Flat Tax Vs Tax Brackets

[PanzerJaeger]

What is your opinion of how people should be taxed?

Let me define what I meant in the poll to avoid any confusion:

By flat tax i mean that everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings to the government, say 10%. So someone making $10,000 a year would pay $1000, and someone making $100,000 a year would pay $10,000.

By tax brackets i mean that the percentage of people's earnings they pay in taxes is decided by how much they make. For example, people who make between $10,000 and $50,000 would pay 10%, people making between $50,000 and $100,000 would pay 20%, and people making above that would pay 50% of their earnings to the authorities.

Also, if you support another form of taxation, please state that form. :bow:

[bmolsson]

No tax at all....

For government funding, fees and charges should be made for the people using the services. A membership fee for citizen ship or visit permits.

Something drastic needs to be done in the worlds increasing theft of private funds to keep a huge amount of people in civil service.

[PanzerJaeger]

I personally believe in a flat tax for everyone.

I think that the government should treat every tax payer equally. A flat tax promotes a healthy free market economy and encourages economic growth. Hong Kong is, or was, a good example of a country(sort of) that implimented this system and was very successful. I feel that a flat tax not only encourages social mobility, but subtly removes some of the animosity between the classes.

Tax brackets, however, punish successful people. The whole concept reeks of socialism and wealth redistribution.

[ichi]

Flat tax, no loopholes or exemptions

ichi :bow:

[Don Corleone]

People who talk about taxes always talk about them as your 'civic duty' and you should be happy to pay them. By implementing progressive taxes, or marginally better, flat taxes w/ floors (you pay no taxes if you earn < X) you marginalize a whole segment of society. By the standard in place, they don't pay their fair share. They know it, and the people above them sure know it, so nobody, themselves included, treat them with equal political consideration. Flat taxes are the most egalitarian form of taxation. Progressive taxes are a form of 'soft enslavement', as you're creating a plebian class.

[PanzerJaeger]

Lol Ichi, do you choose gah in every poll? ~D

[Don Corleone]

Properly phrased, the response is "Gah Ichi, Gah!" What do you think?

[Papewaio]

In Aus it is tiered tax brackets.

Example *Not exact)
$5000 0%
$5000-10000 5%
$10000-15000 10%
$15k to 25k 20%

Your first 5K you pay nothing, then the next five thousand a minimal amount.

So even if you earn a million dollars per annum your first $5k is tax free.

This is good for part time workers like school or University students. Also mums who work during the school day and are at home for the kids after school. It also takes into account that there is a minimum amount needed to survive. So those under the poverty threshold have less taxes and more government assistance.

I know that when I do overtime I essentially pay half in taxes, the remaining half gets split in two. Half for savings and the other half to spend on the family to make up for the time lost in doing overtime. I also know that after a certain amount I can earn 10% more, my taxes go up, but my savings essentially double.

[Roark]

I support a progressive tax system, as well as free healthcare and education. I guess I'm a socialist or something.

[Pindar]

I'm opposed to the way taxes penalize productivity.

I'm opposed to the way a flat tax is onerous on the poor.

I'm opposed to a loop-hole system.

I'm opposed to the IRS.

I support systems that promote savings.

I support systems that are based on choice.

I support systems that are financially self-sustaining.

I support a national Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah I like the fair tax. I think I always hear Neal Boortz speaking about it. Seems Fair to me ~;)

[King of Atlantis]

I like flat taxes, but in the US dont the rich get tax breaks? That is a system i really dont like...

[Al Khalifah]

I'm in favour of a bracket tax system, but not a very gradual one.

So for example:
£0 - £5000 = 0%
£5000 - £15000 = %10
£15000 - £40000 = %25
£40000 - £100000 = %35

I am against the bizarre system we have in the UK with so many different taxes. It seems you are taxed on what you earn; you are then taxed on what you spend (VAT, petrol tax) and you are taxed on what you save (tax on bank interest and share dividend). The only way to avoid tax it seems is to not work and not save any money in a bank. Just keep your money in a shoe. Infact, then you'd effectively be being taxed because of inflation. Why can we not just have one big flat tax rate, so I know how much money I have to spend?

Public sector workers shouldn't have to pay tax at all. Since taxes pay their salary, why make them pay tax?
Its a feedback loop I tell you.

[Proletariat]

I'm opposed to the way taxes penalize productivity.

I'm opposed to the way a flat tax is onerous on the poor.

I'm opposed to a loop-hole system.

I'm opposed to the IRS.

I support systems that promote savings.

I support systems that are based on choice.

I support systems that are financially self-sustaining.

I support a national Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/).

Precisely! Not to mention the absurd violation of privacy that comes with income tax. (But Privacy matters when it comes to the War on Terror, not when the Government is robbing you blind, I guess. :dizzy2: )

[lancelot]

I cant see any inherent equality in a flat tax and would seem to be a recipie for class conflict rather than anything else.

Although, I do agree that the system the UK has is crazy. Anyone who earns more than £40k (I think) gets 42% (I think) tax, even if he earns millions. Obviously, these amounts are a world apart-this hardly seems fair.

IMHO, a 'fair' graduated tax system, I think would go a long way to promoting accpetance of taxes (lets face it-everybody moans about it)

There is also another thing that is wrong about tax (and I freely admit-I dont have a way to remedy it) and thats is- How you earn your money..

Let me explain.

My father grew up poor with only a rudimentary education. He worked bloody hard when I was a child but his own company prospered and now he is reasonably wealthy. The point is- everything he has got/wants/business venture he wants to start, etc is financed/risked with his own personal fortune. In this day and age, most of the time that is a big risk.

