Why do people oppose a flat tax rate?
why don't we just charge everyone 15% income tax, call it a day, and create a balanced budget by cutting the excess from military, social programs, and other stupid bullshit (even subsidies for oil and gas, corn, and cotton 2bh)
>Flat
There is nothing flat about that image.
>Why do people oppose a flat tax rate?
Because everything doesn't deserve to be taxed that heavily
Because progressive taxation is the only thing that works in first world country.
The major source for state budget is income tax, if you halve it...
It wouldn't allow western governments to wage never ending wars while also keeping their domestic populations at bay with entitlement programs.
Lets not talk about modifying taxes until we fix the fraud first... yes I consider shit like what apple does fraud even if it's just loop holes.
Bout as smart as Obozo trying to fix healthcare without fixing the rampant overcharging by the medical and drug corps.
Ah but this would hurt the big companies so fuck us right??
A flat tax would inevitably lead to a revolution sooner or later.
my thoughts:
a flat tax rate is *mathematically* fair but not economically.
for example, someone taxed 10% at 30,000 , is left with 27000.
someone taxed 10% at 100,000 is left with 90000.
if the cost of living is 15,000 or each, the poorer person is left with less and less disposable income. we charge the rich person more to benefit the poor person and therein lies the "Fairness"
of the progressive tax rate
Progressive taxation somewhat makes up for the unfairness of the system. Some of the unfairness is inherent, some is just because it's not working as it should.
Liberals oppose a flat tax because none of them pay taxes. Those that do have an effective tax rate in the low single digits.
Burgers were offered "free" health care in exchange for just a 1% increase to their taxes. They refused it. Even the Lefties.
The poor demands shit for free, and the rich must pay for it.
Any flat tax system would eliminate a vast majority of the loopholes used to hide wealth, because there would be far fewer deductions.
You realize that democracy inevitably devolves into a mad scramble for the reins of power in order to pillage the fuck out of each other... the poor at the expense of the rich, the rich at the expense of all. Wholesale mutual plunder.
All the while, the parasitic political class and its cronies grows fatter and fatter.
You're leaving out the eventual sack of said political uber class.
They're counting on our continual pacification. Dumb cunts.
Because a the rich have more money to take than the poor.
We have had a 16% flat tax rate in Romania since 2004 and everyone appreciated it.
The work that tax agencies need to do is simplified, no need to "do your taxes" using complicated formulas and checking with complicated laws. Just apply one single rate to all your income and that's it.
Jews.
>income tax
I'll die before I let the federal mafia steal from me.
How does your pension system work? Do you have any, if at all, basic welfare for unemployed or homeless?
Muh gibs. People who are not me must pay 50%+
Taxes don't actually fund anything like that. The Federal Reserve Jew just prints up more money any time they need another war or an entitlement program. The taxes only go to service the interest on the debt we owe to the Federal Reserve Jew for printing up free money for wars and entitlements.
>Why do people oppose a flat tax rate?
Because they fear that which they don't understand.
>why don't we just charge everyone 15% income tax
How about a 15% sales tax? That way, no IRS is needed and people aren't punished for what they make.
But they pay a lower rate.
How about no tax and get rid of the IRS to save costs? That kind of worked really well for a long time when we first started this country.
This, in essence.
Even when the poor is at 10% and the rich is at 30%, they're still left with nearly 3x the excess income (once you adjust for higher cost of living that comes with having more income) than the poor.
The wealthier pay considerably more of their income and it sounds bad on paper, but in reality they've lost a drop in the bucket.
The old system was stupid and basically caused the Great Depression. You have no idea what you are talking about.
>How about no tax and get rid of the IRS to save costs?
well, enjoy a collapsing country. Which I support. this whole jewed out country needs to collapse.
The rich = the middle and upper-middle classes. Obviously the genuinely rich have enough money to avoid paying taxes.
Collapse? The system I described is the one that was so feared by Europe for being too competitive and wealthy that they saw it as a geostrategic imperative to get the USA back under the thumb of their banks in order to maintain global power.
This is the difference between reasonable and fairness
You asked like three different questions.
The pension system is quite complex, I can't describe it in one post on Sup Forums. But in general, everyone pays a monthly contribution that goes towards their pension. Your contribution is calculated based on some points. The more points you have the higher pension you will get when you retire.
