If we had a Flat Tax would the Rich or the Wealthy still pay

Post Reply New Topic

If we had a Flat Tax would the Rich or the Wealthy still pay more of their Income in Taxes than the Poor and the Middle Class ?

On My Mind
A Kinder, Gentler Flat Tax
John C. Goodman, 09.29.05, 12:07 PM ET

How to reform our tax system--and satisfy both the left and the right.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1017/042.html

That does sound interesting and its a discussion to be had

I wouldn't mind slightly raising our taxes to Clinton-era rates so long as we also slightly cut spending to clinton-era rates, but that was before I heard of the flat tax and certainly before I heard of this fairer version of the flat tax

Learn from the lowly earthworm.

In the majority of cases them what can afford best to pay taxes can afford best to run the government or hire the best lrgal minds so as NOT to pay taxes.

In the remaining cases, we will have a change in the identity of who is rich and not paying taxes.

Even if we had a flat rate tax we would have to have a cut-off amount at the bottom. Some people would be making just enough to say alive and taxing them any amount would doom them to either starvation or a life of crime or begging in the streets.

The problem of those who do not (or cannot) make enough to stay alive is still left open.

ruveyn

Eh, there will still be social programs available to those who find themselves on the bottom for one reason or another. I've found myself in this position recently. My income was never high, but it was enough to barely support myself with a little family assistance. But recently I suffered a blow. My health took a turn for the worse. In June I was diagnosed with Congestive Heart Failure, and I've had to apply for disability. I would still pay a flat tax even in a situation like that, but I think the Fair Tax is probably a better plan overall in either case.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer? ... about_main

It would depend what you flat taxed. If you only flat taxed income earned from a job,then maybe not. Allot of rich people come from money and live off of the money and do not work. You'd have to flat tax not just job income, but interest, dividends, etc..

Whether the tax is flat-rate or progressive those who are rich and own income producing property will make out well because they will pass the costs onto their customers. The Rich never went broke in the (???) good old days (???) of 90 percent tax brackets.

ruveyn

This "the rich will pass on their taxes to the customers" argument is nonsense. For one thing it suggests that supply and demand do not determine prices and that all sellers simultaneously plot to raise their prices as part of a cartel-type arrangement. So much for the free market.

If personal income taxes at the top were raised, then those wealthy people who control the companies will stop milking their enterprises so much and instead put it back in the business, which is what I thought corresponded to Virtue rather than Vice.

In My Perfect World, everyone living above the poverty level would pay only a flat percentage of their yearly income in taxes (10 to 30%) - the same rate applies to everybody without exception. The total amount collected from taxes in one year would determine the following year's budget. The budget would be spent only on Infrastructure & Natural Resources, Public Safety & Health Services (Fire, Police, & Emergency Medical Care), Education, and Military Defense.

No deficit spending, bonds, or borrowing - when the budget runs out of money, that's it, so be careful how you spend it.

It would be required by law to set aside a percentage of the budget equal to the tax rate for small business loans, research grants, and public-works projects (i.e., "Workfare" = Welfare + Work). Thus, the higher the taxes, the more money gets put back into the public economy.

No tax deductions, exemptions, or loopholes for any reason whatsoever.

No foreign aid - other polities would have to provide goods and/or services of equal value for the money we give them.

No pensions - individuals (and their families) would be solely responsible for the care of their members.

No other fees for "Application", "Licensing", "Processing", et cetera.

No government payouts for elective medical procedures - no public funds for boob jobs, orthodontia, nose jobs, et cetera. If the procedure is necessary, or an individual's condition could become life-threatening, then the government foots the bill. Inoculations and medical exams are not elective procedures.

No "Eminent Domain" - If the government needs private property, then it must be prepared to pay the going market rate for that property, as determined by the public market, or do without that property. Thus, if the property is worth $330,000, then the government must pay the owner $330,000 to buy that property, and can not take it by force or fiat.

Government (including military) workers would be paid the prevailing wage for an equivalent position, based on a forty-hour workweek.

No No and No again to the idea of Flat tax.

Outline the benefits and you might convince me otherwise.

The front page of local news paper tells the story of a highly esteemed surgeon found guilty on tax evasion. He got his photo printed on the front page.

Slimey bastard. Too many doctors over charge to the point of daylight robbery.

I would agree to a flat tax if their was a flat liveable wage for all citizens in society.

Having a deductions, exemptions, and/or loopholes kinda defeats the purpose of a "Flat Tax", so I'd eliminate those.

I like the idea of a guaranteed minimum income, but only enough to keep one individual at the poverty level. If the individual wanted/needed more, then they could always work for it...

But then, there would be all of those ghetto babies ... how to support them without encouraging generation after generation of impoverished people on the dole?

Maybe it's best to leave these ideas up to the experts in our nations' capitals...

This plan would flatten out social security as well, which would be good.

But, overall, all these plans ignore where the real fun is: deciding what is income. Gross receipts is relatively easy to define, but taxing gross receipts is not fair (consider buying land and selling it at a loss), and few really want that (although states are grabbing at it for taxing businesses; a whole other story). So you are back at deciding what is income, and that has always been one of the key places the rich play their tax avoidance games.

You also can't isolate individual income taxes from the rest of the system. Looking at income taxes without seeing how they work together with payroll, state, property and consumption taxes isn't fair, either.

Getting a better sense of why those proposals are proposals, and not reality?

Huh?

If the price of oil goes up all the players in the market put up the price of gas at the pump.

Why do they do this?

It's not because the evil capitalists are phoning each other up plotting to rip you off, it is because all the players have the same costs to bear, when those costs go up, they must return to profit or go bust. Responding to costs rising or falling is exactly how the market is supposed to work.

A business will ALWAYS pass on it's costs to the customers if it fails to do so it will either go bust or need a constant source of income from a kindly benefactor which would make it a 'not-for-profit' charity instead of a 'for-profit' business.