[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[FA_Q2]

Fair is having the same rates and deductions for all.

Unfair starts with a 'special interest'. Nobody should be special in a free market economy.

The very nature of deductions is not even. There is no such thing as a deduction for all really. It will forever turn into a deduction for those that fit into this category as well as forever be a political weapon. Even the single example of a deduction for all, not taxing the first X dollars, will accomplish the same thing as the people close to that line will tend to vote to push it up further. Flat rate, no deductions. That is the only way to bury this once and for all.

The problem with that is that in order to have a high enough rate to actually pay the bills, the folks at the low end of the scale are harmed. If the rate is low enough to be reasonable for lower incomes, the folks at the high end are subsidized and, either way, the burden once again falls on the middle class.

For it to be fair, the flat tax needs to be accompanied by a single deduction, and a small, single rate sales tax.

Incomes will adjust to fit the new tax structure. That is the only way to do that and that does not shift anything to the middle class. Making a deduction OTOH does.

Again, the only way to address the fact that we are in a never ending political class war with people continually demanding to tax someone else more to pay for my services is to make EVERYONE pay an equal share.

I hear that argument over and over again where someone thinks that they are taxed plenty but that others are getting off the hook. It does not matter if we are talking about the Romney that pays 13 percent or the squatter that pays nothing, the thing is that the government has affirmed that they are perfectly capable of taking from others without paying themselves. This is wrong. With a flat tax and no deductions, EVERYONE that votes for tax increases does so with the understanding that they themselves are going to have to pay more. The vote with the understanding that voting for tax decreases means the government is going to have less. Today people vote to tax others for the government rather than themselves.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant. Sure, it is not very ‘fair’ that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form. If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long. There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system. Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in. That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax. Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes. Income, period, would be taxed. All of it from all sources.

She is not quite explaining my schtick... My point to her was similar to your fairness is relative statement. I've had to pay double by % for her SS checks than she had to pay for her parents checks. Reagan and crew called it "saving" SS, SS has been saved so many times SS taxes went from 2% to 12-15%. Yeah it was saved it alright, saved by doubling how much they take from my generation for the same thing that the previous generation got at a 50% discount (iteratively applied all the way back to the start.. yeah that's a pyramid scheme). Not to mention that they get benefits at a younger age, than later generations. Thus my point to "fairness" was more that even if her generation was being charged extra, that in some sense it would be making up for the discount they got. Thus the fairness issues she brought up might be considered somewhat of a wash.

To the point about sales tax manipulation. Well it hasn't been an issue in the States I've lived. But then we have never had sales tax prebate checks. We have welfare to cover that stuff.

Sure you have. There is plenty of abuse in that system as well, you are just choosing to ignore it because it counters your argument.

You think that products are taxes at the same rate at the state? There is nothing added onto gas for instance? Perhaps cigarettes? Alcohol? Seriously, you cannot say that state tax is any less convoluted, particularly if you run a service in a state with taxes on it. I can tell you that our state taxes here in Washington are a mess with respect to sales taxes.

The abuse is not as apparent because the focus on federal taxes as the feds actually provide most of the funding for the states anyway. Even those things that have no federal connection at all end up getting funding from them through the block grants (another travesty that the feds should never have been allowed to do). So far, there is no real reason that a sales tax would be better than an income tax though there are some real problems with a sales tax.

Sin taxes are a wholly different issue, and already exist irregardless of whether we dump income taxes or not. Same with gas taxes. You are inventing the idea that these additional taxes prove that sales tax is no better than income tax. Taxing someone's income against their permission is no different than slavery. The bulk of the funding for the states that you are talking about is welfare crap that the feds have forced on us, no? The states are merely administrating that.

 

[Polk]

I didn't say your employer pays your taxes for you, I said your employer has to pay you enough for you to pay your taxes, so your taxes are baked into the price of your employers products. If you seriously still don't get that, live long and prosper.

You said both of those things. You may not realize you said both of those things (since one of them is an unstated premise of another claim you make), but you did.

A distinction without a difference. No matter how you slice it, your employer has to charge their customers enough to cover your taxes. You're just arguing a side. The content is here. Care or don't. I'm not going to explain it to you anymore.

You're making a strawman argument. I've never said the employer don't "cover" you taxes by virtue of their inclusion in your salary. I've only disputed the proposition that they then "cover" the amount again over and beyond it being factored into salary.

