[redcarpet]

I'm not opposed to flat consumption taxes, but definitely against a flat income tax. That is just obscene.

[Zerogouki]

Let's say, 10% of all money earned over $20,000 a year.

With a rate that low, you might as well just abolish the income tax altogether, start teaching Mandarin in elementary school, and await the arrival of our country's new owners.

[Hot Choco]

With a rate that low, you might as well just abolish the income tax altogether, start teaching Mandarin in elementary school, and await the arrival of our country's new owners.

We're just talking about income tax here. Sales tax, excise duties, property taxes etc. would still exist, I assume.

[DanDaMan]

the poor will never be richer by raising the minimum wage.

Those who find work will undoubtedly be richer. The problem is that fewer people will be employed, because higher labour prices means businesses will buy less labour.

Everything seeks a natural balance.
As soon as the economy adjusts its self to the higher wages by passing on the costs, people get employed.

[hannigaholic]

I'm not opposed to flat consumption taxes, but definitely against a flat income tax. That is just obscene.

What exactly is "obscene" (a helluva strong word) about everybody having the same proportion of their income taken away? Seems to me that such a situation is actually fair and equitable, even if you'd prefer to institute a tax free threshold/personal allowance before people start paying tax (say the first $20,000 is tax-free, everything after that is taxed at 30%).

[redcarpet]

say the first $20,000 is tax-free, everything after that is taxed at 30%

30% of a $5.00 ph wage means a great deal more than to a million ph.

[PBVBROOK]

Flat taxes ARE progressive. The rich are still taxed more than the poor. It is not more "fair" just because the the percentage stays the same.

[DanDaMan]

Flat taxes ARE progressive. The rich are still taxed more than the poor. It is not more "fair" just because the the percentage stays the same.

It is fair because all men are taxed equally regardless of income.
Progressive taxes are discriminatory to those that work harder and earn more.
That doubly taxed money is then handed down to special interest groups that feel entitled.
That what progressive means... to progressively tax the harder you work.

Progressivism allows life's losers the moral high ground as they systematically plunder the fruits of another man's labor.

[Stormsmith]

The number one reason why the deficit was astronomically high under Bush wasn't the wars, it was reducing tax on the wealthy by two percent

you would never make up the revenue lost by raising middle income by 2%. How much more in tax do you want to pay?

Minimum wage has never been raised enough for anyone to get rich. It hasn't even kept up to infllation in the last 20 years.

[Zerogouki]

We're just talking about income tax here. Sales tax, excise duties, property taxes etc. would still exist, I assume.

Since when has the Federal government imposed sales or property taxes to any significant degree?

[DanDaMan]

The number one reason why the deficit was astronomically high under Bush wasn't the wars, it was reducing tax on the wealthy by two percent

It's been said that if you tax the rich 100% you could not cover Obama's entitlement programs. So wheres the point in your minuscule 2%?

[Stormsmith]

Evidence plse, and not from that fat head with the goofy flow chart.

[PBVBROOK]

If one were interested in fairness then the only fair way is if all Americans pay the same amount. If I earn $10K per year with a 10% tax I pay $1K. If you earn 100K with a 10% tax you pay 10K. Why should you pay 10 times more tax than I do just because you work smarter or harder than I do?

[Zerogouki]

Because you have ten times as much to lose and therefore you depend on your government ten times as much to keep your hard-earned money safe.

[Stormsmith]

Its a bit more to it than that. Only a few people make megakronkites based solely on the sweat of their brows. Most of the time, its profit, derived from the people who work for you. Fair dues, you're taking a gamble and you've invested something in them, and by rights ought to get something of a return.

But consider McDonalds who successfully lobbied to keep their employees' wages so limited, the corp doesn't have to pay benefits. When the worker is out of work, he doesn't get UIC, he gets dole that little guys pay through their taxes

And then there's the infrastructure, ports of call, airports, highways, etc, Again the little guy is paying for it off his cheque, and is billed for the fat cat's portion too, as a consumer.

Investments are usually taxed lower than the average guy's paycheque.

[Zerogouki]

Most of the time, its profit, derived from the people who work for you. Fair dues, you're taking a gamble and you've invested something in them, and by rights ought to get something of a return.

It's not just that. Even if you didn't personally invest in a company back when it started up, managing a business in a competitive economy requires a very special set of skills that very few people possess. Thus, their time is extremely valuable.

[redcarpet]

their time is extremely valuable

Why would the AIG bunch have a costly party while on-duty and their corp. is being bailed out then?

[PBVBROOK]

Because you have ten times as much to lose and therefore you depend on your government ten times as much to keep your hard-earned money safe

.

Not true if you think about it. For example: Suppose you and I both have a wife and a couple of kids. You have a million dollars and I have one thousand dollars. If you loose one hundred thousand dollars you are still rich. If I loose one thousand dollars my children and wife may starve. And you lost 100 times what I did. Or. If you loose 100K you are still rich. If I loose $100.00 I am even more poor.

Also. The purpose of government is not to protect either your money or mine.

If your argument is something like the old saying, 'from he to whom much is given, much is expected'. If you are a modern libertarian you would be forced to conclude that taxing the wealthy more than the poor is simply a redistribution of wealth. The wealthy do not consume more services than the poor do.

I know of no method of taxation that is not unfair to either the rich or the poor. All are simply redistributions of wealth. More or less onerous depending on who you ask.

[Stormsmith]

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough. The worker gets his cheque taxed at the rate of income tax, and that graduates, paying more in the upper income levels, and thisincludes the CEO or manager who is paid a salary (those stock options aside). But the owner who is looking at corp profits has the profits taxed at lower levels, cap gains, dividends, etc., plus deferments. Investors, the third scenario, are also getting income taxed at a rate lower than the wage or salary worker. Like the owner, the investor is at risk, but the lower tax rate, in terms of a flat tax, should be eliminated.

[Zerogouki]

Somebody sucks at math and history.

You have a million dollars and I have one thousand dollars.

A thousand-to-one ratio.

If you loose one hundred thousand dollars you are still rich. If I loose one thousand dollars my children and wife may starve.

A hundred-to-one ratio.

The purpose of government is not to protect either your money or mine.

Money is property, which is one of the three things that governments are charged with protecting according to the principles upon which the US was founded.