Yet he will get taxed the same amount as the manager of a big safe company eg-microsoft/virgin/whoever. These are companies that will almost certainly never go bust. Barring any malpractice/mistakes, these people could be set for life, never risking a penny of their own fortune.

Is it fair that these 2 people are considered the same? When their income methods are worlds apart?

[Al Khalifah]

Its a valid point Lancelot but I can't think of a quantitative system for gauging how hard you are working to earn your money, which could be translated into income tax percentages.

[JAG]

That 'fair' tax system is nothing of the sort. It is the ultimate regressive, unfair tax system. It disproportionately takes away and penalises those at the bottom of the social ladder, why do you think that is fair? People at the bottom, just like those at the top, NEED to buy goods, yet this 'fair' tax system would take a hugely higher proportion of those at the bottoms income for the same goods. I still cannot understand how people think that is fair. Why is it some on the right only care for those at the very top of the ladder and have no regard for those hard working yet only on a small amount of cash? Amazing.

A progressive tax system is the only fair tax system, simple as that. Not only is it fair to tax more from those who earn most in a society but it is one of the only ways in which you can balance a situation of huge disproportionate wealth.

[Don Corleone]

Yeah I like the fair tax. I think I always hear Neal Boortz speaking about it. Seems Fair to me ~;)

He's talking about doing away with income taxes all together and going to a National Sales Tax ONLY.

[Franconicus]

We have both: a fixed added value tax and a bracket income tax. Trend goes to increase the added value tax to decrease the income tax.

Flat tax is good for economy and wealth growth. Brackets are more social and prevent poverty.

I once read that in age of globalization nations have to choose between overall growth + poverty for a big share of people (=American Way) or no growth + few poverty (=European way).

[Kagemusha]

I support a progressive tax system, as well as free healthcare and education. I guess I'm a socialist or something.

We have those in here.Im pretty comfortable with progressive tax system.Not that it benefits me anyway my own tax procent is nearly 40%.

[PanzerJaeger]

^40%! ~:eek:


I once read that in age of globalization nations have to choose between overall growth + poverty for a big share of people (=American Way) or no growth + few poverty (=European way).

Things are so bad here in America.. and there are poor people in Europe. ~;)


A progressive tax system is the only fair tax system, simple as that. Not only is it fair to tax more from those who earn most in a society but it is one of the only ways in which you can balance a situation of huge disproportionate wealth.

How is it fair to tax someone for being successful? Fairness is treating everyone the same, and a flat tax does just that.

I dont understand why social engineering is needed to balance people.. Theres nothing wrong with having rich people and poor people in a free market.

[Franconicus]

^40%! ~:eek:



Things are so bad here in America.. and there are poor people in Europe. ~;)



How is it fair to tax someone for being successful? Fairness is treating everyone the same, and a flat tax does just that.

I dont understand why social engineering is needed to balance people.. Theres nothing wrong with having rich people and poor people in a free market.
You ought to pay a lot in Germany too, but there are many (legal) ways to get around.

Averadge income in the US is higher than in Germany. There are more poor people in the US. Don't you agree?

Very fair. The strong ones have to carry more than the weak ones. Why should a millionaire not pay more for example for national defence than a women with 6 kids?

[Somebody Else]

Tax brackets, however, punish successful people. The whole concept reeks of socialism and wealth redistribution.

What he said - having increased tax percentages as income increases is only a disincentive to earn more.

I would think though, that a slight level could be used, in that there would be no taxation below a certain subsistence level. Whatever the average required income for the country is. And if people complain that the area they live in is more expensive... they can move. That's what the North is for.

Of course, once people get to an uber-rich stage, well - one would hope that they could be encouraged to spend some of their money on improving the lives of the many, though making this compulsory would be wrong. If they don't choose to; that's their prerogative. They earned the money, it's theirs to spend; As they wish, not the way some bleating socialist bully decides.

[Kagemusha]

^40%! ~:eek:
Does that scare you? ~;) I understand paying high taxes,because as an citizen of our Nation im obligated to help those who ar less fortunate ones.Have you heard this saying?"The measurement of an society is how it treates its less fortuned ones".You shouldnt confuse this with Socialism,because its not that.After taxes i still get lot moore money then someone who has lets say 20% income taxes.I dont think taxes are about fairness.I think taxes are the way to fund your Government. :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

Very fair. The strong ones have to carry more than the weak ones. Why should a millionaire not pay more for example for national defence than a women with 6 kids?

Thats not fairness, thats socialism. With a flat tax, that woman would pay the same percentage as the millionaire, thats fair.

Tax brackets encourage class entrenchment, not to mention economic stagnation. Why bother being successful if the government takes it all away?

Social engineering via taxation hurts the economy, and doesnt make anyone equal. It encourages people to remain in their social class.


I understand paying high taxes,because as an citizen of our Nation im obligated to help those who ar less fortunate ones.

Why? Are you obligated to help those who wont help themselves? Doesnt that encourage people to feel superior/inferior to other people? In Hong Kong, the flat tax actually brought in more government funds by the way.



I dont think taxes are about fairness.I think taxes are the way to fund your Government.

But the government can be funded in a fair way that promotes growth and an entrepreneurial spirit.

[Kagemusha]

Why? Are you obligated to help those who wont help themselves? Doesnt that encourage people to feel superior/inferior to other people?
I think it makes people feel united.In order to have well payd jobs we have to have also low paid jobs.All the jobs arent very productive but still important. :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

He's talking about doing away with income taxes all together and going to a National Sales Tax ONLY.

