Explain why you're opposed to a flat tax

Explain why you're opposed to a flat tax.

I think something around 12% would work pretty well.

12% would be fine
>mfw i pay 35% tax

Because it's such a retarded idea that it isn't even worth talking about.

Its a stupid idea that appeals to people because its simple.

Explain why it's retarded

rich people pay less taxes under a flat tax system

They pay the same percentage as everyone else you twat

The deficit would explode, and you'll never recoup your costs.

Money has diminishing marginal utility - so even though the percentage is the same, the impact on utility is definitely not flat.
If your goal is simplicity at-all-costs, then its not retarded. That goal is retarded though.

>Percentage =/= Total tax
Are you fucking retarded?

Lower spending then

Obviously less taxes compared to a non-flat system you fallacious dumbfuck

I'm not, seems fair to me.

>Poor cunts' faces if they decided to tax everyone at 50%

1. It penalizes poor people too much.
2. 12 percent is not enough to run a flourishing and prosperous society with good roads, health, military, education, and legal system.
Have a look at Norway if you want to see how a prosperous and successful country is run.

Also, Donald Trump really should be made to pay some tax.

Less taxes != bad though. People now have more disposable income and now will spend more both through investments and consumption. Thus contributing more into the economy. Allowing business to grow and pay more tax.

Okay.

And that's bad because?

Flat tax will work if the rich stop using loopholes

Since that won't happen, no deal

Raising tax accordingly to what you earn is and commie idea, they are simply jealous of what you have and to weak to make what you have on their own hand, therefore they need someone to pay more than others. The Jews Rachel, it is always the Jews

>Literally more than half their GDP is oil
>Ethnically homogenous
>Smaller population than Texas

Have a look at Norway if you want to see things that have no bearing on the reality in 99% of countries.

So you're pretty much saying it's okay to tax someone more that others so the state can pay for it's mistakes.

Because rich pay less and poor pay more compared to their income needed for humane life. I rich guy can be without a golden swimming pool but poor person cant be without food. This in turn makes local consumption lower which hampers business.

It also limits the money flow of the government that funds our public schooling and healthcare. Its inefficient way of collecting taxes in modern age where tracking income and people is easier than ever

We can still have welfare options for the truly poor while keeping a flat tax system.

>be born rich
>snowball in life
>why can't poor people just work harder

>a flat tax.
On what? The only tax I support is a progressive sales tax, all other taxes are immoral.

>The money will just trickle down!
If you are actually rich and not just roleplaying then sure you would want flat taxes but if theres a 90% chance you are just being a faggot.

>Lower spending then


Meh, easier said that done. Even after cutting all discretionary spending, you'd be running a deficit. Good luck cutting medicare and the military.

>Assuming every rich person is born rich

because the last thing the US government needs to now is increase it's deficit spending even more.

>So you're pretty much saying it's okay to tax someone more that others so the state can pay for it's mistakes.

The gov has a right to lay taxes, you can take the superficial moral outrage and keep it to yourself.

More in terms of......percentage? absolute $ or utility?

>trading wages until late April for shitty health insurance and shitty roads.

I'll skin a commie some day. I'll let the poor eat him.

Right, but this isn't an issue arising from the concept of flat tax. It's just an issue of finding the right flat tax %.

That is what it always boils down to.
Sup Forums always rages about these articles about dumbfuck women going
>I am a single mom with 12 kids, someone gotta man up and pay that fucking bill
yet there are enough people running around here with that exact same mindset, just less obviously stupid.

>People now have more disposable income and now will spend more both through investments and consumption
The money multiplier of a tax break is not as great as, say, gov spending.


America doesn't need any more savings. World wide there is probably a savings glut. There is no lack of funds for business investment.

You missed the point, he's assuming that every person earned his wealth. But for every billionaire that worked hard, you have their kids and they can be as degenerate as Paris Hilton and they will still make millions because of their position.

>It also limits the money flow of the government
Good, the government shouldn't have much money.
>public schooling and healthcare
Shouldn't exist.
>Good luck cutting medicare and the military
They need serious cuts.

I support the FairTax. It eliminates the IRS and discourages illegal immigration.

>but this isn't an issue arising from the concept of flat tax.


Yes it is -- the whole point is fund gov services at the current level. Otherwise, the % you choose is arbitrary. Make 1% or 90%.....who cares as long as you can easily tailor government spending to justify your made up %.