You also have the option to have your own private pension, besides the state pension. So, later you can get two pensions, if you can afford to contribute to two systems.
>basic welfare
You are entitled to unemployment benefits for one year, only if you worked at least 12 months during the last 24 months. If you never contributed as a worker, you cannot get unemployment benefits.
Also, young people of at least age 16 who couldn't find a job for at least 2 months are entitled to register for unemployment only once (without contributing). After this period is over, they have to work or else they cannot get any benefits.
After the unemployment period is over and you still cannot find work, I believe you can apply for social aid, which is much lower than unemployment benefits (around 125 euros). It's a very low basic income that you can get for some months, I think. And you have to prove you are looking for work and your family also has very low income so they cannot support you. This is just a small amount of money you get to be able to at least buy food. In return you have to work for state projects, if they ask you to.
>homeless
I've no idea if we have programs to help the homeless. It's usually people who have mental health problems and left their homes for their own reasons.
Some cities have programs to provide housing for the homeless, I think. One city mayor once gave all the homess a hotel to live in and most of them left after a while. They seem to like freedom to be a vagabond more than anything else.
>low taxes caused the Great Depression
Fucking retard
I think you may need to hit the history books a tad harder m8.
Because, a flat tax implies that everyone has an equal share of the economy.
If we were a nation of drones, and every worker had a set percentage stake in the economy no different then all his own fellow drones, a flat tax would make sense.
But this is not the case. 1% of the population accounts for 50% of the wealth in America, and as such it is neccessary for those people to be taxed at a higher rate then the other people, in order to reach an equilibrium tax rate.
Prior to the 20th century the government was funded primarily by tariffs. These tariffs remained in place right up until they helped to crash the american economy. This is a fact of history. Read a book once in your life.
>cutting the excess from military, social programs, and other stupid bullshit (even subsidies for oil and gas, corn, and cotton 2bh)
People don't want to do all of that, which is the answer to your first question.
What is that fifteen per cent derived from? Can a lawyer dispute the calculation? Can a rich person buy a lawyer and reduce the official hundred percent that yields the fifteen? This is why tax is more complex than calling it flat.
Because think it would be less shekels for gibsmedats and jelly poorfags be jelly
>being this blue-pill'd
We shouldn't have let you wops in.
>Why do people oppose a flat tax rate?
If everyone was smart then this would work
but since they aren't then a progressive tax is there to try and make up for the bottom poorfags being bad with finances and getting scammed constantly.
So much this.
>it's unfair because everyone doesn't earn the same
fuck off Marx
>taxes don't fund welfare
Mcfucking kill yourself, progshit.
Uhm no. The government was funded by a tax on Liquor.
And since liquor was a major exchange medium prior to a national currency, it functioned alot like an income tax.
Income taxes don't fund anything. Congress held an investigation into this in 1981.
How's your first year of high school?
THIS THIS THIS READ NICK LAND YOU FAGGOTS
thedarkenlightenment.com
Because people can't into percentages and think rich people's 15% wasn't already more than the jobless' 15%.
>Romania
>no niggers or mudslimes
>deregulated, hyper-fast Internet
>flat tax
I don't care what memes say, you guys are so based.
how the fuck do "liberals not pay taxes" Im not a liberal, and I cant believe how deluded you are. You think the IRS wont anally rape a "liberal" who is late or dodging his taxes? When they come to garnish his wages, you think he can call the bank and tell them "no Im a liberal, dont let the govt. garnish my wages because I avoid taxes"... Youre an idiot cuckservative
>If you halve it...
then you can't spend as much on pointless, illegal wars, bureaucratic waste, and hand outs for lazy know-nothings.
Okay now explain how tariffs caused the Great Depression.
Why would someone pay more tax simply because they earn more than others? This is not fair. Flat tax rate is the only tax rate that is just.
Commies get out!
Bingo. Poor nogs will riot like never before if they have to actually start paying federal income tax. As is, most blacks pay nothing in federal tax and many get free gubment money by way of Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credits. Being poor and popping out kids pays well in America. Even the illegal spics file fake forms to get in on the cash grab.
correlation is not causation... ABCT (Austrian business cycle theory) puts forward a very consistent and compelling explanation of every recession in American history:
It's the installation of central banking (the top of the pyramid of a literal cartel of big banks)/fractional reserve banking/fiat currency that's at the root of it all.