 

[Polk]

Let's try it Dick & Jane style, Kas.

I hire Polk for $10/hour on a normal 40 hour week. That is a gross salary of $400. I withhold 20% or $80 of his wages that HE is obligated to pay for state and federal income tax, social security, and medicare. His check is $320 and the amounts I remit to state and federal government is $80.00 PLUS my employers' required FICA contribution for him PLUS SUTA, FUTA, work comp premiums based on his gross salary, general liability premiums based on his salary, and any other required taxes and/or wage-based insurance.

ALL of that comes out of my gross earnings. I can deduct some or all of it as business expense which helps reduce the taxes that I owe from my business, but the taxes I do pay are on top of all those other employee expenses.

And yes, all of that IS baked into the price of my product sold to my customers.

The only employee based expense I would not have under a Fair Tax system is that I wouldn't pay the employers' share of FICA or FUTA. The other expenses stay the same.

And assuming that I would have to pay Fair Tax on anything I buy for the business that is not for resale, I would guess my taxes would go up a bit above and beyond those payroll expenses.

You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.

The $80 you remit as your taxes ARE fully factored into my cost because I am the one who furnished you the money to pay them. They reduce your take home pay, which doesn't directly affect me, but first they also came directly out of my bottom line. I pay the full $400 dollars whether you pay anything in taxes whatsoever. And so yes, that full $320 that you keep plus the $80 in taxes you pay is an expense baked into the cost of the business's products as much as is the light bill or the raw products I buy to make the product.

You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).

 

[Polk]

That's what you don't get. For the "FairTax" math to work, it's not 80 bucks being "baked in". It would 160 "baked in". No one is disputing that the portion of salary that ultimately becomes taxes is "baked in" to the cost of goods. What is being disputed is that the same value is baked into the price again when it goes from the employee to the federal government.

Wrong. The example has the 80 in tax moving from income tax to sales tax (80 is baked in to the retail price of the item to cover the sales tax you have to pay for items). The total price of the item (with the 80 baked in for your paycheck) goes up 80 for sales tax but that sales tax 80 goes to the government as sales tax not your paycheck. So while the total item plus tax includes 160, your paycheck only has the sales tax 80 amount that was baked into the retail price. Assuming the company does not change the retail cost of the product he pays you the same and instead of you paying income tax you pay sales tax. Oversimplified but this example shows how the tax just moves from income to sales. Everyone is happy except the people that don't have income and thus were benefiting from not having to pay income tax. Which explains why retired folks prefer income tax over sales, unless we give them some credit for previous income taxes paid (as sales tax credit).

The only way you can reduce the 160 is to have no taxes. I like that, then companies can reduce your paycheck by 80, and reduce the price of the item 80, and does not have to add sales tax... voila item is 160 cheaper. Course then we have no government services. But you could buy them on the fly based on what you need. I suspect that would be about $20, thus the company would have to bake in 20 for the item. Yeah I'd much prefer -60 for the cost of items -60 for payroll and no involuntary taxes.

The problem is the bold part. Your math is fine, but you're missing the point that the FairTaxers argue the final tax-inclusive cost of goods would not increase. You admit in the bold that that claim is false.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.

The $80 you remit as your taxes ARE fully factored into my cost because I am the one who furnished you the money to pay them. They reduce your take home pay, which doesn't directly affect me, but first they also came directly out of my bottom line. I pay the full $400 dollars whether you pay anything in taxes whatsoever. And so yes, that full $320 that you keep plus the $80 in taxes you pay is an expense baked into the cost of the business's products as much as is the light bill or the raw products I buy to make the product.

You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).

I am not sure that is what he is saying. I'll let him speak to that. But on the other hand, you seemed to be saying that the $80 you pay in taxes are not included in the employers' cost and therefore factor into what the employer charges to the customer for his product. They are because the employer is the one who furnishes the money to pay those taxes. What the employee then remits in taxes does not affect the employers' cost again. It is the same $80.

 

[Polk]

The $80 you remit as your taxes ARE fully factored into my cost because I am the one who furnished you the money to pay them. They reduce your take home pay, which doesn't directly affect me, but first they also came directly out of my bottom line. I pay the full $400 dollars whether you pay anything in taxes whatsoever. And so yes, that full $320 that you keep plus the $80 in taxes you pay is an expense baked into the cost of the business's products as much as is the light bill or the raw products I buy to make the product.

