Flat tax or progressive tax?

I've heard that flat tax encourages economic growth and entrepreneurship, and I've also heard that progressive taxation allows for the poor to easier move up the economic ladder while also taxing the overwhelmingly unused wealth of the upper classes, and creating larger government budgets.
Which is better?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Emily Barry, even though a New York (((resident))) has the most loin inspiring set of mammaries.

I like flat taxes with basic income

I'd rather pay no tax since the majority of spending goes to
1) making weapon systems
2) someone's pocket
2.5) someone's pocket (b/c of incompetence)
3) sustaining a lazy person

Flat tax on those without busty tits.

Red pill on taxes? Negative rate for the poorest instead of basic income, flat for the rest.

Just listen to Milton Friedman.

Interesting.
Would this be badly abused?
Is this to be used in conjunction with welfare?

Too many levers if you are playing with taxes based on income brackets, too easy for politicians to fuck with it and play the people against each other. I think there is a video by Milton of him conceding that the social help that produces the least amount of market manipulation is something like basic income.

Negative rate would make it welfare

I'd rather have welfare with guidelines than basic income, so those getting welfare cant but bullshit with the assistance money

Neither.
Stratified Tax.

For the first 20,000 you earn: You will pay X (Effectively X)
For the next 20,000 on top of that you will pay Y (Effectively X + Y)
For the next 30,000 on top of that you will pay Z amount (Effectively X + Y + Z)

And so on
with the amounts of taxation getting progressively larger within each strata, but not represented as just a % of a bracket as is current.

This would protect the standard of living for all.
No need for flat tax
No need for progressive tax brackets
No need for Universal basic income.

first of all this is stupid they are not moving up the economic latter your just dragging people down from the top the poors lives aren't getting any better. Second of all flat taxes are fair (if you care about that) and typically the rich are less likely to dodge or avoid you can look at Americas history they managed to increase their revenue by lowering their taxes at one point. You would be surprised how many countries have adopted flat tax rates.

Alright now time for the hard one, I don't know what your perception of rich people is but its probably wrong. They don't have "unused wealth." The rich are different from the poor its not like they just horde all their cash in a bank. They measure their wealth in in assets not liquid money so they can't just spend it in whatever they want its already invested and typically the longer it takes to sell the more valuable it actually is. I don't know what your perception of government spending is but they don't get as much done for the same price as the private sector (just look at healthcare.gov) and that "unused wealth" is actually being borrowed and used by someone else (maybe even a poor person) in the economy.

Its true that there is inefficiency with basic income, but putting up strict rules means you may exclude people that may well deserve it.

For example I was unemployed once because I got fired, I paid into unemployment, but if I ask for the benefit I have to legally state I was fired to the unemployment office, if I legally state I was fired no one will hire me because the HR department of companies are always looking for reasons to not hire you. So I can take the assistance and never be hired again, or never take the assistance.

I've played enough Victoria 2 to know flat taxing everything the same isn't optimal.

flat tax is a joke.

Why a flat percentage? If it were truly flat, you'd just charge everyone the same dollar amount.

Except that's capitation and unconstitutional, oops.

>literally wanting to destroy the middle class
I like jobs programs that provide a basic income combined with progressive taxation.

So you tell them you were Laid Off, not Terminated.
They can't penalize you for a Layoff

How about the rich actually invest in their own environment? Thats one negative as patriotism has disappeared. Where is the vision? Money has become disconnected from social goals, maybe because the rich are ostracized. Maybe they don't feel like the "own" their community anymore?

libertarians want a basic income because the only real alternative are jobs programs, and jobs programs make it too easy for the wage-slaves to tell them to fuck off.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

-The federal government must be shrunk and its hold on the tax must be removed

- power of the tax must be brought back to the state which in turn gives to the federal government

- this gives voting power back to the people, if they don't like all the spending or what is happening with their taxes they throw out the city bench then goes the state bench and the Fed is forced to comply.

This can only be done if control of the tax is brought back to the state

Abolish the federal income tax , taking from the person while the person has no say is broken and must be changed

Shrink the fed
abolish the federal income tax

that is first things first

>maybe because the rich are ostracized
maybe because they don't give a fuck and just want money.

Who knows, it's a mystery.

What people on welfare are off welfare as a result of welfare?

