Subject: flat income tax vs progressive income tax.

Taxes are for the benefit of society, the rich HAVE A DUTY to pay more because it is that very society that allows them to operate.

That was you apparently not realising that 15% of a lot is more than 15% of a little and claiming that you are prone to some universal truth that your opponents simply chose to ignore.

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.

That was you trying to stay on topic.

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

That was you talking about a hypothetical abolution of all taxes that was never the topic of the discussion and is not the same as a flat income tax.

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.

And that was you accusing me of not focusing on the subject.

What was the subject again? The validity of the social contract?

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?

And that was how the discussion looked to you, apparently. You never even realised that you talked about abolishing taxes and about abolishing the social contract and were thus utterly surprised when I called you on it. You couldn't understand, thus the non sequitur.

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.

I would like to know how you figured this out? Just how are you punishing them? Because what you seem to be missing is the other perspective. That a millionaire "couple" pays the "same" as an average earning couple! So your statement carries almost no weight.

So, basically, "Britman", when you compared flat tax to the abolition of taxes altogether and the end of the social contract, that was when I decided that you missed the target.

Whatever arguments against a flat tax you might have, you have certainly not told us what they would be.

Let me repeat my question of earlier: we flat tax advocates respect the social contract enough to follow laws we don't agree with. You called for resistence against a law you find repugnant. It is clear that we advocates respect the social contract. The question is, do you as well?

If you call for resistance against a tax system you don't like, how much can the social contract be worth to you? We advocates, afterall, do not resist current tax law.

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

Why? Not enough humans on the planet?

"That a millionaire "couple" pays the "same"

15% is a lot LESS than the current rates whereby lower earners pay LESS. How you can class a flat tax as "the same" is peculiar.

"Whatever arguments against a flat tax you might have, you have certainly not told us what they would be."

A flat tax would be unfair on lower earners, because they would pay more as they loose all kinds of allowances relating to circumstance. It would lead to massive deficits, less investment in public services, economic uncertainty, inlflation rises and recession.

Any gain the wealthy would make would be cancelled out by a flagging economy. How many more reasons do you need? Not only is it morally unsustainable, it is fiscal insanity and no government in a mature economy would bring it in because it would completely destroy any spending plans.

It may be fine in developing countries, where government spending is extremely low, but it simply cannot and would not work in first world countries.

"Not enough humans on the planet?"

The breakdown of the traditional family unit is the cause of most social problems, the tax system is one tool to encourage the family along with the education system.

IMHO the flat tax will not work, because it will not be truly flat for long.

Everybody loves loopholes. Within one year Congress will have so many tax credits at all level it will be ridicules. Credits for having children, donating to the Boy Scouts, or being in poverty.

Do you really think that the ACLU, boy scouts, and churches will not fight for charity deductions? That is their bread and butter.

"That a millionaire "couple" pays the "same" 15% is a lot LESS than the current rates whereby lower earners pay LESS. How you can class a flat tax as "the same" is peculiar. "Whatever arguments against a flat tax you might have, you have certainly not told us what they would be." A flat tax would be unfair on lower earners, because they would pay more as they loose all kinds of allowances relating to circumstance. It would lead to massive deficits, less investment in public services, economic uncertainty, inlflation rises and recession.

This shows your ignorance of the "current" "American" tax code. As of right now between 19-23% are taken on average from lower and middle income earners. So once again your arguement carries no weight.

A flat tax would be unfair on lower earners, because they would pay more as they loose all kinds of allowances relating to circumstance. It would lead to massive deficits, less investment in public services, economic uncertainty, inlflation rises and recession.

And this piece of tripe is a VERY specious arguement.

A flat tax would be unfair on lower earners, because they would pay more as they loose all kinds of allowances relating to circumstance.

Why would that be bad for society?

It would lead to massive deficits, less investment in public services, economic uncertainty, inlflation rises and recession.

All wrong.

Low taxes might lead to massive deficits, regardless of system. A progressive system from 10% to 20% could result in the same problems. Some of the problems are caused by deductions, which would not be possible under the flat tax system proposed here.

Economic uncertainty is a function of a complicated, not a simple tax system.