You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).

I am not sure that is what he is saying. I'll let him speak to that. But on the other hand, you seemed to be saying that the $80 you pay in taxes are not included in the employers' cost and therefore factor into what the employer charges to the customer for his product. They are because the employer is the one who furnishes the money to pay those taxes. What the employee then remits in taxes does not affect the employers' cost again. It is the same $80.

That's not at all what I said. What I'm saying is that it's only a cost to the employer when he pays the money as salary. It's not a cost to him again when the employee pays it in taxes. "FairTaxers", like Kaz, however, state that the entire tax burden is factored in the initial cost of the good, including the payment of that money by the employee OVER AND ABOVE the payment of that income as salary.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).

I am not sure that is what he is saying. I'll let him speak to that. But on the other hand, you seemed to be saying that the $80 you pay in taxes are not included in the employers' cost and therefore factor into what the employer charges to the customer for his product. They are because the employer is the one who furnishes the money to pay those taxes. What the employee then remits in taxes does not affect the employers' cost again. It is the same $80.

That's not at all what I said. What I'm saying is that it's only a cost to the employer when he pays the money as salary. It's not a cost to him again when the employee pays it in taxes. "FairTaxers", like Kaz, however, state that the entire tax burden is factored in the initial cost of the good, including the payment of that money by the employee OVER AND ABOVE the payment of that income as salary.

Again I am not sure that is what Kaz said at all. That doesn't sound like somethng Kaz, who is usually pretty careful with his facts, would say. But I'll let him speak to that.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's what you don't get. For the "FairTax" math to work, it's not 80 bucks being "baked in". It would 160 "baked in". No one is disputing that the portion of salary that ultimately becomes taxes is "baked in" to the cost of goods. What is being disputed is that the same value is baked into the price again when it goes from the employee to the federal government.

Wrong. The example has the 80 in tax moving from income tax to sales tax (80 is baked in to the retail price of the item to cover the sales tax you have to pay for items). The total price of the item (with the 80 baked in for your paycheck) goes up 80 for sales tax but that sales tax 80 goes to the government as sales tax not your paycheck. So while the total item plus tax includes 160, your paycheck only has the sales tax 80 amount that was baked into the retail price. Assuming the company does not change the retail cost of the product he pays you the same and instead of you paying income tax you pay sales tax. Oversimplified but this example shows how the tax just moves from income to sales. Everyone is happy except the people that don't have income and thus were benefiting from not having to pay income tax. Which explains why retired folks prefer income tax over sales, unless we give them some credit for previous income taxes paid (as sales tax credit).

The only way you can reduce the 160 is to have no taxes. I like that, then companies can reduce your paycheck by 80, and reduce the price of the item 80, and does not have to add sales tax... voila item is 160 cheaper. Course then we have no government services. But you could buy them on the fly based on what you need. I suspect that would be about $20, thus the company would have to bake in 20 for the item. Yeah I'd much prefer -60 for the cost of items -60 for payroll and no involuntary taxes.

The problem is the bold part. Your math is fine, but you're missing the point that the FairTaxers argue the final tax-inclusive cost of goods would not increase. You admit in the bold that that claim is false.

Yeah I just assume they mean, would not increase for the folks that have the increased income due to the eliminated income tax, or catch one of the rebate checks.

Its one of those chicken egg descriptions. You appear to be saying you can't have the egg without the chicken and they are saying I have the chicken here's my egg.

 

[Friends]

91% - Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off.

----------

During the Eisenhower administration the top tax rate never got below 91 percent.

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income

The effective top tax rate was 66.4 percent.

The Vampire Economy | DNDN Message Board Posts

For most Americans those were good years. Only a few cranks in the John Birch Society thought they were living under Communism.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sin taxes are a wholly different issue, and already exist irregardless of whether we dump income taxes or not. Same with gas taxes. You are inventing the idea that these additional taxes prove that sales tax is no better than income tax. Taxing someone's income against their permission is no different than slavery. The bulk of the funding for the states that you are talking about is welfare crap that the feds have forced on us, no? The states are merely administrating that.

No, they are not a different issue. The idea behind a flat tax is that it replaces all other taxes.

