How much do you want?

[patrickaa317]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

Yeah, BVP.

Flat tax, baby! It works on every year on all income earned for that year.

Not so sure about a flat tax. On the surface it sounds fairer, however it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor.

The reason I say it places a higher burden on the poor, is in order to make up the lost revenue the state would then have to raise the base rate of tax. This would hurt the poor the most, those who can least afford to pay more, and benefit the wealthier those who can most afford to pay more. Doesn't seem right to me.

Correction.

Raising a flat tax wouldn't benefit the wealthy, it just wouldn't hurt them as much.

If you have a guy with a dollar and one with a 100 dollars; and plan on taking 10% but then decide to take 20%, the guy who had a $100 doesn't "benefit" off of this he is just able to handle the increase a little better.

It does benefit the wealthy because they are paying a larger share of taxes currently. With a flat tax you reduce the share paid by the wealthy and increase the share paid by the poor.

So instead of having the one rich guy pay 40$ of his 100$, and the poor guys paying say .05$ of their one dollar. You have the poor guys paying .20 of their dollar so the rich guy can pay 20$ less of his 100$.

Ah, your comparing it to now and not to being implemented then raising it. Sorry misread that.

I guess I don't know why one group of people should only work 2 hours a week to raise revenue for the government while another group is required to work 16 hours a week. Assuming both work 40 hour weeks.

[Woodruff]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

Yeah, BVP.

Flat tax, baby! It works on every year on all income earned for that year.

Not so sure about a flat tax. On the surface it sounds fairer, however it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor.

The reason I say it places a higher burden on the poor, is in order to make up the lost revenue the state would then have to raise the base rate of tax. This would hurt the poor the most, those who can least afford to pay more, and benefit the wealthier those who can most afford to pay more. Doesn't seem right to me.

I think it's the right idea, but I would agree with you that the "bottom line of tax-payment" should be higher than (I think he said) $15,000.
Where I think it should be...quite honestly, I have no idea. But that definitely seems too low to me.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't get it.


Let's say you make $50,000 per year in "income" as defined by the US government.

According to http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm, you'd pay $8,530 in taxes.


With a flat tax of 20%, you'd pay $7000 in taxes. ($50k - $15k = $35, then $35k * 0.20 = $7000 )


You're paying less taxes, yet Woodruff and BVP say:

BVP: "it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor. " cuz "they'd have to raise the base rate."

Base rate = 20% on all income from wherever. That's it.

Woodruff: But that [tax exemption] definitely seems too low to me.

If you're earning $50,000 per year, including all income, then you'll be taxed $1530 less than the current tax rates...

As you earn more money, you'll get to keep more of it. If you earn less, that $15,000 tax exemption still saves your ass--compared to the current tax rates.

[Woodruff]

I don't get it.

Let's say you make $50,000 per year in "income" as defined by the US government.

According to http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm, you'd pay $8,530 in taxes.

With a flat tax of 20%, you'd pay $7000 in taxes. ($50k - $15k = $35, then $35k * 0.20 = $7000 )

You're paying less taxes, yet Woodruff and BVP say:

BVP: "it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor. " cuz "they'd have to raise the base rate."

Base rate = 20% on all income from wherever. That's it.

Woodruff: But that [tax exemption] definitely seems too low to me.

If you're earning $50,000 per year, including all income, then you'll be taxed $1530 less than the current tax rates...

As you earn more money, you'll get to keep more of it. If you earn less, that $15,000 tax exemption still saves your ass--compared to the current tax rates.

You seem to be making the mistake of believing that BvP (who I am not speaking for) and I believe that the current tax system is a good and fair one.

[BigBallinStalin]

I sidestepped the fairness argument with BVP and haven't brought that up with you, so you're putting words in my post.





As I've quoted you:

Woodruff: But that [tax exemption] definitely seems too low to me.
(or "that" refers to the flat tax rate).



So, what's your contention against the 20% flat tax + $15,000 exemption?

[Woodruff]

So, what's your contention against the 20% flat tax + $15,000 exemption?

I thought I stated it...I think the $15,000 flat exemption is a bit too low. As I said, I think it's the right idea, but I just think the "bottom end" of beginning to pay any taxes should be a bit higher than that. Any system would also need a mechanism for adjusting that level (up and down).

EDIT: Sorry, you edited your post while I was posting, so I'm going to edit mine:

I sidestepped the fairness argument with BVP and haven't brought that up with you, so you're putting words in my post.

