Is a flat tax a stupid idea? Shouldn't those with more ability

>>127460418
progressive tax- poor people with 8 kids get money back from the govt. people who work OT and try to move ahead in life get 45% tax

>>127460418
>>127460565
Income tax in general is garbage.
Land value tax is the least immoral tax out there.

>>127460846
straight up vax tax. the more you buy the more you pay

>>127460846
Problem with land taxes are that you can never own it then. You pay your taxes for 73 years and stop paying because you don't have any money and you're just living off your land... the government can now take your property.

>>127461078
You don't own property in any system, you have to pay property taxes in virtually any government and if you stop paying them the government takes your shit. Property taxes and similar ones like land taxes actually make the most sense though, since government is the only institution that can enforce property contracts, land rights, etc. it makes sense that you pay it to enforce them in the form of taxes. Without government land ownership wouldn't work and would break down.

I don't think the income tax system is the problem, the state growing like cancer is.
The state does not take as much as it needs, it takes as much as it can and then wastes the money if it is too much.

>>127461360
You can own property in some systems. And "Without government land ownership wouldn't work and would break down." isn't an argument. Friendly reminder that all taxation is theft.

>>127462389
Its the only argument you ancap fuck

>>127460418
As long as capital gains taxes stay low I don't give a shite.

t. guy who makes most of his money through the stock market

>>127462389
> And "Without government land ownership wouldn't work and would break down." isn't an argument
Name me an entity that would enforce property, land, etc. contracts in a society that isn't a state or isomorphic to one. I'll wait.

>>127462581
says the country that only improved when a bunch of whites gave them capitalism

File: 1484081338777.jpg (92KB, 720x541px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 720x541px

>>127460418
(((Ed Stein)))

>Is a flat tax a stupid idea?
Yes, see cost of living.

>>127463047
Bullshit.
Singapore was india tier until we got self governance.
Then we became 1st world.

>>127460418
>What effective way is there for the richest to pay proportionally more while still making more money?

A progressive tax like the US has

Flat income tax with tax rate reductions if married and not more than 2.5 children. Also rate reductions if choosing to use private education and private health care.

>>127463047
Are you stupid or something? Capitalism requires a state to enforce private property and contracts and give rule of law to allow things like businesses to work efficiently. Nothing he said contradicts what anybody has said at all.

>>127460418
I love how Jew implies that wasn't the rich guy's money already. Everyone's gotta be a victim if they're not rich. Oy vey, please don't put us in camps again.

>>127460565
>>127460418
Surely there is something in-between?

>>127463273
No, because there are things like bracket traps, in which if somebody works a certain amount more they will make it into X bracket and be forced to pay more taxes by a discrete amount than they would have without making that extra money. It actually discourages people from working more in some instances because they get to keep/make more money by paying less taxes than they otherwise would. For example, if the tax brackets are broken up into something like ~$35k/yr, $45k/yr, $60k/yr, so on, a person making $55-59k annually may make more effective income than a person making $60k since they are in a lower tax bracket.

>>127462899

Not an ancap, but I can enforce my property ownership by shooting/threatening to shoot anyone else I find on it. My dog enforces the fuck out of his property ownership when some other dog comes sniffing around. Ownership most definitely precedes the state.

>>127463335
>Capitalism requires a state to enforce private property
source?

File: hitler.jpg (20KB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x358px

>>127460418

>Shouldn't those with more ability to pay pay more?

Shouldn't the inferior be castrated or killed at birth?

I don't understand why anyone but the super rich would shill for a flat tax it makes no sense. But it's always a guy making $40k who drank the libertarian cool aid acting like a flat tax is the most sensible thing in the world. I don't get it.

>>127463214
>Singapore was india tier
was? check your id

It's not, people who are against flat tax literally have no arguments except point out at a horribly flawed implementation, ála "but if you make it a retarded system, it's stupid". That's literally the level of discourse, because nobody sane argues against a flat tax.

Make 99% of the money, pay 99% of the taxes, it's literally that simple.

>>127460418
taxes overall are a stupid idea

>>127463926
>I don't understand why anyone but the super rich would shill for a tax it makes no sense. But it's always a guy making $40k who drank the college cool aid acting like a tax is the most sensible thing in the world. I don't get it.

