to buy something with a 10% sales tax then if there's a 25% sales tax.
Look at the VAT for instance, those that are well to do will have more options to save on their spending then those that are poor. You aren't going to ship a car here from Italy to buy a sports car if you make $20,000 a year.
In order for an economy to work and be healthy, people need to spend money. Super high taxes on spending will certainly have a negative affect on that. Of course the benefit is they have more money to spend.
Look at the VAT for instance, those that are well to do will have more options to save on their spending then those that are poor. You aren't going to ship a car here from Italy to buy a sports car if you make $20,000 a year.
In order for an economy to work and be healthy, people need to spend money. Super high taxes on spending will certainly have a negative affect on that. Of course the benefit is they have more money to spend.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 3:49 pm to baldona
quote:
Super high taxes
That's a subjective term
The rate doesnt need to be much more than 10%.
Honestly.
This post was edited on 10/9/20 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 10/9/20 at 4:13 pm to GAFF
Half the country doesn't pay any federal income tax at all.
Under a flat tax, whether styled as an income tax or a national sales tax or a VAT, those people will see a tax increase.
So now the argument goes, ok, well we need to exempt this, exempt that, etc. Before long, you end up with a system that is just as convoluted as our current tax code.
Also, a flat tax makes it much harder for congressmen to support specific tax breaks in exchange for campaign contributions...
Under a flat tax, whether styled as an income tax or a national sales tax or a VAT, those people will see a tax increase.
So now the argument goes, ok, well we need to exempt this, exempt that, etc. Before long, you end up with a system that is just as convoluted as our current tax code.
Also, a flat tax makes it much harder for congressmen to support specific tax breaks in exchange for campaign contributions...
Posted on 10/9/20 at 4:42 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
By flat tax I mean a set tax on sales tax. No income tax. Only taxes that would be collected would be when you purchase something.
Posted on 10/9/20 at 4:44 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
However taxes and government assistance should be two separate issues. Everyone should be taxed the same way and equally, then those that need government assistance should be given that separately, ideally in a more targeted form than just money (food stamps, housing assistance, etc).
Interesting, I never thought about it that way. Thanks for sharing.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News