I'm not really trying to put words in your mouth, I'm simply pointing out that you seemed to be making that presumption. Because I can't think of another reason why you'd try to make that comparison.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, what's your contention against the 20% flat tax + $15,000 exemption?

I thought I stated it...I think the $15,000 flat exemption is a bit too low. As I said, I think it's the right idea, but I just think the "bottom end" of beginning to pay any taxes should be a bit higher than that. Any system would also need a mechanism for adjusting that level (up and down).

Why is the exemption too low?

EDIT: Sorry, you edited your post while I was posting, so I'm going to edit mine:

I sidestepped the fairness argument with BVP and haven't brought that up with you, so you're putting words in my post.

I'm not really trying to put words in your mouth, I'm simply pointing out that you seemed to be making that presumption. Because I can't think of another reason why you'd try to make that comparison.

Because making comparisons matter.

Otherwise, 'why change it from A to B?' Without a comparison, I don't see how the argument bears much relevance. With tax policy debates, we'd be shifting from tax policy A to tax policy B. It helps to know where you came from and where you're going in order to explain that an alternative route would be better/worse.

[Gillipig]

How about 75% for own businesses. Sound laughable? Welcome to Sweden!!! The glorious country where own businessmen are treated like criminals.

[thegreekdog]

How about 75% for own businesses. Sound laughable? Welcome to Sweden!!! The glorious country where own businessmen are treated like criminals.

Yeah, but I heard Sweden was one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

[Gillipig]

How about 75% for own businesses. Sound laughable? Welcome to Sweden!!! The glorious country where own businessmen are treated like criminals.

Yeah, but I heard Sweden was one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

Don't believe everything you hear.

[Woodruff]

So, what's your contention against the 20% flat tax + $15,000 exemption?

I thought I stated it...I think the $15,000 flat exemption is a bit too low. As I said, I think it's the right idea, but I just think the "bottom end" of beginning to pay any taxes should be a bit higher than that. Any system would also need a mechanism for adjusting that level (up and down).

Why is the exemption too low?

It seems to me that expecting someone to live below the poverty line and still pay taxes is a bit onerous.

EDIT: Sorry, you edited your post while I was posting, so I'm going to edit mine:

I sidestepped the fairness argument with BVP and haven't brought that up with you, so you're putting words in my post.

I'm not really trying to put words in your mouth, I'm simply pointing out that you seemed to be making that presumption. Because I can't think of another reason why you'd try to make that comparison.

Because making comparisons matter.
Otherwise, 'why change it from A to B?' Without a comparison, I don't see how the argument bears much relevance. With tax policy debates, we'd be shifting from tax policy A to tax policy B. It helps to know where you came from and where you're going in order to explain that an alternative route would be better/worse.

Then don't whine about me putting words into your mouth (which I maintain I was not doing). It seems stupid to me to compare something to an even more shitty something as a basis for whether that something is a good thing or not. It should be viewed on it's own merits.

[Baron Von PWN]

I don't get it.


Let's say you make $50,000 per year in "income" as defined by the US government.

According to http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm, you'd pay $8,530 in taxes.


With a flat tax of 20%, you'd pay $7000 in taxes. ($50k - $15k = $35, then $35k * 0.20 = $7000 )


You're paying less taxes, yet Woodruff and BVP say:

BVP: "it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor. " cuz "they'd have to raise the base rate."

Base rate = 20% on all income from wherever. That's it.

Woodruff: But that [tax exemption] definitely seems too low to me.

If you're earning $50,000 per year, including all income, then you'll be taxed $1530 less than the current tax rates...

As you earn more money, you'll get to keep more of it. If you earn less, that $15,000 tax exemption still saves your ass--compared to the current tax rates.

Ok here's my issue with a flat tax. It's not going to cut it.

With the current tax regime government has difficulty paying for everything.

So how do we make up the difference in revenue? Well you'd have to meet somewhere in the middle to get the same revenue.

This would undoubtedly mean a higher tax rate on the lower income earners.

Unless of course you slash and burn government spending. Which would have a medley of consequences as well,likely resulting in decreased services for lower income earners, those most likely to use them.

Sure in theory it sounds great, in practice it seems to me there would be significant issues.

[thegreekdog]

I don't get it.


Let's say you make $50,000 per year in "income" as defined by the US government.

