Moderator: Community Team

























		


		
		patches70 wrote:If you look at tax rates throughout US history (at least since 1940 until today) you see something very interesting. No matter what the tax code, how complicated or simple, no matter what the tax rate, high like in the 40's, 70's, or low like in the late 80's, 90's, the government always takes the same amount. About 16-18% of GDP. Always. Never more, never less. Always between 16-18% of GDP.
The best way to increase revenue is to increase the GDP pie. The taxes can be whatever, but to increase revenue then increase the GDP.
[youtube]ucoP4-06O7M/youtube]



		Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
















		Neoteny wrote:Not so much actually.
The only tax-code that you could realistically fit into such a small volume would be some kind of flat-rate (or "flat tax") proposal (see: Hong Kong). The problem with such systems is that, while simple, they are inherently regressive and hit the poorest members of the tax-paying band hardest (as those on lower incomes have a lower ratio of essential-earnings to disposable-earnings). Sure, the rich love them because they save time and money, and because they can claim that their system must be fair as everyone pays the same percentage (which sounds reasonable at a simplistic first glance). But in reality, when you actually look at the effects such a scheme would have on various income-groups, the fact is that flat-rate regimes only serve to make life for the very rich easier, life for those at the low-end of the taxable population very difficult, and they provide an active disincentive for those who are non-taxable to go get a job and become part of the low-end of the tax-paying spectrum.
Basically, the flat-tax system isn't much better than a poll-tax... and there's a good reason that only Hong-Kong uses it.
Sure, you want to simplify tax-law... that's a laudable goal. But the truth is that it's a difficult thing to administrate fairly, and when examining the choice of two possible evils, I'm afraid that I opt for a bureaucracy that wastes a bit of time and money, rather than an oversimplistic system that makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer.

























		Phatscotty wrote:Neoteny wrote:Not so much actually.
The only tax-code that you could realistically fit into such a small volume would be some kind of flat-rate (or "flat tax") proposal (see: Hong Kong). The problem with such systems is that, while simple, they are inherently regressive and hit the poorest members of the tax-paying band hardest (as those on lower incomes have a lower ratio of essential-earnings to disposable-earnings). Sure, the rich love them because they save time and money, and because they can claim that their system must be fair as everyone pays the same percentage (which sounds reasonable at a simplistic first glance). But in reality, when you actually look at the effects such a scheme would have on various income-groups, the fact is that flat-rate regimes only serve to make life for the very rich easier, life for those at the low-end of the taxable population very difficult, and they provide an active disincentive for those who are non-taxable to go get a job and become part of the low-end of the tax-paying spectrum.
Basically, the flat-tax system isn't much better than a poll-tax... and there's a good reason that only Hong-Kong uses it.
Sure, you want to simplify tax-law... that's a laudable goal. But the truth is that it's a difficult thing to administrate fairly, and when examining the choice of two possible evils, I'm afraid that I opt for a bureaucracy that wastes a bit of time and money, rather than an oversimplistic system that makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer.
Actually, its the simplest thing possible. Everyone is treated equally. One might even invoke the concept of equality. Everyone is treated exactly the same...no special favors, no abuse, no corruption, no loopholes, no credits, no tax breaks, no games, no headaches, no tax cheats, no using the tax system as a weapon to punish your enemies (works both ways).



		Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Neoteny wrote:Not so much actually.
The only tax-code that you could realistically fit into such a small volume would be some kind of flat-rate (or "flat tax") proposal (see: Hong Kong). The problem with such systems is that, while simple, they are inherently regressive and hit the poorest members of the tax-paying band hardest (as those on lower incomes have a lower ratio of essential-earnings to disposable-earnings). Sure, the rich love them because they save time and money, and because they can claim that their system must be fair as everyone pays the same percentage (which sounds reasonable at a simplistic first glance). But in reality, when you actually look at the effects such a scheme would have on various income-groups, the fact is that flat-rate regimes only serve to make life for the very rich easier, life for those at the low-end of the taxable population very difficult, and they provide an active disincentive for those who are non-taxable to go get a job and become part of the low-end of the tax-paying spectrum.
Basically, the flat-tax system isn't much better than a poll-tax... and there's a good reason that only Hong-Kong uses it.
Sure, you want to simplify tax-law... that's a laudable goal. But the truth is that it's a difficult thing to administrate fairly, and when examining the choice of two possible evils, I'm afraid that I opt for a bureaucracy that wastes a bit of time and money, rather than an oversimplistic system that makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer.
Actually, its the simplest thing possible. Everyone is treated equally. One might even invoke the concept of equality. Everyone is treated exactly the same...no special favors, no abuse, no corruption, no loopholes, no credits, no tax breaks, no games, no headaches, no tax cheats, no using the tax system as a weapon to punish your enemies (works both ways).
So, a Communist style paradise? A Utopia?

























		


		Symmetry wrote:Which... will...never...happen

























		Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Which... will...never...happen
Tell me, oh Brit, why will that never happen in America?



		
















			Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Which... will...never...happen
Tell me, oh Brit, why will that never happen in America?
A flat tax? Cause you're not really that interested in it as a nation.


























		Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Which... will...never...happen
Tell me, oh Brit, why will that never happen in America?
A flat tax? Cause you're not really that interested in it as a nation.
Even after the historic election results of 2010? You might at least admit we are more interested now than we were before... (why am I asking a Brit this lol)
[img]http://mittromneycentral.com/uploads/midterm-election-results-2010.jpg/img]



		


		Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Which... will...never...happen
Tell me, oh Brit, why will that never happen in America?
A flat tax? Cause you're not really that interested in it as a nation.
Even after the historic election results of 2010? You might at least admit we are more interested now than we were before...
Mittromneycentral.com? Meh, at least we know where you're getting your facts from now.
Is Romney going to introduce a flat tax?

























		


		Symmetry wrote:To answer your question, you're not interested in a flat tax as a nation even after 2010.

























		Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:To answer your question, you're not interested in a flat tax as a nation even after 2010.
Thanks for clearing that up and speaking for America Symm!
you are a very special person



		Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:To answer your question, you're not interested in a flat tax as a nation even after 2010.
Thanks for clearing that up and speaking for America Symm!
you are a very special person
That I am.

























		Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.






		BigBallinStalin wrote:@ Neoteny, why not exempt the first $20,000?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
















		GreecePwns wrote:Scotty, is Adam Smith a progressive?

























		
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.






		GreecePwns wrote:Well why call our system of taxation a progressive policy when it is Adam Smith himself who proposed such a system?
According to your contribution in another thread, Adam Smith is a communist.

























		Users browsing this forum: No registered users