Very illuminating stuff:
mises.org
OH SHIT WADDUP!
When did Romania get such fast internet?
OMG YOU RACIST OPPRESSOR OF THE POOR.
The older you get the more attractive it is that she's cooking
Not just dat ass
>being THIS reddit-tier blue pill'd and just plain fucking retarded
Literally kill yourself.
by golly, you're right. If they cut tax income they will have to start cutting all those gimmie dat programs. How can we continue to get aliberal policies passed?
Why is equality desirable?
Printing money is inherently a tax. It drives inflation that makes or money worth less.
yeah the poor have been benefitting from this for so long, thats why so few americans are poor
oh wait a minute
Right, but it's not a direct tax. It's a tax without having to call it a tax.
It's like when you go to the extremes of making up a tax code that nobody can understand or enforce, and then you still need to cheat around that.
This. "Fairness" is rightly put in quotes, because no such thing exists.
If the stated purpose of the government is not to provide social welfare, but to simply attempt to preserve everybody's basic rights in as minimalist a way as possible, then a flat tax is ideal. If the purpose is to help the poors through forced redistribution of wealth, then a progressive tax is more suitable to that end because it reduces the tax burden on the poorest and increases it on the richest.
All tax is theft, so it doesn't really matter in the end.
most countries probably already have a de facto flat tax because of other taxes (VAT etc.)
cuckservatives talk about income tax exclusively to make naive and dumb people pity the rich
85% of taxpayers are conservative. Stated again, liberals dont pay taxes
Source? Explain your reasoning? How do these "liberals that dont pay taxes" simply "not pay taxes" without reprecussions?
Most wealthy conservatives aren't actually even "conservative" though. They just don't want to pay taxes, which in America makes you a conservative.
Life isn't fair. Obviously the person who makes more money is going to have more disposable income; why should the person who makes more money now pay more because some guy way lower on the income ladder can't afford luxuries?
This
Damn son.
OP, a "flat" tax rate isn't actually flat, considering people still pay different amounts. 15% of $10,000 dollars is $1,500. 15% of $100,000 is $15,000. A truly flat tax would be the same actual amount for every person, since the government is meant to provide to each person the same services, regardless of who he or she is.
Of course, this raises some concerns. You say you don't want to go THAT far, because some difference in tax rates is okay, even by OP's proposed 15% flat rate. But once you've already established that it's morally and socially acceptable to tax people at different rates, then what difference does the difference in tax rate mean?
>cutting from military
Don't spend as much as Kim, but don't cut too much, too. Just kick nigs out and eliminate social spending on food stamps for the degenerates.
>Why do people oppose a flat tax rate?
Because a flat tax is fair.
And anything truly "fair" hurts feelings.
>How do these "liberals that dont pay taxes" simply "not pay taxes" without reprecussions?
Because their incomes put them at levels where they get more back than they pay, you idiot.
This is why we need a flat tax. No citizen should be able to vote to tax another differently than themselves. Conflict of interest.
>morally and socially acceptable to tax people at different rates,
A semantic note: you're not. The "rate" is X%. The actual taxed amount differs because the rate is by definition a percentage of income. So a better way to put it is whether it's morally and socially acceptable to tax people's income at any rate knowing that incomes differ.
The military is far too big. Most military spending is just another form of welfare to defense contractors anyways. Also fuck soldiers.
Show me a single example of "getting back more than they pay" No need to revert to insults. We are just discussing. Maybe one will convince the other, you dont have to be a cunt about it
No shit. It's a flat RATE, not a flat AMOUNT.
Of course there's a need, because you're retarded.
en.wikipedia.org
And this doesn't even count other benefits.
Welfare
You seem a bit bumsore at being unable to understand the concept of taxation.
...
Tax poor people less and we don't have to subsidize their welfare.
Fuck off socialist.
What do you mean welfare to defence contractors?
Training to be fit to defend your country is earning your right to vote. Only men trained for battle should have the vote.
>fuck soldiers
but they died defending Greater Israel, your greatest ally.
This. I keep saying this, 15%.
State govt gets 15%, shares with fed, which prints money and has military. Also shares with counties. Most money amd power reserved for states and the feds camt gobble it because the money comes from the states.
Flat tax with a tax free earnings bracket would be an interesting hybrid. For example we can earn around 12k GBP here in the UK before any tax is charged and everyone no matter how rich has this bracket of tax free earnings. It would be a good way to help the poor but maintain the simplicity and fairness of a flat tax.