Not an argument : Strawman

We are not arguing for a flat dollar amount, we are arguing for a flat percentage.

Flat tax is morally upright and simplifies the whole taxation process which reduces overhead.

I'll keep that in my pocket if it happens again.

I don't have a problem with a jobs program, hell I think we need it right now. It seems like all the jobs in the future will be around supervising and improving robot manufacturing and that requires high levels of education. I think the jobs program needs to be handled separably though. Wanting to solve every issue at once makes the conversation messy.

Land value tax

Nigga need two phones one for the bitches and one for my nose

Taxation is Theft

Tax should be 100%, and government should provide the necessary things to the people, like food etc.
People never decide right which is why we need government intervention

That's pretty dumb because it is basically progressive taxation without precision.

Sounds pointless

jesus christ kid, it's past your bedtime

>simplifies the whole taxation process
Only if you get rid of all the deductions. With a flat tax they're still having to report their income and all the shit associated with that. If we still have all these deductions it'll still be a mess.

Again, once you have people paying a percentage of their income, making the percentage a function of the income doesn't add any meaningful complexity.

that is a progressive tax, fuckwit.

oh estonia

The rich don't owe you anything, society voluntarily made them rich because they provided you more value than you gave them. Don't be a dim marxist please.

>jesus christ kid, it's past your bedtime
Ad hominem

Please actually debate.

>loses argument on Sup Forums
> i still gotta tell this guy off somehow
>tells him to go to bed
m8 your banter needs work

Progressive tax. Tax people more the less white they are to pay for the enormous cultural and fiscal toll that they place on society.

>flat tax is bad
>because of this other non sequitur
???

no

tax

Low flat tax with massively reduced government spending

I thought so too at first, but I think he means X Y and Z to be actual dollar amounts, not percentages.

Assuming it's a troll it gets a cool 10/10 for subtlety and innovation.

Personally I'd like to get rid of the brackets and just make everything a nice continuous function, but I don't think most people would consider this a simplification.

Please actually got to
>>>/bed/

>he doesn't realize it wasn't even a strawman
fucking white trash nigger

I know, right?

Scrubs need to learn how to debate.

Regressive tax, you pleb

None, tax is theft.

No income tax at all

It's still a progressive tax, it's just an even more retarded version

>massively reduced government spending

prune the federal government, abolish the the federal income tax on the individual person.

bring power of citizen taxation to the state which in turn gives to the federal government and gives voting power back to the people

Underrated and clever, really made me think.

Maybe if we were in an agrarian economy.

20 story skyscraper in 100 square meters, what is the land "value" now?

>Please actually got to
>>>/bed/
lol?

>he doesn't realize it wasn't even a strawman
Well, when you said
>Why a flat percentage? If it were truly flat, you'd just charge everyone the same dollar amount.
It was a Strawman. We are arguing for a flat percentage, and you attacked a "flat dollar amount."

That is the definition of a Strawman.

Progressive taxes haven't been very good at upward mobility, and actively penalize mobilizing upward. Besides the theory being laughable at face value, the results speak for themselves.

im not justifying what he said
just simply saying that your repute to him was to go to bed
absolutely terrible

This.

You cucked faggots want to give everyone else's money to some Jew lawyers in Washington. Go eat a dick.

I'll keep my money in gold and far away from you cucks.

>Only if you get rid of all the deductions
which is what true flat taxers believe
>muh no true scotsman
all wealth is taxed indiscriminately, if you are making 20k a year then you only get taxed a small amount, for example 2k since it is proportionally a small amount of money. While if you make 100k you get taxed 10k.

The point is, no need for deductions/exemptions when the flat tax rate is already low (5-10%) because a low rate and a low income is barely any taxes and it will pay itself off with less overhead costs for the taxation.

Income tax is theft.

I don't mind taxes because they usually go to legit things, but I could see how someone from the third world like yourself would resent taxation.

>It was a Strawman. We are arguing for a flat percentage, and you attacked a "flat dollar amount."
No, I'm clearly saying that having one percentage is arbitrary and still has the rich paying more than the poor. As such it isn't really "flat" and is really a pointless attempt to yet again cut taxes on the rich.

i'm sorry ;_;

Or you could keep the progressive structure and just get rid of the exemtions...