Ultimately though, the problem lies in the fact that you flat out refuse to acknowledge that taxing the product or the income results in the same reality. You call income taxes slavery. WTF is the difference in a sales tax then? Both taxes take the same amount of cash from you either way. The sole difference to the one that is being ‘enslaved’ is WHEN the money is taken. There is never an ‘if’ it will be takes. In that respect, one is no more slavery than the other.

AGAIN: if I tax the use of that money by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. If I tax the earnings by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. (this assumes tax calculated in the same manner – I am aware that 20% of 80 is not the same as 20% of a dollar but I believe that you are intelligent enough to understand what I am getting at here)

No matter where you take that tax you are ending up with the same damn ‘slavery.’ The ONLY difference in a sales tax and an income tax is the fact that sales tax allows you to pick and choose what to tax. What products get taxed and where in the process of using dollars is that tax applied. IOW, EVERYTHING that is not what a flat tax should be.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).

I am not sure that is what he is saying. I'll let him speak to that. But on the other hand, you seemed to be saying that the $80 you pay in taxes are not included in the employers' cost and therefore factor into what the employer charges to the customer for his product. They are because the employer is the one who furnishes the money to pay those taxes. What the employee then remits in taxes does not affect the employers' cost again. It is the same $80.

That's not at all what I said. What I'm saying is that it's only a cost to the employer when he pays the money as salary. It's not a cost to him again when the employee pays it in taxes. "FairTaxers", like Kaz, however, state that the entire tax burden is factored in the initial cost of the good, including the payment of that money by the employee OVER AND ABOVE the payment of that income as salary.

Can you link to that claim because I do not believe that was the direction of this conversation at all.

All that is needed for nothing whatsoever to change (revenue neutral AND the cost of goods stay exactly the same) is that the ‘taxes’ that you would have paid normally simply be removed from your check entirely essentially meaning that you get a pay cut while effectively not changing your actual income at all. Then those savings would reduce the price by the amount that the tax will take in sales tax. Effectively, all you have done is change where the tax is paid – at the register rather than in the employees check.

There was even a line of math to demonstrate this. I can’t recall anywhere that a claim the employer double counted the tax was made. I think that the main problem here is that in order for product price to remain constant, employee pay would need to be reduced by an equal amount of tax that is no longer being taken out of the check.

 

[Foxfyre]

The very nature of deductions is not even. There is no such thing as a deduction for all really. It will forever turn into a deduction for those that fit into this category as well as forever be a political weapon. Even the single example of a deduction for all, not taxing the first X dollars, will accomplish the same thing as the people close to that line will tend to vote to push it up further. Flat rate, no deductions. That is the only way to bury this once and for all.

The problem with that is that in order to have a high enough rate to actually pay the bills, the folks at the low end of the scale are harmed. If the rate is low enough to be reasonable for lower incomes, the folks at the high end are subsidized and, either way, the burden once again falls on the middle class.

For it to be fair, the flat tax needs to be accompanied by a single deduction, and a small, single rate sales tax.

Incomes will adjust to fit the new tax structure. That is the only way to do that and that does not shift anything to the middle class. Making a deduction OTOH does.

Again, the only way to address the fact that we are in a never ending political class war with people continually demanding to tax someone else more to pay for my services is to make EVERYONE pay an equal share.

I hear that argument over and over again where someone thinks that they are taxed plenty but that others are getting off the hook. It does not matter if we are talking about the Romney that pays 13 percent or the squatter that pays nothing, the thing is that the government has affirmed that they are perfectly capable of taking from others without paying themselves. This is wrong. With a flat tax and no deductions, EVERYONE that votes for tax increases does so with the understanding that they themselves are going to have to pay more. The vote with the understanding that voting for tax decreases means the government is going to have less. Today people vote to tax others for the government rather than themselves.

And I simply don't understand this mentality that a flat tax somehow 'subsidizes' the wealthy. A true flat tax on ALL earned income whether that income is generated via piece work, commissions, hourly wage, salary, business profits, capital gains, interest, royalties, profit on property when it is sold, or whatever, applies equally to the rich as it does to the poor wage earner. And the rich have a lot more of those types of income to tax.

It would fix the problem Warren Buffet complained about with his secretary paying a higher percentage on her income than he does. It would tax the investment income that Mitt Romney lives on at the same rate that wage earners pay--right now he benefits from a lower rate on capital gains.