According to http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm, you'd pay $8,530 in taxes.


With a flat tax of 20%, you'd pay $7000 in taxes. ($50k - $15k = $35, then $35k * 0.20 = $7000 )


You're paying less taxes, yet Woodruff and BVP say:

BVP: "it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor. " cuz "they'd have to raise the base rate."

Base rate = 20% on all income from wherever. That's it.

Woodruff: But that [tax exemption] definitely seems too low to me.

If you're earning $50,000 per year, including all income, then you'll be taxed $1530 less than the current tax rates...

As you earn more money, you'll get to keep more of it. If you earn less, that $15,000 tax exemption still saves your ass--compared to the current tax rates.

Ok here's my issue with a flat tax. It's not going to cut it.

With the current tax regime government has difficulty paying for everything.

So how do we make up the difference in revenue? Well you'd have to meet somewhere in the middle to get the same revenue.

This would undoubtedly mean a higher tax rate on the lower income earners.

Unless of course you slash and burn government spending. Which would have a medley of consequences as well,likely resulting in decreased services for lower income earners, those most likely to use them.

Sure in theory it sounds great, in practice it seems to me there would be significant issues.

The significant issue would be cutting expense. Frankly, I took the cuts into account when I answered the question. Not to speak for BBS, but I suspect he did too.

And how does a flat tax rate = a higher tax rate for lower income earners? I don't think I understand the point.

[Baron Von PWN]

I don't get it.


Let's say you make $50,000 per year in "income" as defined by the US government.

According to http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm, you'd pay $8,530 in taxes.


With a flat tax of 20%, you'd pay $7000 in taxes. ($50k - $15k = $35, then $35k * 0.20 = $7000 )


You're paying less taxes, yet Woodruff and BVP say:

BVP: "it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor. " cuz "they'd have to raise the base rate."

Base rate = 20% on all income from wherever. That's it.

Woodruff: But that [tax exemption] definitely seems too low to me.

If you're earning $50,000 per year, including all income, then you'll be taxed $1530 less than the current tax rates...

As you earn more money, you'll get to keep more of it. If you earn less, that $15,000 tax exemption still saves your ass--compared to the current tax rates.

Ok here's my issue with a flat tax. It's not going to cut it.

With the current tax regime government has difficulty paying for everything.

So how do we make up the difference in revenue? Well you'd have to meet somewhere in the middle to get the same revenue.

This would undoubtedly mean a higher tax rate on the lower income earners.

Unless of course you slash and burn government spending. Which would have a medley of consequences as well,likely resulting in decreased services for lower income earners, those most likely to use them.

Sure in theory it sounds great, in practice it seems to me there would be significant issues.

The significant issue would be cutting expense. Frankly, I took the cuts into account when I answered the question. Not to speak for BBS, but I suspect he did too.

And how does a flat tax rate = a higher tax rate for lower income earners? I don't think I understand the point.

I said it places a heavier burden on the poor. Not necessarily a higher tax rate.

Well government currently gets its money from a graduated income tax which has most brackets paying more than 20%. How do you make up the difference in income for the brackets you've just eliminated?

A higher base rate.

Or

You slash and burn government services to balance a budget with a 20% flat tax. So the lower income earners in all likelihood lose most of the services they used to enjoy courtesy of the government, and now must provide them themselves or go without and pay just as much tax as they used to.

In effect they pay for the wealthier citizen's massive tax cut, and must now pay for services formerly paid for by the state, or lose them entirely. How does this not increase the burden on the poor?

[thegreekdog]

Not necessarily a higher tax rate.

You wrote "higher tax rate." Just saying.

You slash and burn government services to balance a budget with a 20% flat tax. So the lower income earners in all likelihood lose most of the services they used to enjoy courtesy of the government, and now must provide them themselves or go without and pay just as much tax as they used to.

In effect they pay for the wealthier citizen's massive tax cut, and must now pay for services formerly paid for by the state, or lose them entirely. How does this not increase the burden on the poor?

(1) Why are we cutting services to low income earners? You've made that assumption, which, for my purposes, is a false one. I would like to cut a lot of services that apply to high income earners. For example, military spending and business cash incentives. We're also eliminating tax benefits. For example, special deductions and credits for businesses. For example, raise the rate on capital gains to the flat tax rate.

