Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Rep. Mike Pence Comes Out in Favor of the “Flat Tax”...
Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | Monday, November 29th, 2010 | Brian

Posted on 11/30/2010 11:57:36 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike

GOP Rep. Mike Pence spoke at the Detroit Economic Club today, and came out fully in favor of the Flat Tax, and called for the United States to abandon “Keynsian spending,” and return to “the practice of free market economics”:

(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: flattax; pence; pence2012; runmikerun
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
"Good job by Pence. He looks like he is setting himself up to make a run for the 2012 GOP Nomination, and the Flat Tax could be the centerpiece of his campaign."
1 posted on 11/30/2010 11:57:39 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

We could do worse.


2 posted on 11/30/2010 11:58:46 AM PST by Personal Responsibility (The more the plans fail the more the planners plan - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

What’s wrong with implementing the Fair Tax, instead?


3 posted on 11/30/2010 12:02:29 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore
What’s wrong with implementing the Fair Tax, instead?

Way too much room for manipulation, just like the current code we have now.

Flat tax = everybody pays the same....no wiggle room.

4 posted on 11/30/2010 12:08:56 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Obama treats terrorists with kid gloves, American Citizens with rubber gloves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore
What’s wrong with implementing the Fair Tax, instead?

Excessively complex and far too easy for the MSM to misrepresent. A flat tax is easy to explain to voters and hard for Democrats to argue against. Its the right first step toward future consumption-based taxation.

5 posted on 11/30/2010 12:09:20 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves ( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Tax collection is not the problem. Spending is the problem.


6 posted on 11/30/2010 12:12:04 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

He doesn’t have to run for president to enact a flat tax. He needs to get the legislation through the congress. Sarah Palin can sign the bill. If that isn’t good enough, then I believe he is using this issue to run for president and nothing will become of it. The same old promises every election cycle.


7 posted on 11/30/2010 12:12:32 PM PST by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Pence needs to pass along a return to free enterprise to his RINO behaving House leaders. Keeping 26 year olds on mommy’s insurance and pre-conditions is not insurance—it’s welfare, but Cantor has said that’s what the plan is, according to Rush.

That is NOT insurance and it’s not conservatism!
WHO are these people in our leadership?


8 posted on 11/30/2010 12:14:26 PM PST by RitaOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Another reason to really like this man! My husband and I very much like the flat tax.

(I also like Pence’s work in Congress to defund Planned “Parenthood.”)


9 posted on 11/30/2010 12:15:04 PM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

The Flat Tax is the only fair tax. Everyone has skin in the game and everyone will pay attention to their own business. You pay 10% (or whatever) and that’s it. That is the very definition of a fair tax.


10 posted on 11/30/2010 12:15:43 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
"Way too much room for manipulation, just like the current code we have now."

Which sadly is exactly why it will never go away. The current system gives tremendous power to elected officials to pander to and reward their political supporters.

I laugh every time I hear about the "welfare reform" in the 1990s. Whatever "reform" there may have been, was rendered entirely moot with all the tax-credits that followed. Sure, someone making $20K (or so), may not qualify directly for "welfare", but they do qualify for innumerable tax credits. It's still wealth transfer, only it's more stealthy. I don't think there enough politicians of any stripe who will voluntarily give up that power.

11 posted on 11/30/2010 12:20:06 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

I would prefer not having any income reported or taxed. A national sales tax would have everyone paying, including the idle rich with their offshore accounts, criminals with their ill-gotten gains, politicians and welfare recipients. In other words, everyone who shops and consumes, which is everyone. That is most fair.


12 posted on 11/30/2010 12:21:00 PM PST by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore
What’s wrong with implementing the Fair Tax, instead?

Both are good ideas, however, the flat tax would have the greatest chance of passing with the least opportunity to be corrupted. The Fair Tax, with all its benefits would require such a structural overhaul with so many levels and departments impacted, it has a much higher risk of failing or worse, becoming corrupted. Flat Tax is a good short term solution, Fair Tax would be more of a long term goal.

13 posted on 11/30/2010 12:26:24 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver

“A national sales tax would have everyone paying...”

No, it wouldn’t. It would have consumers paying. We should all pay for all of our agreed upon collective services. If we can agree to that, we stand a chance of having everyone heard. Sales tax creates or maintains government bloat and throws another burden on business. Why do that? It’s ridiculous. If you buy something from a business and he collects a tax and then goes BK before it is paid, to whom do we go to get the money? Sorry, Sales Tax based is a gimmick and a bad one.


14 posted on 11/30/2010 12:27:32 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

If this Flat Tax is in combination with a 10 or less page of instructions for filing with a huge 1 page form for under somewhere around $100,000 I would buy it. Fair Tax would be a joke.


15 posted on 11/30/2010 12:28:58 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

I would be very happy with Pence as POTUS.


16 posted on 11/30/2010 12:33:08 PM PST by MattinNJ (Palin and/or Pence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Taxing one’s income is immoral.