>>127463866
Reality, do you understand how capitalism works?
>>127463857
Maybe at a small concrete level but you most definitely need a state to enforce abstract property claims on things like stocks, titles, etc. where people aren't even necessarily physically present around what they own. How would you expect prominent landlords to defend all of their properties? Eventually they'd have to resort to some defense agency isomorphic to a state.

>>127463857
Okay, what of the case where you own land in multiple states, perhaps as much as 300 miles away?

Now you'll have to hire a service to keep out squatters and respond to any criminal activity happening on your land. It'll probably be something like a yearly fee, based on the value and size of the land that needs to be protected.

>>127463982
>implying with dat flag
I would tell you to get an edumacation but i cant expect much from a burger

>>127463883
You don't know if someone is inferior at birth, disregarding mongs and other genetic defects. Hitler himself was a member of the poorer class.

>>127460418
Properly adjusted "Progressive" taxation gives benefit to the working poor for whom the utility of the same percent tax is more greater than someone who is wealthier (i.e. once you reach a point, you don't need to worry about finances beyond what liabilities you put on your own shoulders, and the amount of income not divvied up to essential living costs minimises).

In the same situation, this also pushes those who earn greater direct incomes to put those incomes into capital gains and investments, which positively affect the economy and raise tax revenues and prosperity, and push their employers to forsake direct pay for giving shares of equitable value.

Meanwhile, a flat tax gives all persons the same rate, increasing rates on the poor, decreasing rates on high direct incomes but most importantly for them, increasing rates on capital gains, heavily disincentivising investments in the country.

I won't pretend that tax systems in the US and UK don't have their problems (tax complexities rack up and damage growth even harder than simpler, equivalent or higher rates) or that it is fundamentally okay to begin with

But Flat taxes aren't the solution. Cut the state, cut taxes.

>>127464039
I'd argue that a flat tax is stupid because it's horrible for marginal utility, $1500 are worth much more to a person making $10000 than $15000 are to somebody making $100000. Saying that all opposition to it is also stupid to it in that it ignores alternative non-income taxes like paying for things with sales taxes, land value taxes, etc.

I don't mind a flat tax. One tax rate, one vote

But if you want to tax the rich more then that is fine too. Pay higher taxes, get more votes.

>>127463857
you leave for a day, it's full of armed squatters. GG no RE faggot

>>127460418
I prefer progressive taxes because they keep the rich from becoming too powerful. It is not possible for a government to govern an entity more powerful than itself, and it is not desirable to have insulated communities of powerful people working against the interests of the rest of the nation.

>>127464232
what college ranking do you use?

>>127460418
The only acceptable tax is a progressive sales tax. Income tax, property tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, all other tax are immoral.

>>127464115
>Reality, do you understand how capitalism works?
yes. private ownership of the means of production. bitcoin shits all over your premise,

>>127464627
> I prefer progressive taxes because they keep the rich from becoming too powerful
They definitely don't. Considering that most Western countries have very progressive tax systems and also very powerful landed elites who consistently gain power faster than the general public that isn't true, and not only that but it makes governments almost solely dependent on the wealthy as a source of revenue, meaning they become dependent on the wealthy almost entirely and start to serve them more and more.

>>127464627
i don't mind flat taxes but what needs to happen is lobbying needs to be abolished.People having money isn't a problem the problem is they get a bigger voice.

>>127460418
Flat tax would stop the rich from using bullshit means to end up paying no taxes. Ever wonder why the rich HAVNT done it yet? Because it fucks their current system up.

>>127460418
You know how proportional tax works?
It doesn't
The rich people usually have the means to evade it or just move their business away
So instead of a % of their money (a huge amount) you end up with 0.
In the end, it's the middle class who really pays for it, while unemployment skyrockets thanks to rich people moving businesses away

>>127460418

I like the flat tax, but realize that we need serious reform/simplification of personal income tax and would be ok with 2, 3 or 4 tax brackets as long as we also got rid of with-holding and made everyone pay quarterly.

>>127464383
Right, while you argued your point a lot more respectfully than people normally do when they argue against flat taxes, you nonetheless made the same mistake that flat tax means "literally flat tax even if it ruins families".

Obviously a flat tax system would have a lower threshold at which the system wouldn't even tax you, there is no point in taxing people who barely make by.
Obviously there is a transitional period between income X and income Y where the flat tax gradually increases so you don't run into the "oops, made 2 dollars too much, let's go from 0 to 10% tax instantly" situation.