(2) Massive tax cut? Wealthy people WHO WORK FOR A LIVING pay up to 35%. Wealthy people WHO INVEST FOR A LIVING pay 15%. It would be a TAX INCREASE on the wealthy investors (e.g. Romney, Buffett). The people who would benefit most are those who earn ordinary income which is taxed at 35% who earn more than $1 million (essentially). Not a lot of those people around.

[jimboston]

1) Fine, fine, then just answer the question, where did that other 8 trillion dollars come from that's was running around in the money supply in 2010?

Can you answer that?

2) Didn't you assert that fractional reserve banking and fractional reserve lending were two different things?

1) I was never attempting to answer the question about how "money gets created out of thin air". I was refuting Bedub's idea that Banks should hold 100% of Deposits in Reserve. The simple point being that if the Reserves of a Deposit Bank matched the deposits... then said banks would not be in the business of lending... and the economy would grind to a halt.

I suspect the ration of GDP / Loans / transfer of Money to actual cash has less to do with banks lending more than they take in... and more to do with the fact that the vast majority of transactions in our modern economy are no made with actual cash, but instead occur via credit cards or other forms of digital payment. I don't know if this is a good or bad thing... I'm certainly not a "Gold Standard" type guy and think people who consider this a serious problem are.

2) No... I never made that assertion. I was debating the definition or Fractional Reserve Banking/Lending with you... and I have been using those terms interchangably. Though I was using the "Banking" more... and your original post was "Lending".

[jimboston]

Actually, I think it's called accounting. I'm not historian, but if all the guys that had deposited their $1 million in the bank came and got it, wouldn't there be a problem?

Yes... it's called a "run" on the banks... and when/if it happens it is bad.

In the US we prevent this sort of chaos by having the FDIC. So even if YOUR particular bank runs out of cash... you know you will get your money (up to $250,000) because it is backed by the FDIC.

[jimboston]

We should have a sound money. At least have a currency backed by something, anything. To set an objective standard as to the worth of the currency instead of a private organization that determines it's worth at whatever it wishes on any given day.

Why?

[jimboston]

Actually, I think it's called accounting. I'm not historian, but if all the guys that had deposited their $1 million in the bank came and got it, wouldn't there be a problem?

Of course, because there isn't enough actual currency to pay out all that money, is there? But if it's all done electronically, it's just digitally created, credited to whatever account the withdrawer is moving it to. If everyone in the world wanted the actual cash that they supposedly had in banks, a whole lot of people would be SOL.

Yes, indeed - SOL is the acronym that immediately applies.

I wonder what would happen if something similar happened with the federal government. Like if tomorrow all the lenders called in their amounts due or something? Is that even possible?

If all the "Lenders" (i.e. the Chinese Gov't) to the Federal Gov't called in the debt tomorrow... the Federal Gov't would be required to print a ton of extra cash to make the payments.

Since the "value" of the dollar is not "backed" by something tangible (like gold) the Gov't could do this.

Of course this would significantly devalue the currency... which would harm us because of massive inflation.

However... it would also harm the "Lenders" (i.e. the Chinese Gov't) who are calling in the debt... because even though we would pay them $XXX Billion the value of that $XXX Billion on the world market would plummet, and they would wind up losing value (in relation to other currencies).

So the "Lenders" would not "call in" their debts.... it's kinda like Mutally Assured Destruction.

[Gillipig]

Jim, you are quadruple posting now. What's wrong with you?

[BigBallinStalin]

So, what's your contention against the 20% flat tax + $15,000 exemption?

I thought I stated it...I think the $15,000 flat exemption is a bit too low. As I said, I think it's the right idea, but I just think the "bottom end" of beginning to pay any taxes should be a bit higher than that. Any system would also need a mechanism for adjusting that level (up and down).

Why is the exemption too low?

It seems to me that expecting someone to live below the poverty line and still pay taxes is a bit onerous.

The poverty line is a bit of bullshit, in my opinion. It even used to be below $15,000, but as a bureaucrat, depending on where you adjust it, you can create the illusion of a problem, so I don't find your position to be very convincing.

Besides, if you're earning $16,000, you pay (0.20 * 1000), which is a Grand Total of $200 in taxes---Did he say $200? OMG, Folks. $200! Call the police and the army! ;P

All people should pay taxes of some proportion because having the incentive of being taxed induces people to not vote for perverse outcomes.

