www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:The problem is that fundamental attitude - that taxes should be based on what "the other guy" is paying. Fairness shouldn't be the issue. If I make $50 mil in a year and I'm charged $20 mil in taxes, then sure - that 40% is a lot higher than what I'd pay if I make $30,000. But I'd still have $30 mil left in that year's income. What people should be thinking about is what they can give for national programs and still be as comfortable - NOT how much they can keep from the government.

Conversely, that guy who makes $30,000 (while trying to support dependents on that, BTW) could only be charged $1,000 in taxes - but that $1,000 is a lot more precious to him than the $20 mil to the guy who makes $50 mil.

Precisely.

But the problem I see on here is the same we see in the new, tired lines where one person begs to take from someone and another person begs to keep what they have. Neither sides does anything to fix the current problem but rather it just pushes the problem along. Which means that we end up right back where we started every single time.

Deepcrush wrote:But the problem I see on here is the same we see in the new, tired lines where one person begs to take from someone and another person begs to keep what they have. Neither sides does anything to fix the current problem but rather it just pushes the problem along. Which means that we end up right back where we started every single time.

Yeah pretty much that right there.

Exactly my point. It's a new version of the old "new prison" problem, in which everyone sees the need but nobody wants it "in my backyard." Of course everyone sees the need for taxes - as long as someone else is paying them. Fritz Mondale gave everyone the straight poop on taxes when he ran, and look what happened to him.

Guys who have earned millions upon millions will say that they've earned their money (or their dads did) and why should they pay more? Guys who don't have that sort of money will say that the rich guys should pay more, because they have it. The fact of the matter, though, that a flat tax just isn't flat. Like I mentioned above, 18% of yearly income is a lot more dear to a guy who makes $40,000 a year than it is to a guy who makes $5 mil a year, even though the dollar amount is a lot higher for the latter.

Sorry for the double, but I just thought of something else: the people who make huge amounts of money (and have huge amounts of money) will very likely be paying a lion's share of their taxes as capital gains, rather than income tax - which wouldn't fall under a flat tax plan or a graded income tax plan.

Okay, so you've just repeated the very thing I warned about people always repeating. What's the solution if flat tax isn't it?

Deepcrush wrote:...What's the solution if flat tax isn't it?

I dunno. Something that's fair or makes sense?

Tsukiyumi wrote:I dunno. Something that's fair or makes sense?

Which is what a flat tax is.

Deepcrush wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:I dunno. Something that's fair or makes sense?

Which is what a flat tax is.

But, as had been said, given the relative effects of a flat tax, it still isn't fair.

Sonic Glitch wrote:But, as had been said, given the relative effects of a flat tax, it still isn't fair.

A flat tax by its very meaning is fair. Its an equal tax assigned to all involved, it doesn't get anymore fair.

Deepcrush wrote:A flat tax by its very meaning is fair. Its an equal tax assigned to all involved, it doesn't get anymore fair.

"Equal" and "fair are not necessarily synonyms, and this is one of the cases where they are not, for the reasons already explained.

Those were reasons added onto the flat tax, not apart of it in its own form. There for they don't apply.

To me, nothing could be more fair or make more sense than: "those that have more can give more".

Tsukiyumi wrote:To me, nothing could be more fair or make more sense than: "those that have more can give more".

Thats the key word right there that hurts the idea of varied income taxes.

It's about the same as saying "to me, the sun rises in the east."