The principle of the matter of a flat tax is
a) Less regulation, the tax code could be drastically reduced if there just wasn't that many special cases like there are now
c) Fairer system, obviously if most people pay the same percentage of their income, then it's a pretty fair system. Yes cost of living at the lower end is static, but read above for a solution to that, additionally, people should also take that as an incentive to earn more money.
d) Lower taxes for the middle class. Goes without saying. The current tax codes in most countries is a jungle of regulation, exceptions and such. It is not hard for people with money to buy or trick their way around paying their actual tax share, so the burden trickles down to those that can't, be it poor or uneducated people.

>>127464831
For Bitcoin to ever actually become anything other than a meme that's widely accepted and used as a currency some major government agency is going to need to accept it, enforce standardization of use, etc. Just like with every other currency.
>>127464737
How is land value tax immoral? People don't create land or natural resources, so in a sense you can't really own or create the wealth obtained from them, and as has been stated on here multiple times in different ways a government is needed to enforce property claims, so if anything land value/property taxes make the most sense and are the least immoral taxes.

>>127463145
I don't think you understand how a flat tax works. You see, it's a fixed (or flat) percentage of your income. Let's say the tax is set at 10%. This means that for every $100 you earn, you pay $10.

>>127464383
Having saved for my son's college over the years, and wishing I could have saved more while watching Tyrone and Pedro go for free, I call bullshit. Those two classes aren't paying for the same things, the poor get their expensive needs free of charge.

>>127464666
Get to the point

>>127460418
Why not just flat tax, but with a minimum income. I.E 20% taxes on are income after $50,000 a year, but before that income is not taxed.

>>127464929
This a million times.

>>127460418
Rich people pay 0% in taxes currently. There are all sorts of breaks for business owners and loopholes, and good old Cayman Islands.

Just charge everyone a flat 20% of their earnings and that'll be 20% more the rich have to pay than they do now.

File: USProgressiveTaxSystem.jpg (45KB, 660x491px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 660x491px

>>127464928
> Flat tax would stop the rich from using bullshit means to end up paying no taxes.
That's a meme spread by stupid college-tier leftists who just assume shit they hear. The rich pay way more than what they earn proportionally already.

File: 1475906455719.jpg (40KB, 480x433px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x433px

>>127465270
Leading to absolutely nobody having an income of between 49999/year and around 62000/year. In effect you would be destroying the ability of many workers to improve their prospects because once you reach that 49999/year level there is absolutely no improving your wages until you can suddenly jump up about 15000/year.

Who cares about the middle class though amirite

>>127463652
um. No sweetie
That's a fallacy, taxes are marginal, when you hut a new bracket it's not like you are instantly hit with a higher percentage

When you hit at new tax bracket, let's say 60-80k is at 35%
For every dollar you make after 60,000 you are giving back 35 cents

It doesn't simply apply the 35% to the first 60,000 you made
It's more of a friction/drag effect if you want to visualize
Since the tax system is progressive it generally raises tax rates the higher the income bracket is
Let's pretend there are two tax brackets
20% for 0-40k and 40% for 40-50k
If you make 45k you will not pay 40% taxes overall
You will pay 40k@ 20%= $8000
And then 5k @ 40%=$2000
The average overall tax rate you paid is 22%

>>127466114
obviously you havent a clue how taxation works

>>127460996
Radical. But I'd like to see this in action.

Flat tax has the effect of either completely screwing over those who live paycheck to paycheck to paycheck, or not making enough money to pay for basic government services. The best taxation system is the fair tax, which is like a flat tax, but with a flat prebate paid to everyone. Everyone pays the same percentage and receives the same amount of tax credit for free, so it's fair. But because the prebate would make up a greater percentage of the amount of tax a poorer person would pay, it is progressive in its effect.

Example:
Imagine we have two people, one who makes 20K a year, and one who makes 200K a year. Our example tax rate is 20%, so person 1 should pay 4K, while person 2 should pay 40K. Now living on 16K compared to 20K is a lot harder than 160K compared to 200K. Let's imagine, however, each person is paid the same 2K in cash. Well, that would mean that person 1 would have paid a net of 2K (only 10% of his income), while person 2 would have paid a net of 38K (which is 19% of his income). Both people were taxed using the same rate and provided the same amount, so the taxation is fair. Person 1 is able to afford food in addition to just rent, so the taxation is progressive.

While the actual proposed implementation of the fair tax is based on a sales tax, rather than an income tax, the principles can be applied just the same.