EDIT: Sorry, you edited your post while I was posting, so I'm going to edit mine:

I sidestepped the fairness argument with BVP and haven't brought that up with you, so you're putting words in my post.

I'm not really trying to put words in your mouth, I'm simply pointing out that you seemed to be making that presumption. Because I can't think of another reason why you'd try to make that comparison.

Because making comparisons matter.
Otherwise, 'why change it from A to B?' Without a comparison, I don't see how the argument bears much relevance. With tax policy debates, we'd be shifting from tax policy A to tax policy B. It helps to know where you came from and where you're going in order to explain that an alternative route would be better/worse.

Then don't whine about me putting words into your mouth (which I maintain I was not doing). It seems stupid to me to compare something to an even more shitty something as a basis for whether that something is a good thing or not. It should be viewed on it's own merits.

This is why people label you as a dick.

When you say "You seem to be making the mistake of believing that BvP (who I am not speaking for) and I believe that the current tax system is a good and fair one," it is clear that you perceive that 'I believe that both of you hold that the current tax system is a good and fair one.' That's called "putting words in another's mouth." What's your definition of that phrase? Whatever you say it is, so long as you aren't in the wrong?

Nowhere have I said that, and nowhere have I remotely suggested that. I've completely sidestepped that normative argument, so to construe things as such is wrongheaded, and to continue denying that you somehow did Not construe things as such is ridiculous.

As for the rest, merits don't mean much if you can't evaluate progress or plans to alternatives. Sorry, but with policy, the opportunity cost matters. If you don't have an argument better than "It seems stupid to me' because isolating a plan in relation to nothing else sounds like a great idea for reasons unexplained,' then you'll have to sit out for this debate.

[Woodruff]

So, what's your contention against the 20% flat tax + $15,000 exemption?

I thought I stated it...I think the $15,000 flat exemption is a bit too low. As I said, I think it's the right idea, but I just think the "bottom end" of beginning to pay any taxes should be a bit higher than that. Any system would also need a mechanism for adjusting that level (up and down).

Why is the exemption too low?

It seems to me that expecting someone to live below the poverty line and still pay taxes is a bit onerous.

The poverty line is a bit of bullshit, in my opinion. It even used to be below $15,000, but as a bureaucrat, depending on where you adjust it, you can create the illusion of a problem, so I don't find your position to be very convincing.

Besides, if you're earning $16,000, you pay (0.20 * 1000), which is a Grand Total of $200 in taxes---Did he say $200? OMG, Folks. $200! Call the police and the army! ;P

All people should pay taxes of some proportion because having the incentive of being taxed induces people to not vote for perverse outcomes.

Honestly, $16 in a given month CAN make a significant difference. You can only get so much from shelters. I lived it while I was lower enlisted for a couple of years, unfortunately, and that was with the military base services helping us out some and certainly pointing us out to places we could go to for help (which a lot of poverty-level individuals don't have. So I'd have to say that your claim regarding the $200 is an unfair one.

EDIT: Sorry, you edited your post while I was posting, so I'm going to edit mine:

I sidestepped the fairness argument with BVP and haven't brought that up with you, so you're putting words in my post.

I'm not really trying to put words in your mouth, I'm simply pointing out that you seemed to be making that presumption. Because I can't think of another reason why you'd try to make that comparison.

Because making comparisons matter.
Otherwise, 'why change it from A to B?' Without a comparison, I don't see how the argument bears much relevance. With tax policy debates, we'd be shifting from tax policy A to tax policy B. It helps to know where you came from and where you're going in order to explain that an alternative route would be better/worse.

Then don't whine about me putting words into your mouth (which I maintain I was not doing). It seems stupid to me to compare something to an even more shitty something as a basis for whether that something is a good thing or not. It should be viewed on it's own merits.

This is why people label you as a dick.[/quote]

No, it isn't. Phatscotty labels me as a dick because he wants an excuse to ignore me (or pretend to ignore me, more accurately). Beezer and DangerBoy label me as a dick because they're unrepentant ultra-conservatives who wouldn't understand a cogent discussion if their lives depended on it. Most folks (including me) will just say I can act like a dick at times, but that I don't usually.

When you say "You seem to be making the mistake of believing that BvP (who I am not speaking for) and I believe that the current tax system is a good and fair one," it is clear that you perceive that 'I believe that both of you hold that the current tax system is a good and fair one.' That's called "putting words in another's mouth." What's your definition of that phrase? Whatever you say it is, so long as you aren't in the wrong?