No hes for the fair tax.


Imagine receiving 100% of your paycheck!
Neal Boortz (archive)

August 27, 2004 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

Two weeks ago a man stood up at a George Bush campaign appearance in Florida to ask about a piece of legislation known as HR25. Many, including myself, were pleased to hear Bush respond with some positive thoughts about the Fair Tax plan, a movement to replace the federal income tax with a national retail sales tax.

Washington is a city of inertia, and right now the inertia belongs to our present method of funding the operations of our government, the income tax. Politicians will not easily surrender a funding mechanism that lends itself so well to political demagoguery and which can be used to reward political allies and punish enemies.

The Fair Tax plan deserves a thorough public examination and debate. John Kerry seems dedicated to making sure this doesn’t happen. Soon after Bush cited the national retail sales tax as something worthy of further exploration, Kerry stepped forward with the typical class warfare rhetoric of the left. Acting as if he actually knew what was he was talking about (he didn’t), Kerry announced that the Fair Tax would amount to the largest increase in the tax burden on poor and middle income Americans in our history.

John Kerry was wrong. He was either speaking out of ignorance, or he was deliberately lying about the Fair Tax proposal in order to gain a political advantage. A politician lying in order to gain political advantage --- imagine that.

This column is lengthier than the norm, but I promise you that if you will invest the time it takes to read it you will be well on your way to becoming yet another rabid supporter of the Fair Tax plan. You will know that the poor and middle income Americans would be the prime beneficiaries of the proposal. You may even organize your own neighborhood march on Washington to demand that HR25 receive a fair hearing. In the next two minutes I’m going to turn you into a HR25 Fair Tax zealot. Read on:

First … the briefest of overviews: Simply put, HR25 would provide for the repeal of the 16th Amendment (the income tax amendment) and the dismantling of the IRS. All personal and corporate income taxes would end, as would all payroll taxes. There would not be one cent of federal taxes of any nature taken out of your paychecks. No more Social Security taxes. No more Medicare taxes. You earn $2,000 a payday; you get $2,000 a payday. The federal government would be funded through a national sales tax on goods and services sold at the retail level. No taxes on investments. No taxes on savings. You only get taxed on what you spend at the retail level. Store your earnings in a shoebox if you wish. They won’t be taxed.

When originally proposed, calculations showed that the sales tax would have to be in the area of 23%. A complete economic study is now being completed that is expected to bring that total to under 20%. For the purposes of this column, we’ll stick with the 23% figure.

OK … let’s put on our sensitivity hats for a few minutes here and think of the consequences of the Fair Tax Act on our nation’s poor, poor, pitiful poor. After all, they can hardly afford a 23% sales tax when they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck in the first place, right?

Bear in mind that for the most part those whom we define as “poor” aren’t paying any income tax anyway. In fact, many of them are getting checks from the government; a form of outright income redistribution. The absurdly named Earned Income Tax Credit, for example. How can these people survive going from a no-tax situation to paying a 24% sales tax on all their retail purchases?

The implementation of the Fair Tax would fail in short order if, as the question presupposes, nothing were to change except that all of us would be paying today’s prices for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, plus a 23% sales tax. But … that’s would be far from the reality under the Fair Tax. Under the Fair Tax the poor won’t only survive, they’ll positively thrive! The Fair Tax could turn out to be the best poverty-fighting tool devised in this country since the concept of hard work.

Let’s begin by considering two realities.

First, remember, please, that the poor, along with everybody else, will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For the poor this means an immediate 12 to 15% increase in their earnings.

Second. Don’t forget the 22% in imbedded taxes. These embedded taxes exist in virtually everything poor Americans or any other Americans have to buy. These embedded taxes represent all of the corporate and business income taxes and payroll taxes that the companies involved in the production, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of the goods and services must pay in the course of business. As soon as these taxes are gone, and after the competitive forces of the free market work their magic consumers, including the poor, will be paying at least 20% less for virtually everything they buy. This includes such basics as food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Yes... they’ll have to pay the new national sales tax, but when you factor in the lower prices caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes you’ll see that the total price paid for consumer goods in terms of real dollars will fall or will remain very nearly the same.

So … just considering these factors, the Fair Tax delivers a winning hand to people living in or near to what we call poverty. They get every penny they earn on payday, amounting to a 12 to 15% pay raise, and when you factor in the Fair Tax and the lower prices, they’re actually end up spending less of their money for a retail purchase than before. What John Kerry calls the greatest increase in the tax burden on the poor in the history of our country is, in reality, their greatest tax reduction.

You need a clearer picture? Pull out your calculator. Let’s say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax at 23% would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That’s less than would have paid under today’s tax system. This single mother, whom we’ll consider “poor,” has just received a 12% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she’s paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.

So far, so good. At this point you should be thoroughly convinced that the Fair Tax would actually benefit, rather than harm the poor. But, then again, maybe not. Here’s the convincer. Brace yourself for the knockout punch.

The Rebate

Under the Fair Tax plan every consumer, rich and poor alike, will receive a check or an electronic credit to their bank account from the federal government every single month equal to the sales tax that person or that family would be expected to pay on the purchase of the basic necessities of life for that month. The size of the monthly payment will be based on the government’s published poverty levels for various sized households.

Here’s an example of how the rebate payments would have worked in 2003.

