"How is it morally justifiable to ask a person to pay anything at all ever?"

Are you being serious, I think even Dubya would be shocked at that.

How about police, schools, the justice system?

Karl Marx has a lot of fans in this thread. Keep up the bigoted class warfare. My only question is, how does that make you any different than any other bigot?

I believe in social contracts, ALL citizens have responsibilities, only then can citizens have rights. If a government legalised something so repugnant to the body politic and society, it is the duty of all citizens to resist.

Strawman! The concept of the social contract was never under discussion. It is your claim that you know what exactly the contract must say that is.

If you find dissenting opinions repugnant and believe that you have a right to resist if the tax system should be changed, YOU are breaking the social contract.

We (flat tax supporters) tend to accept the social contract and hold it high enough to follow the law, even when we disagree with it. The question is do you hold it equally high?

"2. Using a flat tax the rich would pay more. So what's your point?" I think your calculator is broken.

10,000*0.15 < 100,000*0.15

The rich pay more than the poor.

That is those with a higher income pay more. Whether the most productive are really always the most rich is a question the income tax system tends to avoid (which is presumably why parliaments consisting of land owners voted for it).

I'm not familiar with US rates, so I'll use UK rates on £1, 000, 000. Flat rate 15%: £1, 000, 000 = £150, 000 Current rates= £1, 000, 000= £391, 959.20

I am not familiar with US rates either... but what exactly are you trying to prove? Did somebody accidentally claim that 15% is not less than 39% and you are trying to prove him wrong?

I'll show my working if you wish (I used to be a tax adviser ; )

That might explain why you support complicated tax systems.

"Karl Marx has a lot of fans in this thread. Keep up the bigoted class warfare."

OFFICIAL: Taxation and having a brain is communism.

Nobody likes tax, but a government cannot govern and invade countries thousands of miles away without us coughing up!

"The rich pay more than the poor."

That statement would still be true if they paid £1 more, it is specious and designed to avoid the issue of the rich reducing their tax burden for no particular reason than they don't like paying lots of tax. The only acceptable reason would be that a budget could support the cuts.

" Did somebody accidentally claim that 15% is not less than 39% and you are trying to prove him wrong?"

I am trying to prove that such drastic cuts in tax burdens cannot come in one fell swoop. This would leave billions in deficit, and the average family would plug the gap, not the rich.

"That might explain why you support complicated tax systems."

I support fair systems. That is all that matters.

OFFICIAL: Taxation and having a brain is communism.

Nobody said that. But high taxation and not using one's brain could result in communism.

Nobody likes tax, but a government cannot govern and invade countries thousands of miles away without us coughing up!

What are you arguing against and who are you talking to? You make lots of empty statements apparently directed at people reading this here, but is there anyone in particular whose statements you are referring to?

I am trying to prove that such drastic cuts in tax burdens cannot come in one fell swoop.

You can stop "proving" that, everybody knows.

I didn't realise that when you made it clear that moving an iota from what you want is a breach of the social contract and the same as abandoning all taxes, you were merely trying to make the point that tax systems might not be easily changed.

You completely missed your target there, I think.

"What are you arguing against"

Flat tax, as per the debate.

"but is there anyone in particular whose statements you are referring to?"

This is an open debate, please try to read other people's posts too, not just your own.

"You completely missed your target there, I think."

You are a proponent of the flat tax, what are you saying here? It is something you like the idea of (like killing your neigbour) but agree would be foolish to implement.

If you are going to argue for something, at least believe in it.

Flat tax, as per the debate.

So why your claims about the social contract (which was never under fire) and the abolition of taxes (which also was not)?

This is an open debate, please try to read other people's posts too, not just your own.

That's why I asked. Who said anything about ending the social contract or abolishing taxes altogther?

You are a proponent of the flat tax, what are you saying here?

I am saying that you must stop arguing against strawman and focus on the subject at hand. Your discourse about the social contract had nothing to do with the two tax systems.

It is something you like the idea of (like killing your neigbour) but agree would be foolish to implement.

When did I say that I liked the idea of killing my neighbour?


If you are going to argue for something, at least believe in it.


Who said I did not believe in a flat tax?

For starters, I have done a subject just like this Link had my butt wiped across the floor because of a previous subject I did on welfare.

As for a national sales tax. NO WAY. The main reason being that it would be abused to no end. The poor with medical problems would pay way more than a healthy wealthy person. It especially wouldn't work because people have a tendency to spend more than they make hence paying more in taxes than they can actually afford.

Flat tax IS the way to go. No loopholes, no credits for nothing. you make $10,000 a year, you pay the same percentage as the guy making $1,000,000 a year. There is nothing unfair about it. It would also act as an incentive or sorts to make more since you know what you will pay in taxes will never be disproportionate to what you make. I see no reason why we should punish the rich and reward the poor. That's just ludicrous.

"Well deary, you have 3 kids and make around $15,000 a year at Burger Shot? We'll give you $8,000 more in February just because we can, and that won't count against your food stamps, TANF, medical, subsidized housing, or any of your other assistance. But if you make much more than that, we are not going to give you that extra money for being poor."

Then the rich/middle class gets punished for working hard and "getting ahead" "Well, you have worked hard and got an education and put jobs, products and services into our economy so now we will punish you with a 40% tax liability, better get a good Accountant (whom you will pay also) to help you find loopholes"

That sound real fair to me. *dripping sarcasm*

You are one of the poorest debators I have ever witnessed, never go into politics.

You should focus on the actual subject, not trying to monitor the flow of the debate as a tactic against the person you are debating against.

Police officer: I stopped you because you went through a red light.
Leauki: That is not the issue, the issue is whether red is an adequate colour to instruct the driver to stop.
Police officer: You broke the law.
Leauki: Why are you bringing the law into this, we were talking about colours?

"no credits for nothing."

So the married couple on average earnings should pay the same rate as a millionaire bachelor?

Then you are punishing the couple who bothered to get married and have children (vital for a nation's future). It cuts both ways.

With single parenthood and marriage in decline in Western society, those who get married and raise children together should be encouraged in this.