Any gain the wealthy would make would be cancelled out by a flagging economy. How many more reasons do you need? Not only is it morally unsustainable, it is fiscal insanity and no government in a mature economy would bring it in because it would completely destroy any spending plans.

One reason would be a beginning. Your mere stating that a flat tax would cause a recession is NOT an argument against flat tax. You would have to show HOW or WHEN that happened.

Look at the countries in eastern Europe that have adopted flat tax systems. Do they show signs of a recession caused by the new tax system? Did their tax income go down?

It may be fine in developing countries, where government spending is extremely low, but it simply cannot and would not work in first world countries.

Proof?

The breakdown of the traditional family unit is the cause of most social problems, the tax system is one tool to encourage the family along with the education system.

Surely the traditional family unit predates the progressive income tax?

"So once again your arguement carries no weight."

There are other forms of taxation, other than income tax. The only reason Gordon Brown can promise Britain he will not raise taxes is because he has found over 90 other ways of taxing us. If there is a deficit, governments will fill it. Better it is through the income tax system where politicians can be held accountable. This was the problem with the poll tax here during the Thatcherite government. An invented charge to plug black holes. It created riots. I certainly don't want public disorder on that scale again.

"And this piece of tripe is a VERY specious arguement."

How? Flat taxers are arguing against situation specific income tax i.e. all alowances are lost.

"Why would that be bad for society?"

Only the most vulnerable in society, particularly the elderly, will loose all increased personal allowances in the name of cutting tax bills of the wealthy. A mark of a society is how it treats its weakest, not its strongest. THAT IS WHY IT IS BAD!

"Your mere stating that a flat tax would cause a recession is NOT an argument against flat tax."

So a recession, ending ALL economic growth is not a good reason against it? You must be having a laugh.

"Surely the traditional family unit predates the progressive income tax?"

I said it was ONE way, not THE way. In a MODERN context, it is very good way. Surely the historical strength of the family unit is a new debate. You should write a thread about it if you want to debate it, now who is off topic?

" You would have to show HOW or WHEN that happened."

There you go again, trying to start a debate between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

For goodness sake just stick to the topic.

No tax allowances, just the same rate for all. Never has there been a more elitist, socially unjust idea.

You want a progressive tax? Fine. I'll give you a progressive tax. As your income goes up, you'll owe the government more money. As your income goes down, you'll owe less money. It will still be a flat 15% (or whichever percentage is necessary) of your TOTAL income. How is that not progressive? The amount changes in proportion to the amount earned.

How is it unjust? Telling someone, "Okay, you just stepped over *that* income line, so now you owe us an additional 22% of your income. Sorry, that's the just and fair way to do it." Is that just? Don't think so. But that's what the progressive RATE does to the up and coming wealthy.

Is it just to tell everyone "okay, you owe the government $10,000 in taxes this year. Regardless of how much you actually earned this year, that's what you owe." That's being unnecessarily cruel to poorer folks and being overly nice to the well-to-do and wealthy. This is what I see your comment above to be aimed at.

Is it just that the government says, "For every dollar that you earn this year, you the government $0.15."? IMO, that is completely fair. Straight up and clear cut. No "Well, do all of these medical bills equal 10% of my earnings? No, darn! Can't deduct them." or how about, "Gee, I've got this $2 million sitting here that's going to be taxed. Lemme see where I can 'invest' it so that it will be out of sight and untouchable."

Are those fair? Nope.

" *that* income line, so now you owe us an additional 22% of your income."

This is what a lot of people get confused about an it is where a lot of the support for the flat tax comes from. You only pay the extra percent over a certain limit NOT on the whole amount.

For example, this year you can earn up to £32, 400 (after taking away tax free allowance of £4895) before you start paying 40% tax. So if you earn £37, 296 you pay 40 pence in that one pound you go over not an extra 18% on the whole lot.

A 10% rate band, followed by a 22% and then 40% is what we have in the UK and it is the best system available.

We'll give you $8,000 more in February just because we can,

Last time....The MAXIMUM EIC benefit is $4,300.

This is what a lot of people get confused about an it is where a lot of the support for the flat tax comes from. You only pay the extra percent over a certain limit NOT on the whole amount.

That may be true in Britain, but it's NOT true in the US. You obviously know nothing of the American tax code, britman.

Now, return to your trollhole where you belong!