Also it won't pay for itself. You have to have North Korea levels of taxation for a tax cut to pay for itself.

You're a fucking fool if you support a flat tax.


All you're doing is either
A.) Charging the ultra rich pittance, even though our entire system has been built off securing their tax money
B.) Taxing the ever living fuck out of poor and middle class

Well, our goal right now is to shrink taxes to nonexistence. Putting it in gold is a good idea, but you should still fight to protect the common man by trying to shrink taxes.

Thank you for your time.

I'm in favour of progressive taxation for income and a flat rate for corporations.
Make it so the bottom earners and disabled are barely taxed and small corporations get some sort of boost/break so they stand a chance with competition

Most people who say "flat tax" don't even mean a flat tax.

A flat tax is a fixed dollar amount.

I like flat tax but I think it will increase the argument that everyone even the bottom rung is a "tax payer" and gets a say.

There are already many morons that think illegals paying payroll taxes covers all the benefits they use.

Progressive structure still adds complexity, since you need to calculate percentage for each bracket and sum them up.

Regardless, the flat tax means more investment and more future growth which makes everyone more rich so more employment, and people can afford taxes.

Reduce government spending massively, add a small flat tax, remove loopholes, deductions, and other mumbo jumbo special interest crap.

Now everyone is paying taxes equally, corporations start investing at home because it's lucrative, welfare isn't even needed anymore. Substitute the public handicap with private growth.

flat tax is generally confused for proportional tax then you say?

Now you're conflating flat tax supporters with bootlickers or corporate shills.
>Taxing the ever living fuck out of poor and middle class
Funniest part about this complaint is that the middle class gets hit the hardest with our current progressive income tax system because the rich get most of their money through various investment taxes.

W H O

Though I agree with , I'll say flat tax. Also post more of that titcow

trump's low rate, zero deduction, 3 tier progressive tax is the way to go. his numbers are low for the size of the US government, and "starving the beast" is a failed strategy to force government cuts.

he needs to up his numbers by 5%, then devolve powers back to the states as separate issues over time.

he should also alter SSI tax to be a flat 10% on everyone, instead of a regressive 12.2%.

Are you really so stupid you can't understand that a flat rate is not the same as a flat dollar amount? Even if it were a flat rate, what exactly is wrong with that aside from buzzwords?

Hello autism.

Its the principal that counts

That's not how it works... The tax is applied to the market value of the land. A plot of land that people are willing to build a skyscraper on would be very valuable, pricey land, probably situated in the city center or downtown or near mass transit, and the tax paid would be accordingly high.

LVT actually promotes densification and development because it punishes low efficiency usage of desirable land so heavily.

Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan aren't agrarian economies yet they've adopted land value tax.

Progressive tax because it's more efficient to take money from the rich than the poor. I still support lower taxes in general though.

end fed; govt makes fiat money to pay contractors
govt is fascist and so incorruptible
dollar is backed by american productivity
gtk rwn

The principle of what?
Reverting back to a pre division of labor society?

This would make sense if money magically was distributed by chance and people only became rich by chance.

taxing anybody more and feeding money from itself does not magically create wealth, supporting business and the free market does.

Why not tax all wealth indiscriminately. Why have all these taxes that are not directly calibrated to wealth. No double taxation, no unnecessary dichotomies of taxation, just tax any income at a flat rate whether it be from capital gains, wages, dividends, etc.

Basic belief that taxation is a necessary evil, and must be done correctly and efficiently if at all while respecting peoples liberties and rights. while also surveying the benefits of a capitalistic free market and minimal federal regulation

Using income tax as a tool to extract revenue from the ultra rich is retarded as fuck.

They've already amassed a huge fortune that they're sitting on, so an income tax doesn't touch any of that. Also, they can afford the lawyers and whatever to devise trust funds and offshore accounts to insulate their wealth.

All you're doing is protecting the ultra rich from the up-and-coming rich, because those are the people that a heavy progressive income tax would harm the most.

realistically it will have to be progressive.

the top brackets are too good at negotiating everything and all the bottom retards get fucked.