Let’s say you’re a married couple with two children. The Fair Tax Act sets forth a formula for computing the poverty level, based on government figures, which negates any marriage penalty. If the Fair Tax Act had been law in 2003 you would have been granted an annual consumption allowance of $24,240. This is what the government would assume you would have had to spend during that one year to buy the basic necessities of life for your family. The sales tax on this amount would equal $5,575. The government would have rebated this amount to you in 12 equal monthly installments of $465. What about a single woman with one child? Her monthly rebate in 2003 would have been $232. The lowest payment would be to a single person with no dependents. That person would have received $172 per month.

Now … bear in mind, this rebate isn’t only paid to the poor. It is paid to everyone, rich and poor alike. The purpose here is to make sure that no American has to pay the Fair Tax sales tax on the basic necessities of life. Unlike the present income tax system, the Fair Tax treats each and every person in this country exactly the same. This, of course, presents somewhat of a problem to politicians who like to use the tax code to foment class distrust or outright warfare.

OK … let’s add it up for America’s lower income citizens:

1. They get their entire paycheck.
2. Even with the sales tax, and considering the drop in prices, they’ll be paying essentially the same or less for everything they buy.
3. They get a check from the federal government every month to rebate any sales taxes they had to pay on life’s basic necessities.

Are you beginning to see just how far off-base John Kerry was with his intemperate criticisms?

Though most of the poor don’t have what we would call complex tax returns, let’s also include the time these they (all of us, really) will save by not having to keep tax records or file tax returns.

If you’re looking for some reason to oppose the Fair Tax plan, you’re going to have to find a better excuse than its effect on the poor. John Kerry might find it politically expedient to demagogue the issue for votes, but now you know enough to know what he’s up to.

For more comprehensive information on The Fair Tax you can visit http://www.fairtax.org.

[doc_bean]

^40%! ~:eek:


IIRC we go up to 55% here :help:

[Kagemusha]

IIRC we go up to 55% here :help:
Our highest is 58% :bow:

[BDC]

Rich should pay more tax.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hehe, my dad has told me about the horror of european taxes, but I didnt think they went over 50%. ~:eek:

How can you allow your government to take over half of what you earn? Where does all that money go? You dont spend much on the military.. is it all social programs?

Of course if it works for you, more power to it. :bow:

[Pindar]

That 'fair' tax system is nothing of the sort. It is the ultimate regressive, unfair tax system. It disproportionately takes away and penalises those at the bottom of the social ladder, why do you think that is fair? People at the bottom, just like those at the top, NEED to buy goods, yet this 'fair' tax system would take a hugely higher proportion of those at the bottoms income for the same goods. I still cannot understand how people think that is fair. Why is it some on the right only care for those at the very top of the ladder and have no regard for those hard working yet only on a small amount of cash? Amazing.

A progressive tax system is the only fair tax system, simple as that. Not only is it fair to tax more from those who earn most in a society but it is one of the only ways in which you can balance a situation of huge disproportionate wealth.

The Fair Tax model doesn't apply to those at the bottom of the income latter. Under the general system being proposed the first $45,000 or so is no-taxable. Thus those least able to pay tax, do not.

Given some 20 to 30% of product price in the U.S. is to cover various tax: the removal of all other tax models would mean the drop of prices across the board which also helps the economically downtrodden.

Pay would also increase to actual earnings. The percentage that the Government takes out of peoples' pay checks would end.

Further the model incourages savings.

[Kagemusha]

Panzer.I think that the difference is that we pay high taxes but you guys in US pay heavy insurance payments.What your poorest people cant afford. :bow:

[Ser Clegane]

Under the general system being proposed the first $45,000 or so is no-taxable.

How would you implement this? ~:confused:

Would you have to keep all your bills? (BTW, 45k seems rather high - I'm not even sure if I spend that much a year)

[Goofball]

Modified flat tax.

Flat rate for everybody except for, say, the lowest 10% of income earners, who pay no tax.

Also, no tax breaks or credits of any kind, with the exception of charitable (not political) donations.

That would prevent the wealthy from using complicated (but legal) loopholes to avoid taxes.

[Pindar]

How would you implement this? ~:confused:

Would you have to keep all your bills? (BTW, 45k seems rather high - I'm not even sure if I spend that much a year)


There would be a government rebate. This is one explanation:

"How does the rebate work? All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly rebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The rebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. "

I think the 45K was too high. I don't recall the actual number.

[Skomatth]

How would the fair tax deal with state taxes?

[PanzerJaeger]

Between 1994 and 1998, DeKalb County averaged an annual unemployment rate of 4.6%, compared with the state's average of 4.7%. City level unemployment data is not available for cities with populations of less than 10,000 persons, according to the 1990 Census.

Im not sure.. i dont think my taxes plus my insurance payments would add up to 40-50% of my earnings.

In any event, i like the system over here. People are encouraged not to be lazy and rely on the government for everything. If you cant pay for insurance, get out there and make some money - Uncle Sam doesnt reward idleness. ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How would you implement this?

Would you have to keep all your bills? (BTW, 45k seems rather high - I'm not even sure if I spend that much a year)



There would be a government rebate. This is one explanation:

I suggest you all go back and read post #27. It pretty much expalins everything. You could also visit Neal Boortzs site.

[Ice]

Rich should pay more tax.

Why? I believe in a flat tax bracket everyone pays the same %. You should be able to keep the majority of what you earn, for after all, you did work hard for it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by BDC
Rich should pay more tax.


Why? I believe in a flat tax bracket everyone pays the same %. You should be able to keep the majority of what you earn, for after all, you did work hard for it.

Believe me with either the flat tax or fair tax the rich will pay far more. First off la far smaler portion of their income goes towards the basic nessicities. Secondly they consume much more at leat money wise. You buy a 20000 dollar car they buy a 200000 dollar car. Whos going to pay more tax?

