FLAT TAX (page 5)

imallgrowedup

Six -

We could spend all day on the semantics of the difference between a "hidden tax" or a "cost of business", but we could sure save a lot of time and aggravation by agreeing that I don't believe we pay "hidden taxes" with corporations when we do business with them, and you do. Every once in a while I need a reminder that no matter how hard I try, there are going to be some people who I am never going to convince to see things my way - and whose ideas are so polar to my own, that I know there could never be any kind of agreement on basic world beliefs. I've learned in other threads that when two people do not share the same basic ideals of society, politics and the nature of mankind, the only thing that is sure to happen if they insist on trying to convince one another of the merits of their own point of view, is that they both end up with a whole lot of ugly hanging out of their mouths (and fingers). Six, we've had these types of discussions in the past, and although I admire your passion, we don't share the same fundamental world beliefs, and we both know it. I don't want to knock my head against the wall with you - your mind is already made up, and so is mine! So what would be the point of us comparing rich people to poor people, or "hidden taxes" to "costs of business" or "widgets" to "gadgets"? We both know we won't agree.

I'm sorry that the reality is this stark, but we both know it is true. I would much rather try to find common ground with you in a lighter setting - perhaps in a fun thread or in chat, than be wary of you because I know we will only "get into it" with one another. Can we just agree to disagree and have a little fun instead?

growedup

SixofNine

Can we just agree to disagree and have a little fun instead?

Well I guess we'll have too! :D

It's just odd to me, because it really is just semantics. I see no substantial difference between what you're talking about, and what rem was talking about initially. So this is a case where none of the ideas presented are at all "polar to your own", and it still somehow seems to have come out looking more like disagreement than agreement. I just find it bizzarre. I disagree that we know we won't agree! Seldom is my mind ever "made up" on any given subject.

But know this: It's not unusual for me to vehemently disagree with someone on one position, and yet agree with them on another. Of course like anyone else, I get a sense of a person, and it affects the way I deal with them to some extent, but I try to keep my discussions on this forum honest. I don't go chasing people around on the board just because they've crossed me at some point. I come here primarily for argument, for discussion, for ideas. The many friendships I've made are a bonus; I think of this board as an awesome tool for discussion, and a rather sucky place to get ones sense of community.

So yeah, I'll be happy to catch you on a lighter note.

LucidSky

I'm not sure I understand the flat tax concept yet. If the flat tax is going to earn the government the same amount in taxes, how would a flat tax not just be a giveaway to the rich and a put heavier burden on the poor and middle class -- the money has to come from somewhere, right?

Also, would a flat tax really simplify things? I mean the only thing complicated about a progressive tax system is using the lookup table to find the amount you pay. It seems to me like the deductions and tax breaks are why the system is so complicated and produces loopholes.

LucidSky

Yerusalyim

Lucid,

I have some answers for you.

I'm not sure I understand the flat tax concept yet. I like honesty. If the flat tax is going to earn the government the same amount in taxes, how would a flat tax not just be a giveaway to the rich because the rich will have no motivation nor place to hide money from the government. Tax shelters would be eleminated...while the tax rate for the rich would go down, the actual amount paid would go up.and a put heavier burden on the poor no, a family of four making $35,000 a year would pay ZERO in federal income tax. Millions would be dropped from the tax rolls. Whereas, under the current system, with me making $35,000 and having a family of five, I paid in over $1500 this year. and middle class -same answer- the money has to come from somewhere, right? Most of the money is made up by the fact that with no deductions or tax shelters the "rich" would start paying taxes on everything.
Also, would a flat tax really simplify things? Yes. I mean the only thing complicated about a progressive tax system is using the lookup table to find the amount you pay. It seems to me like the deductions and tax breaks are why the system is so complicated and produces loopholes. This is exactly what the Flat Tax would eliminate...the only deductions will be for dependents, thus, even Bill Gates could fill out his income tax on a 3X5 Card.

Sounding better yet? Seriously, if you have more questions, let me know.

imallgrowedup

Six,

It's just odd to me, because it really is just semantics. I see no substantial difference between what you're talking about, and what rem was talking about initially. So this is a case where none of the ideas presented are at all "polar to your own", and it still somehow seems to have come out looking more like disagreement than agreement. I just find it bizzarre.

You are exactly right about this! Oh no! Then that would mean you are exactly right that we can actually find something to agree on! I was w-w-w-w-rong and you were *looks around to see if anyone is listening, then quietly* right! What is happening to me?!!!!!

I believe that there are so many things where people disagree where all it really does come down to is semantics - yet - as you pointed out - somehow it ends up looking more like disagreement than agreement. I think the confusion lies in the fact that we are both looking at the exact same scenario, so it seems the same. However, because our world views are different, we are interpreting it in different ways, and that is where the confusion comes in. I have to tell you, I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to explain how I think this works, and after no fewer than seven drafts I finally decided to just "let it go" because the complexity of it began to appear to be more like a master's thesis than a JWD post! But the conclusion I came to - whether I am right or not - is that one reason why it may have seemed confusing to you is because you actually caught a glimpse of what I was trying to say - in spite of your differing world view. And to tell you the truth, I think that is awesome because it only confirms what you said:

I disagree that we know we won't agree! Seldom is my mind ever "made up" on any given subject.

Anyway, now that I've gotten to know you a little better, I look forward to finding many other things we can agree on! (Ooooh! I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy inside! You better run while you can!!!)

Your Friend,

growedup

LucidSky

Thanks Yeru!

Am I understanding this correctly... the Flat Tax eliminates deductions, except for dependents. Although I think that could also be done with a progressive tax system... I guess this issue comes down to: should the government be able to influence citizen behavior, such as home ownership, retirement investing, giving to charity, etc, with tax deductions? Those are no longer deductable?

I do like the elimination of tax shelters and simplified taxes -- my guess is billions in revenue is lost because some rich persons can afford "crafty" accountants. The tax code now really requires perpetual reform.

So how does flat tax work for unearned income -- stocks and bonds?

LucidSky

imallgrowedup

Yeru -

I got to thinking about this a little more, and was thinking that because different areas within the country, or even within a state have different economies, there are instances where a flat tax may not work well because of the cut-off point for not having to pay any taxes. For example, in California, $35k would barely cover most living expenses, and could actually be deemed poverty level in some areas here, especially if there are children. I wonder if a flat tax could be implemented, but the cut-off for not paying any taxes could be scaled according to the cost-of-living in a given area? What are your thoughts?

growedup

Yerusalyim

IMALL,

The Flat Tax would not take into account the area you live in, just as it the "progressive" system does not do so today.

My knee jerk reaction is to say yes, dividends would be taxed just like regular income...I'm not sure what the actual plans that are out there propose.

Gozz

You mean you guys don't pay FLAT TAX?? And Yeru, you recommend 18% flat for guys making above $35,000 p.a.?? Bizarre. On this side of the pool, you pay sth from 33% flat on your salary, no deductions. I should take a huge pay cut and move to America.

Yerusalyim

Gozz,

I'm assumming you're posting from England. I have a German friend who makes about what I do, he pays right at (ok, just under) 50% taxes, (that's his medical, etc included). It would be more if he paid the 7% church tax. He's concerned that thee will be nothing for him when he retires in 20 years.

Yep, 18%, add 7.5% for Social Security, and a few more points for Medicare and we're still well under 30%. I also like the idea of the privitization (optional) of Social Security). I say let people opt to invest the 7.5% they pay into the system in a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)or some such thing, and give the employer contribution (also 7.5%) to the government as a back up. My TSP is doing quite nicely right now.

FLAT TAX

Share this