Yes, it is clear that was my perception. Yet I did not state unequivocably that it was your position, in fact I thought I made it clear that it was only my perception.

Nowhere have I said that, and nowhere have I remotely suggested that.

Then you brought it up for no reason at all.

As for the rest, merits don't mean much if you can't evaluate progress or plans to alternatives.

Where did you get the idea I can't evaluate progress or plans to alternatives? In fact, I'd say I did when I stated that the current system is shit, as well as when I said that I tend to like the flat tax rate (other than your stated $15,000 exemption). But you wouldn't be trying to put words into my mouth or anything, right?

Sorry, but with policy, the opportunity cost matters. If you don't have an argument better than "It seems stupid to me' because isolating a plan in relation to nothing else sounds like a great idea for reasons unexplained,' then you'll have to sit out for this debate.

No, you're definitely not putting words into my mouth. Hypocrite much?

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok here's my issue with a flat tax. It's not going to cut it.

With the current tax regime government has difficulty paying for everything.

So how do we make up the difference in revenue? Well you'd have to meet somewhere in the middle to get the same revenue.

This would undoubtedly mean a higher tax rate on the lower income earners.

Unless of course you slash and burn government spending. Which would have a medley of consequences as well,likely resulting in decreased services for lower income earners, those most likely to use them.

Sure in theory it sounds great, in practice it seems to me there would be significant issues.

It depends, and I'm not going to do the number crunching for an internet debate.

Think of this way.

All income from no matter where is hit with a 0.20 rate. This could lead to higher generation of revenue in comparison to other taxes on different types of income, or it could result in lower revenue. Currently, you and I have no idea what those numbers would be, and neither of us are willing to calculate it, so at this point we lack strong evidence for either of our claims.

From what I recall, the 20% flat tax + $15,000 exemption totals to roughly 80% of the revenue currently generated through taxation. I can't remember where I read this, I searched for it, but can't find it. But whatevs, that's that.

Then, there's tax savings and cost-savings:

(1) No more payroll tax, so that money which your employer pays, goes back to your own income.

(2) Anyone above the mid- tax bracket now pays significantly less taxes which can be spent domestically or internationally. Who knows.

(3) Foreign companies from overseas would have a stronger incentive to invest in the US since the tax policies are so clear cut, and significantly lower than other developed countries.

(4) Income/time spent on filing one's taxes are now saved and can be spent elsewhere (sorry tax guys; labor gets freed up for more valuable services now).

(5) etc.

[patches70]

Why? <should we have sound money backed by something>

Because, so this doesn't happen-

Federal Gov't would be required to print a ton of extra cash ......

Since the "value" of the dollar is not "backed" by something tangible (like gold) the Gov't could do this.

Of course this would significantly devalue the currency... which would harm us because of massive inflation.

It is hard to devalue a currency (and in effect devaluing a person's labor) if the value is set by an objective standard.


Answer this question, since the "value" of the dollar is not backed by something, who is it that determines what the value of the dollar is?


And for the record, I'm not a fan of going to the Gold Standard. Gold alone is too finite and too easily hoarded and manipulated.
I'd prefer a combination of Silver and Gold, as Silver is more plentiful and harder to manipulate. Maybe even Copper as well.
But hell, it could be anything, even Corn. Just as long as our currency is tied to something other than a piece of paper and a promise that by the bayonet or the lash our currency is good.

In other words, Sound Money. In the history of mankind no fiat money has ever survived for very long. Our current incarnation of fiat money has only been in existence since 1971 and look at it already. Dying. Just as all fiat currencies end up, dead dead dead.

The average lifespan of a fiat currency is 34 years.
http://www.europac.net/voices/experience_teacher_fools

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 0-9B6rMcSA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ybVcV4FK_g


It's no wonder the dollar is having the problems it's having, just as it's no wonder the people are having such problems. The dollar is passed it's "use by" date.

The expansion of fiat money supply benefits only a very few people. Everyone else suffers for it. That is the nature of fiat money and that's why governments and central banks love it.
For governments it's a stealth tax.
For the central banks it's a source of massive amounts of profits on interest paid by the citizens of the nations using the fiat currency.