The rate needs to be low across the board to keep from hurting the poor and also to prevent slowing economic growth by excessively taxes investment income.

But with say a 10% flat tax, the guy making $10,000 will pay $1,000 in taxes. The guy making $1 million will pay $100,000 in taxes. And both will feel the pinch if they vote to raise those taxes so both would need a really good reason to do that. It wouldn't any more be the lower income wanting the rich to pay more and more while they enjoy paying much less.

 

[Uncensored2008]

91% - Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off.

Besides, you've never held a job, and never plan to - so you won't be paying any income taxes..

 

[RKMBrown]

Sin taxes are a wholly different issue, and already exist irregardless of whether we dump income taxes or not. Same with gas taxes. You are inventing the idea that these additional taxes prove that sales tax is no better than income tax. Taxing someone's income against their permission is no different than slavery. The bulk of the funding for the states that you are talking about is welfare crap that the feds have forced on us, no? The states are merely administrating that.

No, they are not a different issue. The idea behind a flat tax is that it replaces all other taxes.

Ultimately though, the problem lies in the fact that you flat out refuse to acknowledge that taxing the product or the income results in the same reality. You call income taxes slavery. WTF is the difference in a sales tax then? Both taxes take the same amount of cash from you either way. The sole difference to the one that is being ‘enslaved’ is WHEN the money is taken. There is never an ‘if’ it will be takes. In that respect, one is no more slavery than the other.

AGAIN: if I tax the use of that money by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. If I tax the earnings by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. (this assumes tax calculated in the same manner – I am aware that 20% of 80 is not the same as 20% of a dollar but I believe that you are intelligent enough to understand what I am getting at here)

No matter where you take that tax you are ending up with the same damn ‘slavery.’ The ONLY difference in a sales tax and an income tax is the fact that sales tax allows you to pick and choose what to tax. What products get taxed and where in the process of using dollars is that tax applied. IOW, EVERYTHING that is not what a flat tax should be.

The difference is I don't have to buy any sales taxed products. That makes it a choice. The mirror example with income tax is that I don't have to have taxable income.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sin taxes are a wholly different issue, and already exist irregardless of whether we dump income taxes or not. Same with gas taxes. You are inventing the idea that these additional taxes prove that sales tax is no better than income tax. Taxing someone's income against their permission is no different than slavery. The bulk of the funding for the states that you are talking about is welfare crap that the feds have forced on us, no? The states are merely administrating that.

No, they are not a different issue. The idea behind a flat tax is that it replaces all other taxes.

Ultimately though, the problem lies in the fact that you flat out refuse to acknowledge that taxing the product or the income results in the same reality. You call income taxes slavery. WTF is the difference in a sales tax then? Both taxes take the same amount of cash from you either way. The sole difference to the one that is being ‘enslaved’ is WHEN the money is taken. There is never an ‘if’ it will be takes. In that respect, one is no more slavery than the other.

AGAIN: if I tax the use of that money by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. If I tax the earnings by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. (this assumes tax calculated in the same manner – I am aware that 20% of 80 is not the same as 20% of a dollar but I believe that you are intelligent enough to understand what I am getting at here)

No matter where you take that tax you are ending up with the same damn ‘slavery.’ The ONLY difference in a sales tax and an income tax is the fact that sales tax allows you to pick and choose what to tax. What products get taxed and where in the process of using dollars is that tax applied. IOW, EVERYTHING that is not what a flat tax should be.

Taxes do not, however, make us slaves if we receive value for the taxes paid. So whatever the tax code we eventually arrive at--I will continue to defend what makes sense to me, but I retain an open mind and am willing to be convinced that there is a tax system more fair and less coercive than an income tax--there need to be some ironclad safeguards in place. The safest would be a constitutional amendment setting the new policy in granite.

Again some suggested provisions in that amendment:

1. The tax (whatever it is) will be applied as a uniform percentage to all income or purchases without respect to political persuasions or socioeconomic circumstances. A prebate or flat exemptions will be uniform also without respect to political persuasions or socioeconomic circumstances.

2. The tax and the prebate or exemptions percentages cannot be changed without a majority vote of the people.

3. The government is required to use zero based budgeting, is required to balance the budget based on tax revenues and fees received, and is required to use the people's money only for constitutionally mandated purposes. Any surplus will be banked and saved for a prescribed period and when surplusses have accrued above an X amount set aside for emergencies for X months, the surplus will be returned to the taxpayers.