Taxing transactions is much more fair.


17 posted on 11/30/2010 12:33:24 PM PST by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

Cantor has said that’s what the plan is, according to Rush.

_________________________

Let’s hold our fire on the republicans until they actually do something bad. Not a single one of them voted for Obamacare in the Senate or the house. Hard to find fault with them on this issue. Easy to find fault with some of them on other issues.


18 posted on 11/30/2010 12:35:07 PM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

“Taxing transactions is much more fair.”

Why? If you have no transactions, does that mean you will not seek protection by the armed forces the rest of us pay for?


19 posted on 11/30/2010 12:36:31 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

“Flat Tax”, “Abandon Keynesian Crapola”, “Return to Free Market Fantasy”

All well-meaning nothingness, no substance, no real reform just political crapola.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified and permitted the federal government to tax income. The first tax code was a ‘Flat Tax’; 7% for the wealthiest 2% and 1% for everyone else.

Since 1913 there have been 5 major tax reforms, ALL OF THEM making the tax code FLATTER, simpler and la-ti-da.

Since the last major tax reform in 1986 there have been more than 18,000 legislative amendments to the tax code and there has been a quadrupling of tax lobbyists.

Get the picture on the Flat Tax?

IT NEVER STAYS FLAT!!!!!!!!!

Why?

Because it is a cancer.

A ‘Flat Tax’ is surgery to remove a cluster of cancerous code but the tax cancer comes back with a vengeance in 10 to 15 years. Happens every time.

The way to get rid of the tax cancer is to get rid of the 16th Amendment and enact a far superior tax code of revenue and enforcement called the ‘FairTax’; the brand name is ‘FairTax’ not ‘Fair Tax’.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq

The Flat Tax has happened before again and again. It is nothing new. It always fails.

How to prevent a Flat Tax from failing?

1. Pass a law that says you can’t amend a law? Nope, not possible.

2. Pass a law that says 2/3s votes of Congress are required to amend the tax code? Nope, can be overturned on simple majority vote.

Both of the above and any similar ideas require a Constitutional Amendment to make it difficult for a new Congress to get around.

If Congress is going to pass lasting tax reform they are going to have to amend the Constitution. If they are going to amend the Constitution, they may as as well amend it to repeal the 16th. The simple solution to the tax cancer is REPEAL THE 16th AMENDMENT AND ENACT THE FAIRTAX!

Here’s an article by a Constitutional Law Professor who is esteemed by conservatives:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html


20 posted on 11/30/2010 12:38:04 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

“Flat Tax” invariably means “Flat Tax RATE”, an improvement but still grossly unfair to high earners.

Why should they pay more? SUBSATIALLY MORE. Most high earners actually use LESS government than the “poor”.


21 posted on 11/30/2010 12:39:13 PM PST by EyeGuy (RaceMarxist Obama: The Politics of Vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

“Flat Tax” invariably means “Flat Tax RATE”, an improvement but still grossly unfair to high earners.

Why should they pay more? SUBSATIALLY MORE. Most high earners actually use LESS government than the “poor”.


22 posted on 11/30/2010 12:39:26 PM PST by EyeGuy (RaceMarxist Obama: The Politics of Vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Spot on.....taxes are not about revenue but rather power. There are ways to manipulate man kind.

His money, food, and I won't bring up the other one.

23 posted on 11/30/2010 1:01:09 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Obama treats terrorists with kid gloves, American Citizens with rubber gloves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“The first tax code was a ‘Flat Tax’; 7% for the wealthiest 2% and 1% for everyone else.”

That is a progressive tax.


24 posted on 11/30/2010 1:04:31 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy
Why should they pay more? SUBSATIALLY MORE. Most high earners actually use LESS government than the “poor”.

I think the ultimate answer is to get Government (Us) out of the business of supporting/enabling/perpetuating the poor.

25 posted on 11/30/2010 1:05:03 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Obama treats terrorists with kid gloves, American Citizens with rubber gloves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Who seeks protection from the armed forces?

The armed forces are charged with defending the borders of the nation.

Citizens should defend themselves.


26 posted on 11/30/2010 1:05:53 PM PST by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

“Why should they pay more?”

If they are paying the same percentage, they are not paying more. There is no discouragement to earn more and there is no disparity. When you alternate between percentages and amounts it is usually to make a false point.

Saying if I make a million and I pay x hundred thousand and you only earn 30K and you only pay x thousand is a bullshit argument. 10% is always 10%. You would also eliminate the big shots who can say they earn millions and pay less than you ... something that makes everyone nuts.

If you know your bite is going to be x% you will have no incentive to dodge it ... you will pay x % no matter how much you earn ... revenues would be stable and budgeting would be a simpler matter to attack on the basis of % of expected revenue, allowing us to demand more accountability in budgeting.

Unless you think all of this Tea Party reformation talk is bullshit ... this is the way to go. Pence is right on track for the Tea Party agenda, in my opinion.


