Why doesn't America just a universal flat tax? Could we achieve such a thing in the future?

Why doesn't America just a universal flat tax? Could we achieve such a thing in the future?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=I-lv9ltZ2cw
youtube.com/watch?v=UFoF70lIAI0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>thinking you can reduce complex issues to a single number

This has actually been proposed many times.

It faces a lot of opposition because it would remove one of the gov'ts most powerful entities.
>The IRS

We could and we should but that would mean everyone would actually be taxed completely fairly! And it would help people better handle their money in life...But we dont want that.

Things that show your economic retardation:

>Flat Tax
>Supply Side Economics
>Laissez Faire
>Hating fiat currency
>No understanding externalities

Hmm, looks like I have the right wing covered.

>Nationalization of almost any industry
>Communism of any form in a non-post scarcity world
>Thinking 3D printing means post-scarcity is here
>Not understanding basic economics

It's amazing, the left generally does not understand basic economics, and the right kind of understands basic economics and then nothing beyond that.

Give the left a country and they ruin it, give the right a country and they ruin it.

I hate all of you.

FUCKING NIGGERS

You're a dumb shit! There's nothing wrong with flat tax you egomaniac

>thinks a flat tax won't work
>>despite the fact that a flat tax would actually generate more tax revenue than our current system...

There is nothing fair about a flat tax.

The required utility of a dollar decreases as you increase the number of dollars.

Take 10% from someone making $20,000 a year and you have placed a significant burden on their budget, perhaps even unmanageable depending on the circumstances.

What we should have is a reverse income tax that hits 0% one deviation below the median average income, and then increase the tax rate modestly so you have a ceiling of ~$15M before you hit a 50% total burden. After $15M it should ramp aggressively.

Income kept inside an investment should not be taxed, only when it leaves, and then taxed as regular income.

>give the right a country and they ruin it
When?

>IF WE TAX EVERYONE AT 60% WE WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY!!!1!

>Oh wait, every flat tax rate proposal that would make more money would also increase the burden on the poor.

>A flat tax rate that would not hurt the poor means less revenue when applied to everyone

The idea that people who make their money using other's labor deserve to pay less then their share of the upkeep of the nation they rely on to generate their money is ridiculous.

No one boot straps entirely. If you had your own military, your own infrastructure creation, your own logistics, human resources, etc you'd be another country entirely.

You just proved you're an idiot.
You only need to set the flat tax rate at 5% to make more than our current system.

Enlighten us then burger.

no one cares about the stupid fucking poor. people making 30k a year have their money thrown out the window for stupid niggers. the middle class and the wealthy are literally the only people who matter.

>then increase the tax rate modestly so you have a ceiling of ~$15M before you hit a 50% total burden. After $15M it should ramp aggressively.
this is the worst idea i've ever heard and only leads to evasion like the panama papers and double irish and a dutch sandwich. It doesn't work
>Income kept inside an investment should not be taxed, only when it leaves, and then taxed as regular income.
this is okay but the amount you're asking to tax for is absurd

There is literally nothing wrong with a flat tax system. It is completely just.

>>Flat Tax
bad idea agree
>>Supply Side Economics
literally nothing wrong considering they stay domestic within the country their in and are kept from having monopolies
>>Laissez Faire
not a bad idea, minimal government interference is necessary to an extent
>>Hating fiat currency
we would be so much better off having something to back our currency up

Literally every time they come to power just about everywhere.

Singapore is a massive exception, the closest to a benevolent dictator the world has seen in a while.

Right wing:

Deregulates industries. That means externalities are always shifted onto the environment/market/consumers. It also means they engage in absurdly risky behavior because there are either no consequences for doing so or their greed moves so fast that by the time other people realize there is a problem it has grown out of control.

Tries to use supply side economics: Demand drives economics. No demand means no transaction regardless of the supply. Furthermore if an investment would lead to greater profits then a business would do it, giving them more money simply means more profit is siphoned off by the investors.

Reduces the tax rate on the wealthy: Makes 0 sense. We know, not idly think or speculate, that the multiplier effect for money works dramatically better when the money is injected into the bottom of the economic heap. Rich people do not buy more things, open businesses or otherwise contribute is significant ways when they have more people. They are wealthy, they already bought most of the shit they want, if they buy more things it will be luxury items whose value to the economy is minimal.

Likes gold: I get it that a currency subject to the manipulative whims of a government is bad. I also understand that gold is not a practical method of transaction in the modern world and that being able to play with all the economic tools in the kit is vital to keeping our massive economies going.

>Give the left a country and they ruin it, give the right a country and they ruin it.
>I hate all of you.
wow the embodiment of pic related

please tell me why flat tax is a bad idea

>Implying the rich wouldn't just skip out on that 5%
And explain how everyone at 5 would make more than we do today?