[Papewaio]

Howabout a flat tax on everything bar:
School.
Healthy Food (unproccessd food is an easier definition).

[Roark]

I suspect that people who object to the "strong supporting the weak" would feel very differently if they were toothless, childless and living in a nursing home.

This is what society and community are all about. We've advanced beyond the point of needing to leave our old and/or sick on ice floes and pushing them off to sea because they are not productive.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I suspect that people who object to the "strong supporting the weak" would feel very differently if they were toothless, childless and living in a nursing home.

This is what society and community are all about. We've advanced beyond the point of needing to leave our old and/or sick on ice floes and pushing them off to sea because they are not productive.

What has that to do with fair taxation? Do taxes make you fertile?

[Papewaio]

Ivf

[Roark]

What has that to do with fair taxation? Do taxes make you fertile?

Welfare is generally funded by tax revenue. The childless elderly are more likely to need welfare.

[PanzerJaeger]

There would be plenty of money for welfare with a flat tax or a fair tax, especially if we make a concerted effort to cut out all the lazy leaches.

[Papewaio]

You do understand that in a capitalist economy that it needs a buffer of unemployed people so that there isn't a labour shortage which in turn drives up costs.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Welfare is generally funded by tax revenue. The childless elderly are more likely to need welfare.

Nowdays it is. Its better when its in the hands of private charities. When people are taxed less they can afford to be far more generous.

[Roark]

Nowdays it is. Its better when its in the hands of private charities. When people are taxed less they can afford to be far more generous.

I disagree with part of what you've said. If all welfare was administered by private charities, I believe we'd see many more starving people on the streets.

The basic needs of the population are (at least partly) the responsiblity of the government. If not, what are they there for?

I like the concept of privately-funded tax-free welfare. I just don't trust society to be generous enough to self-administer it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I disagree with part of what you've said. If all welfare was administered by private charities, I believe we'd see many more starving people on the streets.

Ive got news for you. Back in the fiftees before we had welfare there were not homeless people roaming the streets of NYC. Communities and neighborhoods took care of their own. Its far more personal and all the money goes to those who need it.


The basic needs of the population are (at least partly) the responsiblity of the government. If not, what are they there for?

The general welfare of the people is all their there for not as a welfare state. Find me in the constitution where it says you can take my money to feed the hungry?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Implementing something like a flat tax will be impossible until there is legitimate budget reform - ie a whole heck of a lot less spending. Because if Congress can still dole out pork money for Sea Worlds in Kansas, then they'll still need to suck the blood from our bank accounts in large amounts - either in a flat manner or progressive manner.

Let's just kill the politicians and start over. :charge:

[bmolsson]

What has that to do with fair taxation? Do taxes make you fertile?

It at least makes you more interested in having children to get the deductions...... ~;)

[Roark]

Ive got news for you. Back in the fiftees before we had welfare there were not homeless people roaming the streets of NYC. Communities and neighborhoods took care of their own. Its far more personal and all the money goes to those who need it.

The general welfare of the people is all their there for not as a welfare state. Find me in the constitution where it says you can take my money to feed the hungry?

A lot has changed since the fifties, mate... A sense of community, for one thing.

I don't live in your country, so I can't comment on your constitution. A do find it interesting to read the views of Americans on taxes, though. They differ a great deal from ours. You guys sometimes seem almost militant that it is your duty as a human being to pay as little tax as possible. I'm not having a go at you or anything... It's just very different.

[Pindar]

How would the fair tax deal with state taxes?

States are responsible for their own tax law. Some states already have replaced their old tax law for a state sales tax.

In order for the fair tax to be implemented the 16th Amendment would have to be repealed. This may effect state positions of any income tax as well.

[Pindar]

.

I don't live in your country, so I can't comment on your constitution. A do find it interesting to read the views of Americans on taxes, though. They differ a great deal from ours. You guys sometimes seem almost militant that it is your duty as a human being to pay as little tax as possible. I'm not having a go at you or anything... It's just very different.

This is because the nanny state is considered a repugnancy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Implementing something like a flat tax will be impossible until there is legitimate budget reform - ie a whole heck of a lot less spending. Because if Congress can still dole out pork money for Sea Worlds in Kansas, then they'll still need to suck the blood from our bank accounts in large amounts - either in a flat manner or progressive manner.

No it wont as they want to pass an amendment as part of this that the government can only take a certain percentage of the GNP or somethimng along those lines. They are forced to not spend any more than they take in.

[Papewaio]

This is because the nanny state is considered a repugnancy.

Not a nanny state, a community.

Military, Hospitals and schools are all very good uses of taxes. As are fresh drinking water, roads and public transport. I would add a space program to the list but we don't have one that is that print worthy.

My economics teachers where an army reservist and a (retired) SAS Sgt. Major. My scout leaders where a farmer/reservist and a science teacher. Two class mates at uni were ex-SAS trooper. They were all for paying taxes and having that money being accountable not lined for a pollies pockets. Some of them were very firm in seeing paying taxes as being the right thing to do (patriotic) and the avoiders as parasites.

[Pindar]

Not a nanny state, a community.

Military, Hospitals and schools are all very good uses of taxes. As are fresh drinking water, roads and public transport. I would add a space program to the list but we don't have one that is that print worthy.


Do you understand what 'nanny state' refers to?

[Roark]

This is because the nanny state is considered a repugnancy.

Yeah, I can see how cheap education and medicine would be repugnant..

:dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A lot has changed since the fifties, mate... A sense of community, for one thing.