Literally how many of us are born rich? That argument is not valid as this happen to very few people compared to how many we are. As always, the jewish trickery is powerful. You can only lead a horse to the water, but can not force him to drink it..

This.

None of those things demonstrate that Norway's tax policies can't be scaled up.

So what? Just because 0.000000000000001 of the worlds population is rich because of their family does not mean i should pay you more

>It also limits the money flow of the government
>Good, the government shouldn't have much money.
>public schooling and healthcare shouldn't exist.

Because thats working so well for you america :^)

Your country is a shithole

12% "scaling"

12% corporate

12% capital gains

I wish 6% would work...I could never convince enough people to shrink Daddy Government that much.

Yeah, but that right doesn't require a progressive tax system over a flat one. We're not arguing the concept of taxation here, just how it should be implemented.

Flat tax would be percentage based on absolute $. Utility would be too vague to define legally.

>1. It penalizes poor people too much.

It doesn't, it's just that progressive tax penalizes wealthier people too much.

> 2. 12 percent is not enough to run a flourishing and prosperous society with good roads, health, military, education, and legal system.
Have a look at Norway if you want to see how a prosperous and successful country is run.

If you exclude health & education (have them privately run) this 12% tax rate is actually more than enough.

British empire tax rate before WW1 was like 4% if i recall correctly, and it was one of the highest tax rates at the time.

I dont. My dad is in the top tax bracket in the US. If you're poor you should oppose it though for obvious reasons.

Lower the fucking tax rate.

Of course rich won't pay tax at 40% or 50%, would you if you could avoid it without consequences?

So what? Someone's family made money and their shitty kids never had to work a day in their privileged lives. Whoop di Doo. Why do you care as long as they still pay tax on that income just like everyone else?

Nations had way less obligations in that era. People want a flat tax and still want things like healthcare national highways and all that.

. It penalizes poor people too much.
>It doesn't, it's just that progressive tax penalizes wealthier people too much.
It penalizes poor people by taxing them at the same rate as super rich people, who can afford to pay more tax, and it penalizes poor people by denying them government services (that can't be afforded any more) and by turning public services (like education and health) into user-pays systems for the super rich.

A plan like this can only benefit the rich and is only advocated by the rich and their shills. It doesn't make sense ideologically, since (and let's be honest) most of us are relatively poor. Creating policy against our own interests is a form of self-harm and retardation.

I also don't understand what 19th C. tax has to do with this now.

>Being in favor of any tax ever
>Taxation is theft

People oppose it because it disproportionately inflicts hardship on the poor. 12% of someone who only makes 10k has more dire implications on their welfare than someone who makes 60k. One level you're forgoing meals on the next you're delaying more luxury purchases in the absence of that 12%

>what a righteous wants the state to provide for him, if anything:

1. A standing army to prevent invasion of his residence.

I think you just repeated my point in different words. I'm saying the same thing, this is just a matter of finding the right % to tax in order to fund the kind of government we both envision. This doesn't negate the idea of flat tax in any way. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

>Literally how many of us are born rich?
you probably? And for every rich person, there's gonna be at least 1 or 2 rich kids, who will snowball in life

>So what? Just because 0.000000000000001 of the worlds population is rich because of their family does not mean i should pay you more
You're not paying to me you dumb fuck. You pay into a system that should invest that money so that poor people acquire more wealth so that they have more money to give it back to you. You don't hear Bill Gates crying about taxes, he gave away amounts of money that you will never see in your life. Just work harder and you won't cry about taxes, because you'll still be filthy rich. Also I don't know why you think that this means 50% tax on income above 100k. You can scale the progressive tax how ever you want it. You can tax the poor 6% and tax the rich 12%.

sounds like communism and welfare to me

I never understood when people claim
>hurr durr we can't implement it there's too many of us
But if it's implemented at state level it the same as Europe then.

What government services do poor people need to survive? Also, what is the reason behind people being impoverished in a first world country? Genuinely asking to see where you're coming from

GoFundMe your army faggot. That's basically what Italian city states did. Everyone's too busy making money to fight wars

I am not. It's the only sensible choice. "Progressive" tax is commie shit.

12%? Sure!
>meanwhile
>52% income tax
>21% sales tax
>taxation on having wealth worth more than 25k euros EVERY YEAR
>Mustang GT still costs 120k new

Forgot to add
>Soxialist Party wants another income tax bracket at 65% for those earning over 150k

>What government services do poor people need to survive?
Healthcare, education, public transport.

