Flat Tax and Tithing

[One Brow]

And if you have 2 people living in a house each making $10,000 a year, what about $2,000 a year versus $20,000 a year? More palatable, right?

That's the problem with making exceptions. Let's say there's a flat tax of 10%, and a guy is making $100,000. Due to the graduated flat tax, if an individual is making less than, oh, say, $60,000, they only pay 8% versus 10%. So what does the guy do? He apportions half of the income - or possibly, 40% - to his spouse. They both pay at the 8% rate instead of the 10% rate, and voila, they've ducked $2,000 in taxes simply by creative accounting.

For those that espouse exceptions to promote fairness, you must acknowledge that those exceptions are also opportunities for others to exploit, and end up being even less fair in the long run.

By contrast, if you simply exempt the first, say $20,000 of income person, than no "juking" occurs at all, and the couple pays the same amount of taxes regardless of who makes the income. However, no matter how you structure the code, however simple you try to make it, the wealthy will find a way to juke it, via either their accountants or their political influence.

Is our current tax code designed to benefit the rich in many ways to which middle-class taxpayers have no access? I would say yes. Is the answer to make the system more unfair? I answer no.

 

[HipHopAnonymous]

"I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no god."

 

[HipHopAnonymous]

If you just change the tax laws to a flat 10% or so, this doesn't make the 50% of people who pay NO income tax just automatically start paying their share. That's your bigger problem.

 

[babe]

By any objective measure of which I know. taxing $1,000 from a family making $10,000 causes a more significant loss than $10,000 from a family making $100,000. Of course, these are measures that value things like fresh vegetables and medicine as being more important than a third car.

so if you really want to be objective, come down from the ivy-covered tower and go out on the street for a day.

There is a reason why someone with a particular expertise. . .. say jumping higher than a six-foot-eight defender can reach and dunking a basketball. . . . can be paid ten times as much as the flat-footed Al. It's because somehow that "means" something to the man who's offering the job. In fact, it doesn't matter if the job gets done, if for any reason the man with the money is willing to pay for it. Some dude with a car dealership sees this as the objective reality all the time. People willing to pay a lot for what they want with their own money. Whether it's worth it or not.

Political hacks of every stripe are willing to do the same thing, but with other people's money.

While you are right that some folks live marginal lives of mere survival while others have more than is required for sustaining life on the same criteria, you have bought into a philosophy that your ideas of value are superior to those of other people, and you are claiming that your judgment is better than others, and concluding that you have the moral authority to take their money and do what you want with it.

In the real world, a copper penny is only a copper penny, a piece of printed fiat currency is only that, and a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee. What's it's worth to anyone is their business, not yours. Or the government's.

 

[babe]

By contrast, if you simply exempt the first, say $20,000 of income person, than no "juking" occurs at all, and the couple pays the same amount of taxes regardless of who makes the income. However, no matter how you structure the code, however simple you try to make it, the wealthy will find a way to juke it, via either their accountants or their political influence.

Is our current tax code designed to benefit the rich in many ways to which middle-class taxpayers have no access? I would say yes. Is the answer to make the system more unfair? I answer no.

I can hardly imagine anything that could be be more unfair than this.

Some folks justly view our present tax code and the system we have in place to administer it as perhaps one of the greatest RICO operations on Earth. Too many lobbyists, too many politicians, and too many bureaucrats, and everybody working for their own personal benefit.

The IRS agent who can't run ten-key with no sense of humor for the taxpayer who laughs at that incompetence has the power to just destroy the citizen with the courage to laugh. Seize the cash in the till, close the shop, and sell it at auction. Many federal departments of government have their own "courts" and their own "judges", and you don't get to contest the rules they make. No jury, no right to appeal their decisions, and no vote to change the officials.

Anyone who really means to be "fair" has got to start with taking down this whole system.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'd like to address poverty at the community, rather than national, level.

I am not a typical right-winger.. I care about those that are suffering. I also have a great disdain for the idea that we should all be equal. I believe in equal opportunity.. but not equalling out the results of individual efforts.

