What is a fair tax rate?

[Saigon]

Shelzin -

Cutting spending massively, for instance by ending the military, education or all roading and sewerage systems in favour of privatisation is on option, but I think that is also a seperate issue. Of course if you privatise everything from prisons to customs to street lighting to policing you could have a lower flat tax rate.

But given the current US budget and sovereign debt, I can't see a rate of much under 30% as being possible.

 

[Saigon]

It is a plan and simple fact that if the US introduces a flat tax rate, it would need to be around 30%. .

That's not a fact. it's left-wing propaganda. Many studies have been done on the subject, and they indicate the rate would need to be about 23% if you exempt anyone under the poverty rate from paying the tax.

Interesting.

I am surprised to find that you could afford a lower flat tax rate than countries like Latvia (25%) and Lithuania (33%), which in many cases still can not afford even basic services.

When Holland recently researched a flat tax, it was considered that anything less than 40% would not be sustainable, and the idea was dropped. Holland has such excellent services, though, that I still think the US could get away with 30%.

 

[bripat9643]

The system Bripat and yourself advocate would create a shortfall of tax revenues of $1 trillion or so per year, which would cripple both local, state and fedeal government.

No it wouldn't because the system I propose wouldn't include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or welfare of any kind. The only thing the Federal government should do is provide for the National Defense.

 

[Saigon]

The system Bripat and yourself advocate would create a shortfall of tax revenues of $1 trillion or so per year, which would cripple both local, state and fedeal government.

No it wouldn't because the system I propose wouldn't include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or welfare of any kind. The only thing the Federal government should do is provide for the National Defense.

As mentioned - slashing services is one way in which a lower flat tax rate could be achieved.

If you axe all welfare and perhaps privatise the military I dare say a flat tax of 20% i achievable.

I do wonder how starving grandmothers and mentally handicpped children begging in the streets will look on Fox News!

 

[bripat9643]

As mentioned - slashing services is one way in which a lower flat tax rate could be achieved.

If you axe all welfare and perhaps privatise the military I dare say a flat tax of 20% i achievable.

You could achieve a rate of 5% and leave military spending right where it is now.

I do wonder how starving grandmothers and mentally handicpped children begging in the streets will look on Fox News!

It's sad that you admit you would be happy to watch your grandmother and handicapped siblings begging in the streets without lifting a finger to help them.

 

[Shelzin]

Shelzin -

Cutting spending massively, for instance by ending the military, education or all roading and sewerage systems in favour of privatisation is on option, but I think that is also a seperate issue. Of course if you privatise everything from prisons to customs to street lighting to policing you could have a lower flat tax rate.

Saigon ~ It seems to me you keep bringing up the same things that would be cut every time as a scare factor. I don't think you even bother to look to see what the Federal government gives now to realize just how ignorant that statement is.

You are right about the military. Although most of it would be closing of over seas bases.

But given the current US budget and sovereign debt, I can't see a rate of much under 30% as being possible.

I disagree. But then I went to the link that I provided you, although I'm unsure if it was this thread or not, which I will provide again.

Where did my tax dollars go?

 

[Saigon]

You could achieve a rate of 5% and leave military spending right where it is now.

Yes, you could.

But to do so you would have the mentally ill and the aged starving in the streets.

You would also have to privatise everything from air traffic control to immigration, from roading to sewerage, and from th electrical grid to policing.

 

[bripat9643]

It is a plan and simple fact that if the US introduces a flat tax rate, it would need to be around 30%. .

That's not a fact. it's left-wing propaganda. Many studies have been done on the subject, and they indicate the rate would need to be about 23% if you exempt anyone under the poverty rate from paying the tax.

Interesting.

I am surprised to find that you could afford a lower flat tax rate than countries like Latvia (25%) and Lithuania (33%), which in many cases still can not afford even basic services.

When Holland recently researched a flat tax, it was considered that anything less than 40% would not be sustainable, and the idea was dropped. Holland has such excellent services, though, that I still think the US could get away with 30%.

mentioning a rate for other countries in the absence of all the other complicating issues is meaningless. For one thing, The rate in other countries includes all government spending. In the U.S., local and state governments account for a significant share of government spending. I believe that in Holland the federal government pays for virtually everything, so the rate you quote for them is meaningless in terms of the United States.

 

[Saigon]

I do wonder how starving grandmothers and mentally handicpped children begging in the streets will look on Fox News!

It's sad that you admit you would be happy to watch your grandmother and handicapped siblings begging in the streets without lifting a finger to help them.

Um...no, genius!

This is the obvious impact of policies YOU are triumphing - not me.

 

[Saigon]

Saigon ~ It seems to me you keep bringing up the same things that would be cut every time as a scare factor. I don't think you even bother to look to see what the Federal government gives now to realize just how ignorant that statement is.

You are right about the military. Although most of it would be closing of over seas bases.

Well it is fairly obvious, surely?

If the state loses 50% of its income, then you lose 50% of your services. Since your hilariously over-funded military seems to be scared, then you will have to slash 100% of other services.

It's hardly rocket science.

And if you end welfare, then you will have mentally ill people and the aged literally begging in th streets for food.

I don't see anyone explaining why this is not the case.

 

[Shelzin]

Saigon ~ It seems to me you keep bringing up the same things that would be cut every time as a scare factor. I don't think you even bother to look to see what the Federal government gives now to realize just how ignorant that statement is.

You are right about the military. Although most of it would be closing of over seas bases.

Well it is fairly obvious, surely?

If the state loses 50% of its income, then you lose 50% of your services. Since your hilariously over-funded military seems to be scared, then you will have to slash 100% of other services.

It's hardly rocket science.