Yeah but if the rich aren't getting raped by taxes they can afford to provide more jobs at a better pay rate for the poor dumb fucks who aren't capable of doing a high-earning profession.

>This doesn't negate the idea of flat tax in any way.


Typically implied in the flat tax is that the flat tax would be low. We could set the flat tax at 75%. But I doubt that would be acceptable.

some cunt needs to do the math and figure out what the tax rates need to be to get you out of the shit. you cant just fucking pluck a number out of the air

> flat tax
> 12%

Percentage is not flat...

>Slovenian Education

Healthcare (obviously), education (which adds to longevity), roads (that promote health via better transport links), a decent military (that stops people being invaded and killed), etc...

But you didn't really want to do, did you now?

>Flat tax would be percentage based on absolute $. Utility would be too vague to define legally.


Utility doesn't have to be definite legally, just base the tax system off the utility curve.


Absolute $ is a shit way to measure because it assumes constant utility -- that is what presumably makes it 'fair.' hurr 10% is 10% type thing.

Because 19th Century tax rates weren't funding things such as:
- Welfare
- Healthcare
- Education (some cases)

That's why they were extremely low compared to today.

Ever since then the tax rate has been doubling every 30 years or so on most western countries and it doesn't show signs of halting it's increase anytime soon.

> People can't be taxed increasingly higher rates forever
> Governments can't run on deficit forever because they eventually won't be able to afford the interest payments

My position is that many services are more efficiently provided by the market and not the state because there are incentives not to waste capital (states tend to waste taxpayers money)

Anyway, this is a bit off topic i guess.

>I can't refute it so I'll just call it (((communism))) and maybe it'll go away
A family choosing to do with their money what they please, including giving it to their kids, is apparently communism
Lol stay in school kid

Trickle down is a fucking myth

Reagan taught us that shit in the 80s

The GOP still can't believe they got away with it

>they can afford to provide more jobs at a better pay
>at better pay
But why would they? They have no need to if they can hire a dumb migrant.

I think basic stuff like food, water, and temporary shelter should be provided to anyone in need of them. Of course, there's always going to be some dick abusing welfare, but others in need shouldn't suffer because of a couple of assholes.

A simple principal called the "marginal utility of money"
The more you earn, the less valuable it is to you
Same principle applies to anything in life
And so if a person who earns 10 million dollars is taxed 12%, his contribution isn't nearly as significant in his eyes compared to a person earning 10,000 a year having to pay the same 12%
While a progressive system like the one currently employed is quite ridiculous since the top brackets mainly effect small business owners, a system with fewer bracket's and larger steps makes more sense because the levels of income grows exponentially as you get into higher and higher incomes

73rd post best post

There's a very good reason why we don't want healthcare c. 1800.

>provided by the market and not the state
This leads to the most expensive and inefficient healthcare system in the world, aka US healthcare, which is a massive waste of national resources. My main source is that I lived there until recently and every trip to a doctor involved ridiculous overinvestigation (I had great healthcare) duplication of services.

Top reasons

1) it is incredibly regressive. Many people are so poor that they don't pay any income tax right now. This would massively raise their taxes
2) It would also massively lower taxes on the rich, which is not appropriate
3) 12% flat tax isn't even enough to run government with
4) People rely on tax breaks to survive. Maybe you've never owned a house or have children so you don't understand this. But being able to pay for a nanny and child care and get that taken off your taxes is a massive help to families

Look mate, I'm all for taxing the rich fairly but you destroy your argument whenever you use trickle down economics as a reason.
We tried that shit, it doesn't work.

>Infrastructure failing
>Education is a shit hole
>Nignogs running amuck

The rich don't deserve gibs.
We need to fix our shit with tax dollars first

it's ok, someone will love you one day

Could have worked if all rich people in your country weren't investing most of their money overseas in Asia.

If you want to kick start an economy i actually think the best way you could do it is a one off payment to each citizen from newly printed money + lower interest loans for business investments (These should be used only in extreme cases though because it would generate inflation)

It would generate market demand as lots of consumers would have money to buy stuff and reduce some personal debts.

The lower business investment rates would provide more capital to expand/increase production to mitigate inflation due to higher consumer demand.

US healthcare is massively regulated and funded to such an extent it allows the companies to charge ridiculous prices due to subsidies.
I don't agree with private healthcare but that is why it is so expensive.

"got away with it"
with what restoring the economy and defense? creating stable jobs while deducting government ones? Clinton and Carter where the worst presidents of the last many with Obama too boot, they fucked us over, you shortsighted liberal retard!