No, fuck that. You earn a dollar, you get taxed on a dollar. You earn a million, you get taxed on a million. You start adding arbitrary levels, you invite people to change those levels, giving themselves a free ride at the expense of others.
Wow, math is hard.
max(gross income - cost of living, 0) * flat tax rate
Poeple making less than min. cost of living don't pay income tax, people slighly over cost of living only pay a little bit, very rich pay a flat tax. Like a progressive tax, but not arbitrary.
Obviously to overcome the lack of funding from not taxing people earning below minimum cost of living rate (slightly above poverty rate, say 15%), the flat tax rate will be fairly high (20-25% or so).
The main issue with OP's statements is cutting military budget and subsidies. That's just fucking retarded. The military budget is mostly research funding and paying for off duty military personnel. Only a small portion of that is war-making. The first thing to go if funding is cut is going to research, not personnel and not war-making. You are effectively saying that the free market is better at funding research (top kek if you believe this).
If gas and oil wasn't subsidized the price goes up and fluctuates terribly. This makes the price of EVERYTHING (everything must be distributed) for average people as well as businesses fluctuate and increase on average. Business shuts down because it can't detect what days are going to be good on the gas price so they can make their expected profit.
Not sure about corn. Certainly farmers loosing their livelihood means less domestic farm food, not just corn. If you care about freshness or food poisoning, you'll eat what the government can regulate (domestic).
>Poeple making less than min. cost of living don't pay income tax, people slighly over cost of living only pay a little bit, very rich pay a flat tax. Like a progressive tax, but not arbitrary.
It's not arbitrary? Who defines "cost of living"? What expenses are included in this definition? Is this amount exactly the same throughout the tax base?
I hate to say it, but does have a point. It would be a bit of a slippery slope for tax breaks
Seems like a pretty good system
WHO IS THIS SEMEN DEMEN?
>It's not arbitrary?
There two parameters.
1. Cost of living, which can be found through simple research. Really making it based off of the poverty rate makes it even simpler, just make it 15% or so higher than poverty rate instead of finding "minimum cost of living". Or you could even make it different person to person (rich guy pays more for his mortgage). The model can easily accommodate that. So you are effectively taxing "unnecessary" gains. The cost of living figure will always increase or stay the same every year (to keep the poor from getting fucked if deflation occurs, and as if that will ever happen anyway).
2. The flat tax rate can be experimentally determined by adjusting it until the minimum tax revenue required is reached. That parameter can change year to year depending upon the strength of the economy (government overhead is flat, business income tax depends on the economy, more can be made with less, which begets a positive feedback in the economy of ever decreasing taxes to some optimum).
Progressive taxes have no parameters. They are completely arbitrary. My tax model is less so because survival needs are a lot less ambiguous than "How much should the top 1% be taxed? Uhhh.... does 40% sound reasonable?".
Why do people here seem to think that its perfectly fine that the tax burden belongs on the middle and lower class?
The super rich, the "shepards of men" tier internationalist bankers already control our government, so why not have it be more blatant with straight up taxation rather than lobbying and underhanded deals?
Otherwise rich jews will end up owning your entire economy, even more than they already do, get it?
>Cost of living, which can be found through simple research. Really making it based off of the poverty rate makes it even simpler, just make it 15% or so higher than poverty rate instead of finding "minimum cost of living". Or you could even make it different person to person (rich guy pays more for his mortgage). The model can easily accommodate that. So you are effectively taxing "unnecessary" gains. The cost of living figure will always increase or stay the same every year (to keep the poor from getting fucked if deflation occurs, and as if that will ever happen anyway).
You're missing the point. Neither of those have any concrete basis, they're both figures cooked up by the government. It would be trivial for a leftist administration to suddenly insist that all manner of luxuries be included in one's "cost of living" or that some unreasonable standard of living constitutes "poverty".
Because it's kind of pointless, you won't be able to fund a modern government and a huge military-industrial complex with a 15% rate.
fpbp
>Progressive taxes have no parameters. They are completely arbitrary. My tax model is less so because survival needs are a lot less ambiguous than "How much should the top 1% be taxed? Uhhh.... does 40% sound reasonable?".
LOL. you did the exact same thing and landed on 15%
does consent exist?
source?