 

[leftyjace]

By contrast, if you simply exempt the first, say $20,000 of income person, than no "juking" occurs at all, and the couple pays the same amount of taxes regardless of who makes the income. However, no matter how you structure the code, however simple you try to make it, the wealthy will find a way to juke it, via either their accountants or their political influence.

Is our current tax code designed to benefit the rich in many ways to which middle-class taxpayers have no access? I would say yes. Is the answer to make the system more unfair? I answer no.

Did you mean $20,00 of income PER person in the household?
Isn't that unfair against single individuals that live alone because they're fat and smelly?
The thought is ridiculous, of course, but what about people that wish to take advantage of benefits like that, so they enter in domestic partnerships so they can legally be considered to be of the same household... even if they're not romantically involved, just roommates?

All I'm saying is that there will always be a method (palatable or not) to work the system if the system isn't uniform.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'd like to address poverty at the community, rather than national, level.

I am not a typical right-winger.. I care about those that are suffering. I also have a great disdain for the idea that we should all be equal. I believe in equal opportunity.. but not equalling out the results of individual efforts.

I said that very poorly. I didn't mean to imply most conservatives aren't sympathetic to those in tough economic conditions.. I just meant to say that I may lean more left in that regard than most.

 

[leftyjace]

If you just change the tax laws to a flat 10% or so, this doesn't make the 50% of people who pay NO income tax just automatically start paying their share. That's your bigger problem.

Not sure what angle you're coming from. Could you elaborate a little?

 

[One Brow]

so if you really want to be objective, come down from the ivy-covered tower and go out on the street for a day.

You mean, grow up in a poor neighborhood? I did. You mean, work for wages that put someone at/near the poverty threshold? I have. You mean, work for a company focused on serving the poor, with programs in particular for those living on the street? I do. No ivory here. We are generally successful at removing the mold and cockroaches.

People willing to pay a lot for what they want with their own money. Whether it's worth it or not.

I don't see the connection between this, and my statement that poorest people spend a much larger percentage of their income on things they need, as opposed to things they want.

..., you have bought into a philosophy that your ideas of value are superior to those of other people, and you are claiming that your judgment is better than others, and concluding that you have the moral authority to take their money and do what you want with it.

Of course I think my values are the best ones. If I thought your values were better than mine, I would adopt your values. Do you hold to values you think are inferior?

As for moral authority, I consider the alternative to be moral bankruptcy. It's easy to forget, or not realize, just how much luck and circumstance play into our success, through no merit of our own. Further, it's easy to think of ourselves as isolated, a separate entity and ignore the various influences we have on others and others have on us. However, humanity is a highly interconnected species in reality. We earn our money as participants in a society, and it would not be possible to do so otherwise. Saying the society that made the money possible has a claim on it as well is just, not criminal.

In the real world, a copper penny is only a copper penny, a piece of printed fiat currency is only that, and a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee. What's it's worth to anyone is their business, not yours. Or the government's.

Agreed. That doesn't change the fact that we can measure impact of not having a penny, a dollar, or a cup of coffee on a person.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Not sure what angle you're coming from. Could you elaborate a little?

Pretty sure he said cheaters will still cheat.

While failing to recognize the cheaters aren't cheating. Theyre taking advantage of tax law designed to promote growth across all income sectors. The laws are antiquated and ill-conceived, but they're still the law. It would be an amazing financial disaster (and decades ago) if the government failed to reward entreprenuers for taking risks.

Everyone I know, only exploits the opportunites given.. and will continue to play by the rules regardless.. creative yes... but not going to evade and risk everything.

 

[One Brow]

I'd like to address poverty at the community, rather than national, level.

I am not a typical right-winger.. I care about those that are suffering. I also have a great disdain for the idea that we should all be equal. I believe in equal opportunity.. but not equalling out the results of individual efforts.

Funny, that sounds like what the typical right-wingers say.

If I have access to new books, one for each student, and you have to share a decade-old book with two other people, are our opportunities equal? If I had protein and fruit for breakfast, and all you could afford was bread (yes, the former breakfast does improve cognitive functioning), are our opportunities equal?

No one in the main-steam US political system supports "equalling out the results of individual efforts", but many say there is more to equal opportunities than just saying you can apply for any particular job.