US Healthcare market is broken, it needs to crash and die starting with the health insurance companies.

Look at successful cases like Switzerland.

>explain why you're against stealing

Sigh

Negative income tax, removing all the welfare > anything else

I have like almost nobody paying me that 1,200,000 that you think someone should have to pay to a government that can't manage to not be up to its ass in debt and constantly asking for more help.

Meanwhile...the MILLIONS of guys who give me 1,200 bucks a year do indeed cost far more than they pay. That doesn't even slightly cover road maintenance...and you want me to give him healthcare too?

>that is why it is so expensive
My experience has been that it's because of unnecessary servicing (too many tests being done without sufficient reason), duplication of services (multiple ambulances and helicopters competing to get to accident scenes first), a refusal to rein in profit right through the sector, and constant fear of being sued (so defensive medical care is pursued instead of efficient medical care).
Just my experience, observation, reading, chatting with medical friends.

We tried that during Bush
All we got was $300 each in 2001
Low-interest rates in 2002
Great Recession in 2008

Trickle-down doesn't fucking work!

Why does a Brit fag care about our taxes anyways?
That's OUR money. Not (((yours)))

They end up pocketing it. See Bush tax cuts and the more recent ones in Kansas.

The ONLY thing, ONLY, Reagan did wrong was give aid and intervene post cold war!
Clinton was so shit in comparison in his half ass approach

>1) it is incredibly regressive. Many people are so poor that they don't pay any income tax right now. This would massively raise their taxes

Start taxing only after a certain income level then.

>2) It would also massively lower taxes on the rich, which is not appropriate

They are already paying too much thats why they hide money and use loopholes.

>3) 12% flat tax isn't even enough to run government with

It is if enough cuts are done.

>4) People rely on tax breaks to survive. Maybe you've never owned a house or have children so you don't understand this. But being able to pay for a nanny and child care and get that taken off your taxes is a massive help to families

Why can't tax breaks also be applied under a flat tax system? These policies aren't exclusive to particular tax systems.

I wasn't aware that the implication was to set it unrealistically low. I'm not saying it needs to be 6% or 12%. Is your concern basically that IF we want to maintain current spending levels, flat tax % would need to be ridiculously high?
I might agree with you there but all that proves is that progressive tax is unfairly taxing one group to pay for spending that the other group wouldn't want to fund if it were their tax money.

Flat tax means no deductions
Stop posting anime and learn basic economics

>nd you want me to give him healthcare too?


Thus demonstration what marginal utility of money.

Hospitals charge fuck all whatever they want because insurance companies bargain it down anyway
Insurance isn't competitive in the market
Insurance companies have a profit incentive on top of that
The subsidies are literally the only thing keeping healthcare affordable

We need to make insurance companies illegal for basic necessary care.

>Start taxing only after a certain income level then.
>Why can't tax breaks also be applied under a flat tax system? These policies aren't exclusive to particular tax systems.
Then it isn't a flat tax anymore.
It's starting to approach the tax system we already have right now.

> Fix you god damn healthcare system
> Reduce military spending to 2-3% GDP
> Implement negative income tax
> Cut ALL welfare
> Reduce foreign aid
> Fix tax loopholes
> Lower taxes

What are you defining as "utility." Maybe we're misunderstanding each other.

Yes goyim.

Let (((us))) rape your country, so we can profit off your stock market.

>How to crash the economy in 7 easy steps

I don't understand your last question, but as to your points: I certainly agree with national defense and some form of infrastructure on a federal level. Those two things (~3% of GDP?) could be funded through a very low federal tax rate: $540bn needed in tax receipts. In 2016 the total personal income in the US was $16 trillion. That would require a federal tax rate of 3.375%. Healthcare and education (I believe) should be a function of state and local governments, and that should be up to those communities to determine the funding that they'll need. But hell, if you wanted to double that $540bn figure to create a massive healthcare and education safety net, the federal tax rate would be 6.75%.

Do you think a country like the US would have destitute poverty and unsafe living conditions if the federal tax rate was a flat 6.75%? That would mean a budget of $1.1 trillion for education, healthcare, national defense, and infrastructure. Plus the increase in wages that would come from such a drastic lowering of tax rates.

Or am I misguided? To me, this just seems to put into perspective just how bloated governments have gotten and especially how effective the ruling class has been in convincing the general public that the government just needs more and more money