God Tosin Abasi makes me second guess my generalizations about blacks. AAL is a fantastic band.

Depends on what your ideal rate is

OSHIT TOSIN

anyone making under 30k would be paying a larger amount of their disposable income than anyone making at or above 100k, which clearly isn't fair. Im not proposing you tax the shit out of rich people, but not all incomes were made equal.

say 10%
10% and that is all.
anyone who doesn't pay gets banned irl
no matter how rich or poor.
find a flaw.

i dont see how they are paying a larger percentage of their disposable income
disposable income is income after taxes
which would be based on a percentage
thus being fair

>im making 30000 after taxes
im now paying 3,000 i now have 27,000 left over
>im making 300,000 after taxes
im now paying 30,000 i now have 270,000 left over

how is this fair to you

>What is a tax loophole
You can't ban people for not paying taxes

>le poor people shouldn't have to contribute
Fuck off get more money if you can't afford it. I didn't graduate hs and I'm making 60k a year working my ass off at 2 jobs.

>Literally every time they come to power just about everywhere.
What? Capitalism runs the world m8.

>Deregulates industries
This is totally fine as long as you don't deregulate it to absurd amounts and let companies poison water or something.

>Tries to use supply side economics
Some of the tenants of the theory are technically wrong, but in practice there's literally nothing wrong with this. This basically just means reducing corporate taxes and the net result is usually cheaper consumer goods.

>Reduces the tax rate on the wealthy
This one is mainly just leftist talking points. In reality, the right tends to cut taxes for everyone.

If they are evading with the modest tax burden currently imposed what exactly will change? Closing loopholes is always an ongoing project.

Find Bug -> Patch Bug -> Find Bug

But you don't stop.

The rate is very reasonable. Tax brackets mean you only get taxed at a 50% rate after your first $15M. Since 1 year of $15M is greater then the lifetime earnings of a supermajority of American and places you in the top fractional percentage it is not as though you will be hurting in a serious manner.

If you look at the historical tax rates during some of our periods of greatest growth we had even more aggressive tax rates.

>Without specific details, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) Director Bob McIntyre made a generous estimate of how much Carson’s 10 percent flat tax could reasonably raise by simply multiplying total federal adjusted gross income estimated for 2016 ($11.25 trillion) by 0.10. This would yield tax revenues of only $1.1 trillion. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that the federal government will raise an estimated $3.5 trillion and spend $4 trillion in 2016. In other words, Carson’s plan likely would raise only 32 percent of the revenue of the current tax system and pay for only 28 percent of estimated government spending.

I wish I could. I know enough to see the mistakes we are making, but I am not sure I could create a complete coherent plan by myself. If I had a brain trust of economists (especially historically focused economists and the new computer simulation economists).

I don't know how to get us to the shore, but I know drinking salt water, putting holes in the boat and throwing away the sail will not help us.

thats completley fair because both parties are sacrificing the same amount, relative to what they have

Lol since when did lil Wayne play guitar?

>Because I can make 60k off two jobs without a GED everyone else should be able to as well

Not everyone is you. Not everyone can work two jobs. Not everyone can make 60k off two jobs.

This is common sense

I don't understand the point you trying to make here. Are you trying to say making more money is unfair?

about 2006
youtube.com/watch?v=I-lv9ltZ2cw

no im saying taxing the same amount for different amounts of money isn't fair. This doesn't mean i think people making more money is unfair i just think they shouldn't be treated the same as poor people

>Closing loopholes is always an ongoing project.
You think loopholes are unintended how cute. The majority of "loopholes" are pay backs by washington elites to the lobbyists and other backers.

You have no idea how percentages work. Got it.

see this
its logically sound

youtube.com/watch?v=UFoF70lIAI0

Supply side economics simply does not work. It has been exhaustively studied, when you give a corporation with investors more money the money goes to the executives or investors.

You cannot stimulate a company into investing money by giving them a tax cut. If the investment is worthwhile then they will do it regardless of the tax rate.

I think a distinction needs to be made between active regulation and interference. We could certainly attempt to clean up the clusterfuck of laws we have currently, but without swift and harsh implementation of the regulations companies will attempt to skirt or ignore the regulations.

Nothing backs up gold. Gold is just as intrinsically worthless as fiat. Also an economy as large as the modern one requires far too many units of currency to make any kind of physical backing feasible. If it is rare then we would have to divide it down to absurd fractions of an oz per unit, if it isn't rare then you would have massive inflation if and when we found more. Or worse, you don't get inflation and the economy crashes from global deflation.