The expansion of sound money, on the other hand, is directly related to the expansion of real wealth. But if one wishes to spend on endless wars and everything else under the sun, then they'll have a serious problem of funding with sound money.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, what's your contention against the 20% flat tax + $15,000 exemption?

I thought I stated it...I think the $15,000 flat exemption is a bit too low. As I said, I think it's the right idea, but I just think the "bottom end" of beginning to pay any taxes should be a bit higher than that. Any system would also need a mechanism for adjusting that level (up and down).

Why is the exemption too low?

It seems to me that expecting someone to live below the poverty line and still pay taxes is a bit onerous.

The poverty line is a bit of bullshit, in my opinion. It even used to be below $15,000, but as a bureaucrat, depending on where you adjust it, you can create the illusion of a problem, so I don't find your position to be very convincing.

Besides, if you're earning $16,000, you pay (0.20 * 1000), which is a Grand Total of $200 in taxes---Did he say $200? OMG, Folks. $200! Call the police and the army! ;P

All people should pay taxes of some proportion because having the incentive of being taxed induces people to not vote for perverse outcomes.

Honestly, $16 in a given month CAN make a significant difference. You can only get so much from shelters. I lived it while I was lower enlisted for a couple of years, unfortunately, and that was with the military base services helping us out some and certainly pointing us out to places we could go to for help (which a lot of poverty-level individuals don't have. So I'd have to say that your claim regarding the $200 is an unfair one.

Haha, there's that fairness argument. It was about time! Thanks for playing, Woodruff.

The benefits of having $200 extra for whatever don't offset the costs of enabling an environment which creates perverse incentives.

I sidestepped the fairness argument with BVP and haven't brought that up with you, so you're putting words in my post.

I'm not really trying to put words in your mouth, I'm simply pointing out that you seemed to be making that presumption. Because I can't think of another reason why you'd try to make that comparison.

Why should we make comparisons to reality?

BBS:

(1) Because making comparisons matter.
Otherwise, 'why change it from A to B?' Without a comparison, I don't see how the argument bears much relevance. With tax policy debates, we'd be shifting from tax policy A to tax policy B. It helps to know where you came from and where you're going in order to explain that an alternative route would be better/worse.

(2) with policy, the opportunity cost matters. Whenever you commit yourself to a certain plan, it helps to know the value of the second most valuable plan which was foregone. Without knowing the opportunity cost, you would be unable to understand if what you are doing is better or worse than doing something else.


Woodruff:
(1) It seems stupid to me to compare something to an even more shitty something as a basis for whether that something is a good thing or not.
(2) I didn't say making comparisons (evaluating progress or plans to alternatives) is stupid!


Lol, okay, woodruff!

No, it isn't. Phatscotty labels me as a dick because he wants an excuse to ignore me (or pretend to ignore me, more accurately). Beezer and DangerBoy label me as a dick because they're unrepentant ultra-conservatives who wouldn't understand a cogent discussion if their lives depended on it. Most folks (including me) will just say I can act like a dick at times, but that I don't usually.

Great defense, but you were still being a dick.

Nowhere have I said that, and nowhere have I remotely suggested that.

Then you brought it up for no reason at all.

When you portray people who ask you to stop misconstruing things, do you

(1) stop doing so?
(2) throw a temper tantrum while claiming that the other person is calling out your poor behavior for no good reason at all?

I'd go with (2).

Next, you'll be saying "f*ck YOU, TROLL!"

As for the rest, merits don't mean much if you can't evaluate progress or plans to alternatives.

Where did you get the idea I can't evaluate progress or plans to alternatives? In fact, I'd say I did when I stated that the current system is shit, as well as when I said that I tend to like the flat tax rate (other than your stated $15,000 exemption). But you wouldn't be trying to put words into my mouth or anything, right?

" It seems stupid to me to compare something to an even more shitty something as a basis for whether that something is a good thing or not. "

You see, "evaluating progress or plans to alternatives" is called "making a comparison," which you think is stupid.

You sound ridiculous, Woodruff, but I'm just going with what you said. This is you saying that it's stupid to compare a policy to the current one, which is worse.

Sorry, but you have to compare policy to current reality; otherwise, it doesn't mean much.

You might have to sit this debate out if you can't have it your way.


"In fact, I'd say I did [make a comparison] when I stated that the current system is shit, as well as when I said that I tend to like the flat tax rate." But comparisons to current plans are stupid, according to you. I guess you're being stupid according to you?

You might have to sit this debate out.