Lower tax. Period.

let me give u analogy because i know everyone in this thread is stupid.

u have government that needs 100 shekels. village gdp is 1000 shekels. village population is 200. 2 guys make 250 shekels/year, 5 guys make 50 shekels a year, 15 guys make 10 shekels a year, and and all the rest make ~1 shekel a year, typical capitalist village.

now u could take 10% of everyones shekels and come up with what u need, but the 180 or so people are gonna be inconvenienced much more than the 20 guys. the 180 people are pretty fucking dumb but they aren't retarded, so they will use what limited political power they have to move the shekel burden onto the guys that can pay it more readily.

now, unless you were one of the big shekelmen, why the fuck would you want a flat tax? why would you want to be taxed at all if you knew that just a few guys could basically finance the entire system themselves and remain insanely wealthy?

u probably wouldnt, but you're not one of those unfortunate, stupid, 180 shekel donkeys, are you?

Neither. Income tax is wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend

Educate yourself.

True flat tax. $50k per citizen yearly.

The poor are always going to exist and always going to be a drain on society. Taxing them too much will cause riots, revolts and discontent Their best contribution to the economy is to frivolously spend. I'm not a supporter or high taxes; I'm just saying it's more efficient to get it from richer people than poorer ones. There's less negative consequences.

How much would it cost for everyone in the states to have basic income? Is it even feasible? I mean we give niggers money, why can't the rest of us get some money?

We're already 19 trillion in debt.

It would mean all other welfare programs and would only be around 1k$/month.
Which would be pretty acceptable but some people would disagree and insist that single mothers/blacks/immigrants/whatever get more which would kinda ruin it.
Your debt is kinda irrelevant.

Rand Paul was the only candidate that even addressed attacking the debt. sucks that he fell through the cracks

has Trump mentioned the national Debt problem?

multiply ~300 million times whatever u want the basic income to be. there are more than 300 million people in usa but some of them are already on social security which was already paid for.

for 10k/year basic income it would be about 3 trillion dollars which is 20% of gdp. it would require a large investment indeed, but its not unthinkable.

>giving basic income to children
Why?

The scenario in which UBI actually makes sense and was originally intended for it, is for it to completely replace ALL forms of welfare.

So... social security gone, healthcare gone, public schools gone, everything gone! Not just the welfare system for poor people.

You delete that gargantuan, bureaucratic mess of gov't spending, take that money and distribute it evenly to everybody, and that's UBI. Let the free market figure things out.

It's a much fairer method of wealth redistribution.

UBI as described will NEVER happen though, because any government will never cede power and voluntarily amputate itself.

Because trickle down economics, but poor people are too stupid to think long-term

Taxing the rich makes the country poorer and not richer. The bottom line is that rich people wealth is not "unused wealth" this is a stupid progressive liberal idea.

That wealth is always used to create investments in other businesses, that's how the rich go from wealthy to super rich, because they re-invest their wealth and that creates growth and jobs. When you take away wealth from those who have proven how to best invest it, you hinder the ability to invest and create new jobs.

If anything the rich should be taxed less, government should be vastly shrunk anyway it's far too big today.

>wanting to give anything to the poor, lazy, and ignorant

my sides

Land value tax is meant to be a single tax, replacing all others.

In implementation, it is a 100% tax on the value of land. Before you freak out and say "but I can't afford to pay a million dollars a year!," the market adjusts for the tax. It crushes land prices down to, essentially, what someone is willing to pay to use the land for the interval of time between each assessing of the tax. It is a rent for land. Instead of paying $1,000,000 to own land forever and ever, you would pay something like $5,000 a year or something reasonable like that.


Also, @ people asking about basic income, look at the citizens' dividend as part of the geolibertarian philosophy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend

Not exactly a basic income, but a similar and SOLVENT concept.

Yes. But the media dogpiled him because he spoke of a partial default on the debt if worst came to worst.

What flew over their heads though, is that the US has been doing just that for many years already with "quantitative easing".

>The rich don't owe you anything
How about we deport them to uninhabited island then, let's see them provide there. Whoops, can't do that without wretched poor to exploit. How unfair.

These ideas are antiquated because our wealth is increasingly derived from intellectual resources in our service economy. Which is why all income should be taxed indiscriminately, because it generalizes all of these societal trends to one thing - income.

Yes but you are removing all other forms of welfare. Pretty sure it comes close to 3 trillion with social security, medical care and such.

>public schools gone
Not welfare.