And if you end welfare, then you will have mentally ill people and the aged literally begging in th streets for food.

I don't see anyone explaining why this is not the case.

Well... As I said before... I think the main disagreement we have is this:

It seems as if you want to figure out a way to pay for what we do, while I on the other hand... And a few others... Want to stop the bullshit, rather than pay for it.

And... You are STILL ignorant about how much money the federal government is really giving to the states for your assertions.

 

[bripat9643]

You could achieve a rate of 5% and leave military spending right where it is now.

Yes, you could.

But to do so you would have the mentally ill and the aged starving in the streets.

Yes, we know you've already admitted you would allow your granny to starve in the street. However, here in the United States, before the leviathan welfare state pushed private charity out of the picture, people took care of their own. Furthermore, the elderly are the wealthiest quintile of the population, so I see no reason that large numbers of them would starve even if their children were all as self-centered and callous as you.

You would also have to privatise everything from air traffic control to immigration, from roading to sewerage, and from th electrical grid to policing.

The electric grid is already privately owned, as is much of policing and sewage. Furthermore, most of the functions you list are paid for by local government. We all know that 80% of the federal budget is devoted to income transfer programs, That is, it's devoted to mulcting and looting the productive members of society for the benefit of parasites and moochers.

 

[Shelzin]

I do wonder how starving grandmothers and mentally handicpped children begging in the streets will look on Fox News!

It's sad that you admit you would be happy to watch your grandmother and handicapped siblings begging in the streets without lifting a finger to help them.

Um...no, genius!

This is the obvious impact of policies YOU are triumphing - not me.

Saigon is right on this one... That was a pretty stupid statement as he's saying the opposite. He's still wrong mind you... But that is not a valid point at all Bripat

 

[Shelzin]

You would also have to privatise everything from air traffic control to immigration, from roading to sewerage, and from th electrical grid to policing.

The electric grid is already privately owned, as is much of policing and sewage. Furthermore, most of the functions you list are paid for by local government. We all know that 80% of the federal budget is devoted to income transfer programs, That is, it's devoted to mulcting and looting the productive members of society for the benefit of parasites and moochers.

And... Just to be fair about it... He just whipped your ass on that one Saigon... But that's not his fault... It's yours. You are making some seriously fucked up claims here.

Yes... I took out the first half on purpose.

 

[bripat9643]

I do wonder how starving grandmothers and mentally handicpped children begging in the streets will look on Fox News!

It's sad that you admit you would be happy to watch your grandmother and handicapped siblings begging in the streets without lifting a finger to help them.

Um...no, genius!

This is the obvious impact of policies YOU are triumphing - not me.

What's obvious is that granny would only starve because her children allowed her to starve.

 

[bripat9643]

It's sad that you admit you would be happy to watch your grandmother and handicapped siblings begging in the streets without lifting a finger to help them.

Um...no, genius!

This is the obvious impact of policies YOU are triumphing - not me.

Saigon is right on this one... That was a pretty stupid statement as he's saying the opposite. He's still wrong mind you... But that is not a valid point at all Bripat

It's an entirely valid point. Before the advent of the welfare state, old people lived with their children. families took care of their own. And there was private charity for those who didn't have families to take care of them.

Saigon is simply admitting that leftists are all callous self-centered skin flints who wouldn't lift a finger to help their own grannies.

 

[Shelzin]

Um...no, genius!

This is the obvious impact of policies YOU are triumphing - not me.

Saigon is right on this one... That was a pretty stupid statement as he's saying the opposite. He's still wrong mind you... But that is not a valid point at all Bripat

It's an entirely valid point. Before the advent of the welfare state, old people lived with their children. families took care of their own. And there was private charity for those who didn't have families to take care of them.

Saigon is simply admitting that leftists are all callous self-centered skin flints who wouldn't lift a finger to help their own grannies.

But you are taking a economical argument to a social one. It doesn't belong. I actually agree with you.. But it doesn't matter as that has no place in the argument of a fair tax rate.

You are doing a fine job playing the numbers game with him, which is his chosen method of argument on this topic. I'd stay with that. That's my opinion anyway.

Your argument about grandma on the street... The Windbag just started a thread on that http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...em-absolute-proof-we-need-to-raise-taxes.html

I think you'll find that all three of us think that's pretty fuck'n retarded. Edit: well.. Maybe not. You and I will. *laughs*

 

[Saigon]

Saigon is simply admitting that leftists are all callous self-centered skin flints who wouldn't lift a finger to help their own grannies.

No, again, slashing welfare is YOUR idea - not mine.

My god, BriPat - you're not a very sharp poster, are you?

 

[Saigon]

The electric grid is already privately owned, as is much of policing and sewage. Furthermore, most of the functions you list are paid for by local government. We all know that 80% of the federal budget is devoted to income transfer programs, That is, it's devoted to mulcting and looting the productive members of society for the benefit of parasites and moochers.

So does local government offer these services free of charge?

This came up on page 1 of this thread, I think, and I said the same thing then - ultimately it does not matter WHO we pay tax to (local, state or federal) or who provides the services.

What matters is how MUCH we pay, and the quality of the service.

The lower the flat tax rate, the less services any public authority can provide, and the more that will need to be privatised.

 

[Saigon]

Well... As I said before... I think the main disagreement we have is this:

It seems as if you want to figure out a way to pay for what we do, while I on the other hand... And a few others... Want to stop the bullshit, rather than pay for it.

And... You are STILL ignorant about how much money the federal government is really giving to the states for your assertions.

Yes, that is true. I just thinking slashing the budget is really a separate topic to how much tax we pay.

I do understand the key points about federal v state services - again I don't see it as a crucial issue. Services still have to paid for by citizens, ultimately.