Yes we used to have one and now its gone.


Not a nanny state, a community.

Maybe in a nation such as yours with a small population but not here. Again the government and big bussiness have taken our communities away. Listen to my city was gone by the Pretenders. Its been going on for quite sometime. We no longer count on the local community but big government to help those in need and that the problem.


Military,

Thats in the constituion and should be paid for by the government. It can do so through tarrifs and the like. I would also still alow sin taxes. That along with legalising pot would generate more than enough money for the government to fufill its commitments under the constitution.


Hospitals and schools are all very good uses of taxes.

Are better off when handled by private companies.


. As are fresh drinking water, roads and public transport.

Again all these things are local problems not federal ones.

If we were taxed fairly people would feel as you do. But most of us think the government is ripping us off. All evidence points in this direction. Iys not their money and they dont have to work for it. If they run out they just ask you for more.

[Roark]

Hospitals and schools run by organisations whose no. 1 objective is monetary gain?

I'm all for enterprise and efficiency, but these are sacred cows in Australia.

[lars573]

I believe in tax brackets. Make those rich bastards pay for the privelidge of being rich.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Make those rich bastards pay for the privelidge of being rich.

Yeah the bums. What gives them the right to be rich and us not. :veryangry2:

[Papewaio]

Do you understand what 'nanny state' refers to?

I do. I also understand when people are selfish they try and justify what they do. I do not see a 'nanny state' as a selfish option or a one devoid of individual drive, ambition and choice. I see the term 'nanny state' as an excuse by some not to pay taxes and by others not to help others ("Our government helps the poor so why should I help them").

I believe that the best communities will have a synergy in which the people help the community and the community helps the people. All together helping each other to do what they want. Using a capitalistic economy for wants and needs while providing a community safety net for other needs.

----

I am not someone who believes that a corporation that is out to satisfy its shareholders is going to do a better job then a government out to satisfy its citizens when it comes to things like schools, hospitals and other basic infrastructure.

A purely private, profit driven market for basic utilities can lead to some really poor results. California's energy market for instance. Or in Australia the way some privatised energy providers have cut corners in maintenance resulting in the deaths of staff and gas outages in the state concerned.

With private schools I have met repeatedly some very poor students. Why? Because the schools would give them glowing report cards so that their parents would keep sending them their kids. When it came to the final year and tertiary entrance exams those kids were turned away from the school so as not to bring down the school average. The highest performing students on average came from a public (government) school.

In the end of the day I like having the option for both. I also like knowing that if the company that I work for goes under, my family and others in the same situation will still be feed and can learn.

----

Those who labour under the illusion that a company will look out for a communities welfare must never encounter outsourcing, redundancies or 'right-sizing'.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hospitals and schools run by organisations whose no. 1 objective is monetary gain?

I'm all for enterprise and efficiency, but these are sacred cows in Australia.

Private schools are generally much better than public schools, as are private hospitals.

When your income is based on performance, not a guaranteed government check, you tend to get your act together and do the best job you can. Add competition to this mix and you get even better results.

On the other hand, if a school or hospital knows it will always be funded by the government, there really isnt much incentive to do a good job, except by those who simply love to do the job.

Im not saying public institutions in Australia or America are bad, but privatization would only help improve quality and performance.

[Roark]

I've noticed that your statements tend to be a little "blanketish", PJ...

Private schools are largely dependent upon the wealth of their student community. Yeah, they are often very good schools, but there are many examples of very poor quality private schools (especially, in Australia, amongst Catholic communities). No money means no services.

We always have a State-run alternative which can rely on a certain amount of money from the Government.

Institutions administered by the government are often subject to dictates which lift their standards, often in contradiction to the stereotype of government institutions being ultra-inefficient.

As for hospitals, well... our system doesn't get enough money from the government as it is... but I would hate to be bleeding in a privately-administered hospital's waiting room, only to be quizzed about my financial/insurance situation...

Priorities often get obscured when money is involved, with ugly results...

[Franconicus]

Private schools are generally much better than public schools, as are private hospitals.

When your income is based on performance, not a guaranteed government check, you tend to get your act together and do the best job you can. Add competition to this mix and you get even better results.

[QUOTE=PanzerJager]Private schools are generally much better than public schools, as are private hospitals.
The question about the school system is a very interesting one. There are different concepts, two of them coming from liberal revolutions :book: :

The persuit of happiness is one of the basic principles after the Independance War. For schools it means that every family can try to get the best education for the children they want and they can effort. This leads to competition between schools and creates as concequence private schools. One drwaback is that pupil from poor families or families that do not care about the education do not have equal oportunities.

The French developed the other concepts after their revolution. Public offices sould be open to everyone regardless their heritage. Only the best should be chosen. To select the best there should be the same education and the same tests for everyone. Money should not matter, only studiouness and giftedness.

I prefer the second concept. It gives the pupils equal conditions (as far as this is possible) and raises so the competition amoung them. The drawback is that these system are funded by the government and commonly do not have enough money to create an ideal environment. :whip:

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Im not sure.. i dont think my taxes plus my insurance payments would add up to 40-50% of my earnings.

In any event, i like the system over here. People are encouraged not to be lazy and rely on the government for everything. If you cant pay for insurance, get out there and make some money - Uncle Sam doesnt reward idleness. ~;)

That's pretty much the case everywhere... Even with 50%+ tax rate, people are looking for more!