>If they are evading with the modest tax burden currently imposed what exactly will change?
what logic is there when you're taxing people more BECAUSE they're leaving it makes no sense wouldn't that encourage more leaving.

also, lots of times very wealthy people pay a smaller percentage in tax than people making 30k because of loopholes

Supply side economics is the worst conservative meme. Everyone knows it does not work. The only responsibility a corporation has is maximizing profits for their shareholders. They do not, and can not, give a fuck about the good of the country. High-dollar corporate tax cuts and subsidies go directly to shareholders and the rest of the country gets fucked.

>. It has been exhaustively studied, when you give a corporation with investors more money the money goes to the executives or investors.
reagonomics has been studied and he was a traitor who never really had america's workers at heart.

When going for supply side economics you must ensure they stay domestic within the confines of their country, like Ford and America. If we made sure that they kept their factories domestics then we surely can priortize them into following our laws

>hur dur the rich don't pay taxes

Let's step into your world for a second, where all the rich people know the secret cheat codes to put on tax forms that keep the IRS from taking their money. If we think realistically for a second (might be hard in your case, but try), there are costs associated with reducing your tax burden. If there weren't, then everyone, not just "teh ebil rigch man", would use them. Now brace yourself. If the government took less money from people...they would have less incentive to avoid taxes! It might even be financially harmful to go through the rigmarole of avoiding taxes! Holy Shit! When you take less from people, they're less likely to move their money to other countries! Wow!

Reaganomics worked exactly as intended, just not as advertised.

>Implying right wing == capitalism

The very father of capitalism himself said that it required tempering. Capitalism is like fire, we use the technology for almost everything still, but if you let it run wild it will also destroy almost everything.

You don't have to deregulate it an absurd amount. Look at the right wing crying for more deregulation after they fucked up the environment and the economy. We are facing a literal apocalyptic event and they want more deregulation.

If the tenants are technically wrong that is the end of the discussion. We cannot run a nation on tenants that are technically wrong. We don't decide to go to war because the chicken bones cracked funny in the fire, so why should we make our economic systems with bad systems? Also the net result is not cheaper consumer goods, it has been well studied and consumer goods get cheaper because consumer goods are always getting cheaper. It's like gun control, with or without it the murder rate falls.

I know that currently, I was discussing a future where the only loopholes are people exploiting unforeseen gaps in the system.

You're a literal retard if you think reducing taxes will increase a company's willingness to pay them. Business acts in its own interest. They will funnel profits to tax havens as long as they're allowed to.

This. Give companies an inch they'll take a mile

>where all the rich people know the secret cheat codes to put on tax forms that keep the IRS from taking their money.
You don't even know what a tax loophole is do you?

thats why we should just have one universal tax rate that noone gets out of

Yes, right wing = capitalism. That's not really an uncommon assessment.

>Look at the right wing crying for more deregulation after they fucked up the environment and the economy.
Such as?

>We are facing a literal apocalyptic event
Oh god, are you one of those climate alarmists? Okay let's say you 100% believe that we are all going to die in like 50 years or whatever. Then the answer is not simply government red tape, it's forcing everyone to use nuclear power, switch to electric cars and drive them for at least like 20 years, etc. Carbon taxes aren't going to do jackshit.

>If the tenants are technically wrong that is the end of the discussion.
Nobody cares about the theory. People only care about results. Sticking to any one singular economic theory as the end-all-be-all is dumb anyway. It's not a science; just ideological crap with pseudo-math for the most part.

>Also the net result is not cheaper consumer goods, it has been well studied and consumer goods get cheaper because consumer goods are always getting cheaper.
Uh no, consumer goods plummeted under Reagan in part because of his policies.

No, all economics in all of history have been supply side. You're talking about unchecked crony capitalism, which is in practice the same thing as socialism (nit in theory obviously). This is how plutocrat socialists exist.

>I know that currently, I was discussing a future where the only loopholes are people exploiting unforeseen gaps in the system.
If the system is complex enough that loopholes(real loopholes) then it is a shit system. The only reason USA tax code is complex right now is to hide all the backdoor politics. There is no reason it needs to be as complex as it is.

>A tax that no one can avoid
That's a pie in the sky user

>when you give a corporation with investors more money
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. People who support supply side economics generally do not support giving money to anyone let alone corporations. When people talk about stimulating economies with supply side economics they only mean having government take less money from them, not give them some.

Loopholes arise in any system that is optimized. If you don't optimize then you lose efficiency, and for a economy on the scale of the US losing a couple percent makes a very large difference.

prove it

that's bullshit
loopholes arise from a lack of real optimization

Are you saying that we should forsee all problems from any legislation or regulation we create from that point onward to infinity regardless of new developments in technology?

no, im saying that if a system was really optimized there wouldnt be any room for loopholes.

Loopholes arise because a system is made needlessly complex aka as said
You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding on this subject.

Oh mighty nines! Should we have a universal flat tax in America?