4. Every government agency, including all Congressional offices, will be audited annually to ensure that the people's money is allocated as authorized by law and is being utilized in the most efficient manner that is reasonable.

5. Those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed will live under the same laws and regulations they pass for everybody else. All retirement funds, health care programs, or other benefits will be funded strictly from their own paychecks.

 

[RKMBrown]

Taxes do not, however, make us slaves if we receive value for the taxes paid.

So as long as your master treats you good by feeding, sheltering, giving you health care that is equal to the value of your labor, then forcing you into labor for zero pay isn't slavery cause you got something back for it?

HUH?

 

[FA_Q2]

The difference is I don't have to buy any sales taxed products. That makes it a choice. The mirror example with income tax is that I don't have to have taxable income.

Really? What are you going to do then, eat it? I guess you can sow dollars together to make a quilt. Perhaps pillow stuffing and mattress stuffing? That is likely the most expensive and uncomfortable sleeping arrangement I can think of though. Might as well use rocks.

The point here is that you are utterly incorrect in the idea that you don’t have to buy anything. You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating ‘sales taxed products’ but that is simply reveling the truth then. You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason. IOW, nothing different than the system that we have now. That is not a flat tax at all nor is it a ‘fair’ tax. It is a tax on those goods that you are not buying – a tax on others.

All money must be used at some point or it is worthless and the amount taxed does not matter. As that is true, sales tax is no different than income tax other than the fact that you wish to leave things untaxed. I do not agree with such special interest concepts as that is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place. You gain nothing by restarting the same type system that we already have.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is absurd RKM. The social contract that created this country knew that a federal government was necessary to pass sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation without relinquisihing the individual rights of the people within those states. It recognized the need for an organized defense against aggressors and, most importantly, there had to be a central authority to recognize and protect the individual rights of the people. The government was not authorized to dictate what rights the people would have, but without such recognition and protection, nobody had any rights at all.

The government needed funding to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and the people paying the necessary taxes to provide that funding received full value for the money they remitted.

It should be that way now. We live in a much more populated and complicated world than the one the Founders inhabited, but the principles remain the same. We need a central government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, we need a standing army to protect us from any would be aggressors, and we need sufficient regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economical, or environmental violence to each other. God willing freedom loving people will finally choose to wind government back to those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But even those limited duties require some funding, and as all benefit from them, all should be held responsible for providing the funding. That is not slavery as the costs are as necessary as paying our light bill and we do receive value for the money expended.

The only slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all.

 

[FA_Q2]

And I simply don't understand this mentality that a flat tax somehow 'subsidizes' the wealthy. A true flat tax on ALL earned income whether that income is generated via piece work, commissions, hourly wage, salary, business profits, capital gains, interest, royalties, profit on property when it is sold, or whatever, applies equally to the rich as it does to the poor wage earner. And the rich have a lot more of those types of income to tax.

It would fix the problem Warren Buffet complained about with his secretary paying a higher percentage on her income than he does. It would tax the investment income that Mitt Romney lives on at the same rate that wage earners pay--right now he benefits from a lower rate on capital gains.

The rate needs to be low across the board to keep from hurting the poor and also to prevent slowing economic growth by excessively taxes investment income.

But with say a 10% flat tax, the guy making $10,000 will pay $1,000 in taxes. The guy making $1 million will pay $100,000 in taxes. And both will feel the pinch if they vote to raise those taxes so both would need a really good reason to do that. It wouldn't any more be the lower income wanting the rich to pay more and more while they enjoy paying much less.

It really is not a matter of reality. Those that demand a flat tax as described somehow subsidizes the wealthy say this because that has been the mime for a very long time. It is essentially a trained response as the one thing that seems to be ingrained is that the rich are somehow getting the better of everyone else through taxation. Flat taxes would fix any and all imbalances that they receive but that is not good enough. Those that buy into the class warfare will not be happy unless the rich are somehow paying a MUCH larger share than they are. I won’t say others because that is not really the goal. The goal is that those that make more MUST pay a much larger share than they are paying. You see this in the people that idolize the 91 percent range without any understanding of the realities of the tax code that spawned that rate.