I am a bit surprised by you saying you like it in the US... If the current system encourage people to work hard and not rely on governement, then why do you need a flat tax for? You already got what you want ~D

As far as payment for insurance... I've been living in the States, pais my taxes there for 3 years. The 50% in Europe pays for health, retirement, unemployment insurance, EDUCATION (and that alone can get you in deep loan in the US), all regalian public services. I guess you don't have kids yet PJ... or maybe you would feel some of that additional pain that would get you in that 40-50% range.
US insurance always looked like a private run monopoly: you can make a case that public run services are bad, but nothing can beat a monopoly for inefficiency.
Yes, I know, competition is supposed to keep insurances company in line. I have not seen it happened though. It's so much easier for them to raise price all together at the same time... :dizzy2:

That being said, US tax badly needs a reform. As a tax payer in France, I need 10 minutes to fill my tax report, almost fully filled in: longest part is finding a stamp. Or I can do it on the Internet. 10 minutes. On my own.

My US tax report was a big fat book, I need to hire a consultant to fill it in, and it's ful of silly questions that are none of the State (local or federal) business (like; days out of state... ~:eek: ).
You definitly need to streamline this. A big fat books like that feels of loophole bonanaza. Lot of accountant will be unemployed soon, but I feel like it's a an illegitimate business anyway.
Make it simpler. Both flat and gradual tax rate can do that. Then it's a matter of solidarity and distribution.

And as far as rewarding entrepreneurial spirit, I've always been surprised by the tax on dividend in the US. Even French socialist are not thinking about this ~D ! Unfair and inefficient! (a case of double taxation)

Louis,

[GodsPetMonkey]

Im not saying public institutions in Australia or America are bad, but privatization would only help improve quality and performance.

Yet public institutions are answerable to the ultimate shareholder and customer... the voter. Every one in this country is a shareholder in the Commonwealth of Australia, and everyone is a user of its goods and services.
One of the benefits of the compulsory vote (apart from it being a better way to spend time then watching weekend TV) is people tend to take a lot more notice of just where their tax money ends up. We seem to alternate between governments more pro-public spending, and against it. Indeed, it seems that those who grew up under a tight spending government vote for a greater spending one, and vice versa.

The end result?
Well, in Australia, both public schools and hospitals receive huge amounts of money from the government, so I guess they don't trust private enterprise enough to deliver the goods. Even after a major push by the federal government a few years back to get people on private health insurance (and thus lessen the burden on public health), the number of people with insurance is now dropping at quite a steady rate, as they find its cheaper, and for less serious or non-elective procedures, just as quick to use the public system. For schools, the number of students in the private system is slowly, but steadily rising, however, so is the number in the public system. I guess it has more to do with population growth then anything else (and many of the top performing schools in NSW, including the #1, at the yr12 certificate, are public schools, much to the chagrin of the elite private schools).

So you can have a low tax/user pays system if you want, but remember, no system is perfect, and as with many things, the grass is always greener on the other side. IMHO, you will just replace the current problems with new, just as serious ones.

[PanzerJaeger]

Louis,

I completely agree with you that the insurance situation in the US is out of hand, to say the least. Its true that I dont have dependents, and if I did I would probably feel the pressure of increased insurance payments much more.

However, I dont think government funded service - ie, replacing insurance paid medical bills with government healthcare - is the answer. I think we simply need to fix the current insurance situation. There are ways to streamline and correct a private industry that gets out of hand without putting it in government hands.. in my opinion.

[PanzerJaeger]

I prefer the second concept. It gives the pupils equal conditions (as far as this is possible) and raises so the competition amoung them. The drawback is that these system are funded by the government and commonly do not have enough money to create an ideal environment.

I believe public education is a right, but I also believe that if people get together and decide they can do a better job than the government - and are willing to put up the money - private schools are perfectly justifiable and many times produce much better results.

I know the concept of a family's wealth putting their children ahead of other children doesnt sit well with many people, but I think the concept of people having alternative education is more important.

[PanzerJaeger]

So you can have a low tax/user pays system if you want, but remember, no system is perfect, and as with many things, the grass is always greener on the other side. IMHO, you will just replace the current problems with new, just as serious ones.

I think the issue here is that public institutions in Australia are just better than those in America, and thats why there is such a disconnect between our views and confidence in such institutions.

From the sound of it though, i would also venture to say that our private schools are a bit better than your private schools. (Mine would NEVER give me good grades to keep my parents paying as Pap described. I struggled to stay in as they asked C students to leave if they didnt improve. :dizzy2: )

Now whether its better to pay more taxes and have better public institutions or pay less taxes and rely more on private institutions is really just opinion. Americans, from their inception, havent been big on socialized government - although the 20th century changed a lot of that - whereas other european and european descendent countries have been more accepting of it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

All this has little to do with the topic. Were not saying strip the government of tax revenues just make it simpler and more fair.

[bmolsson]

No it wont as they want to pass an amendment as part of this that the government can only take a certain percentage of the GNP or somethimng along those lines. They are forced to not spend any more than they take in.

But, but... What about the invasion of Iran ??? ~;)

[GodsPetMonkey]

I think the issue here is that public institutions in Australia are just better than those in America, and thats why there is such a disconnect between our views and confidence in such institutions.

I have not had the pleasure of going to an American hospital... or any other of your public institutions... then again I avoid ours as well.



From the sound of it though, i would also venture to say that our private schools are a bit better than your private schools. (Mine would NEVER give me good grades to keep my parents paying as Pap described. I struggled to stay in as they asked C students to leave if they didnt improve. :dizzy2: )

I think they have different places in our societies. Private schools are rarely seen as an alternative form of schooling, our schools system is built very heavily on choice, and lots of it, and ultimately all schools have to provide the same education (ie. subjects and their content) as set by the state government.
So really, our private schools are seen more as the elite's alternative (hobnobbing if you will), even though most people can afford them these days, rather then the school to go to if you want a more 'christian/muslim/jewish/etc' styled education, which they can't really provide bar religious facilities on the school grounds.



Now whether its better to pay more taxes and have better public institutions or pay less taxes and rely more on private institutions is really just opinion. Americans, from their inception, havent been big on socialized government - although the 20th century changed a lot of that - whereas other european and european descendent countries have been more accepting of it.

Australia country with a low population, but huge landmass, and it's very hard for 'for profit' organisations to be able to provide adequate services outside of the major cities, hell, I grew up in rural Australia and I can say it was hard for government services to be considered equitable... and I'm talking about health, education, transport and other essential services (meat and potatoes for a government really). Currently there is an issue over the full privatisation of our telecommunications infrastructure, and the now half government owned nation provider. I am under no illusions as to what will happen to rural services once it's totally sold off, it simply is not profitable to run them, but to the average Sydney resident, it is of little consequence.
I guess your opinion on the matter depends a lot on how much you have needed the services so far in your life. Someone who is or largely has been better off under a public institution will prefer that, and vice versa.

[Pindar]

I do. I also understand when people are selfish they try and justify what they do. I do not see a 'nanny state' as a selfish option or a one devoid of individual drive, ambition and choice. I see the term 'nanny state' as an excuse by some not to pay taxes and by others not to help others ("Our government helps the poor so why should I help them").


Nanny state refers to government assumption of areas traditionally and properly left to the private sphere. Advocates for a nanny state, in all its socialist manifestations, typically confuse state bureaucracy for a moral agent. It is not. The unfortunate result is a withering of personal responsibility and an increase in dependency.

Repugnancy has a moral nuance and its focus is the societal weakness engendered by the above.

[Red Harvest]

Repugnancy has a moral nuance and its focus in the societal weakness engendered by the above.


:dizzy2:

That sentence appears to have been randomly generated.

[Pindar]

:dizzy2:

That sentence appears to have been randomly generated.

It refers to this:



Originally Posted by Roark
.

I don't live in your country, so I can't comment on your constitution. A do find it interesting to read the views of Americans on taxes, though. They differ a great deal from ours. You guys sometimes seem almost militant that it is your duty as a human being to pay as little tax as possible. I'm not having a go at you or anything... It's just very different.


Me:This is because the nanny state is considered a repugnancy.

[Red Harvest]

Roark,

Don't confuse the extreme Right wing and Libertarians member's views on taxes with US views as a whole. There is always resentment of taxes of course (after all it featured in our Revolution), but you will get a very, very lopsided view here.

[Papewaio]

Nanny state refers to government assumption of areas traditionally and properly left to the private sphere. Advocates for a nanny state, in all its socialist manifestations, typically confuse state bureaucracy for a moral agent. It is not. The unfortunate result is a withering of personal responsibility and an increase in dependency.

Repugnancy has a moral nuance and its focus is the societal weakness engendered by the above.

I think people are playing the nanny state card far to early. In the governments current manifestation in Australia or the USA it is hardly one.

A true nanny state would be 90% flat tax with a 10% tithe to the state determined religion that the state decided was best for your spiritual health.

Nor do I believe throwing money at problems resolves situations. I think welfare should not be a lifestyle choice. Welfare should be to income what going to hospital is to health. People should not use hospitals as a form of shelter to avoid rent or mortgage, and in the same manner welfare should not be a persons income unless they are too sick to work or are getting back on their feet.

However I do believe that as long as a government is accountable it is quite able of providing services to a public with the same ability that a corporation can provide profit to its shareholders.

[Pindar]

I think people are playing the nanny state card far to early. In the governments current manifestation in Australia or the USA it is hardly one.

A true nanny state would be 90% flat tax with a 10% tithe to the state determined religion that the state decided was best for your spiritual health.

I understand you view, but disagree. I believe the U.S. fell under the nanny state umbrella from FDR in the 1930's forward. Many of these programs have become so instilled in the nation's psyche they are now nigh impossible to excise without major shock to the body politic and thus only piece meal corrections are possible. You can note how many of my own countrymen have become fully infected. The rhetoric typically revolves around the previously cited confusion regarding bureaucracies as moral agents.


However I do believe that as long as a government is accountable it is quite able of providing services to a public with the same ability that a corporation can provide profit to its shareholders.

Accountability is the rub.

[bmolsson]

The rhetoric typically revolves around the previously cited confusion regarding bureaucracies as moral agents.


A church is needed...... ~;)

[GonZ]

By flat tax i mean that everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings to the government, say 10%. So someone making $10,000 a year would pay $1000, and someone making $100,000 a year would pay $10,000.

This one seems really clean cut to me.

A flat tax is fair. The rich pay more than the poor, but the level is fixed and even.

Banding systems would appear to punish the successful for being successful.

Biggest problem with tax imo is what our governments waste it on!

[Meneldil]

This one seems really clean cut to me.

A flat tax is fair. The rich pay more than the poor, but the level is fixed and even.

Banding systems would appear to punish the successful for being successful.

Biggest problem with tax imo is what our governments waste it on!


No one noticed that a lot of people are rich yet not successful ? A lot of companies' boss just screw up everything, and a lot of people get rich because their family is/was rich.
On the other hand, some very intelligent people may have difficulties at finding a job. I knew someone who was really well educated, made long and hard studies, but the day his company went bankrupt, his life got screwed up, until he decided to kill himself.