27 posted on 11/30/2010 1:14:50 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

“Citizens should defend themselves.”

Oh. OK.


28 posted on 11/30/2010 1:15:41 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

“If they are paying the same percentage, they are not paying more.”

###

Well of course they are, an actual dollars which is what matters. Your “percentage is what matters” argument is where the total “bullshit” lies.

There is no justification for high earners to be paying more in raw dollars. None.

Your logic reeks of class warfare. It is none of your business or the government’s what I make in calculating my fair share of the governmental tax burden.


29 posted on 11/30/2010 1:24:13 PM PST by EyeGuy (RaceMarxist Obama: The Politics of Vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

“There is no justification for high earners to be paying more in raw dollars. None.”

Since there is way to calculate better than by percentage, this is the only fair method that doesn’t give anyone a free ride. And no, there is absolutely nothing about class warfare involved. If the guy making a weekly check and just scraping by pays ten percent, or a guy making a million bucks pays ten percent, the corresponding totals will be the same ten percent, no matter how much you try to change it. If you are suggesting an inverse progressive tax, which it sounds like you are, THAT would be class warfare.

Mixing percentages with “raw dollars” is an old tax dodger trick that just doesn’t work in the world of math. Unless you are totally inept at using your money, the same percentage will have the same impact. Cost of doing business is fixed and that is a good thing. isn’t that why there are no jobs and the economy is locked up? Not knowing what the bite is going to be is never good.

I would gladly pay a percentage of my income to the common welfare. And remember, that not everyone is rich from year to year. Some of us make a lot one year and less the next. Some have it from the beginning and some grow it. With a fixed percentage it will also rise and fall, but the percentage will not change. Which is equitable.

The country has overhead. If we don’t get a grip on it we will lose the country. A few points of my income isn’t worth that. A fixed rate would make the economy boom.


30 posted on 11/30/2010 1:35:36 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

You missed the point. You can make X% and only X% and call it flat.

The point you missed is that you can’t keep it ‘flat’, any more than previous generations of Americans kept their 2 ‘flat’ brackets from growing into many more brackets of flatness.

So go on and argue about semantics. The point is you and flat tax lovers have no way of stopping a flat tax from growing into ever more brackets and becoming progressive. You can’t do it because of the 16th.


31 posted on 11/30/2010 1:47:19 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

There certainly is a better way than percentages: Flat AMOUNT per person.

A persons’s income has nothing to do with their “fair share”.

“Impacts on the individual” have no logical merit in paying one’s portion of the government load. You are once again, too concerned with how much the “rich guy” gets to keep.


32 posted on 11/30/2010 1:49:50 PM PST by EyeGuy (RaceMarxist Obama: The Politics of Vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“So go on and argue about semantics. The point is you and flat tax lovers have no way of stopping a flat tax from growing into ever more brackets and becoming progressive.”

So I guess all of this Tea Party nonsense and Conservative reformation is just a bunch of shit? We’re all wasting our time? Good to know. Why bother coming here?


33 posted on 11/30/2010 1:53:44 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

There certainly is a better way than percentages: Flat AMOUNT per person.”

Hahahaha. And what would that amount be? Hahahaha. Thanks.

“You are once again, too concerned with how much the “rich guy” gets to keep.”

MY posts are focused on how much we get to pay ... I dunno what the hell YOU are talking about. A fixed amount? What, like “Gimme 5,000 dollars, screw you pay me?”

No, THAT wouldn’t be progressive. It could be 50% of what one guy has and .0000001 of what someone else has. Cripes. Where do you guys come from? Do you know what that figure would have to be?

Talk about class warfare.


34 posted on 11/30/2010 1:57:36 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

You went off topic. The thread is about the Flat Tax. My response is that as long as the 16th Amendment is in force, there will never be a lasting Flat Tax; it will be unflat within a decade guaranteed.

Is that so difficult for you to understand? Appears so.


35 posted on 11/30/2010 2:00:39 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
And I don't know what class warfarists like you are doing on a conservative forum. You still haven't explained why a high earner is obligated to pay more in actual dollars to support the government.

A flat amount per person, would not only be the most logically fair, but would also be the SUREST way to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government.

Do I have any idea what that amount would be? A LOT smaller than you would think, that is unless you enjoy the ongoing growth, of the behemoth of government that now exists.

Your posts continue to obsess over comparisons among citizen's, ABILITY TO PAY. That is socialism and wrong, across the board.

Have a nice evening.

36 posted on 11/30/2010 2:16:50 PM PST by EyeGuy (RaceMarxist Obama: The Politics of Vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

“Your posts continue to obsess over comparisons among citizen’s, ABILITY TO PAY. That is socialism and wrong, across the board.”

So what is your figure? You won’t say, because it is just plain wrong headed.

Of course. If they can’t pay, it won’t work. Not a very clear thinker tonight, are you? a PER AMOUNT would be so high there would be a massive inability to pay, leading to default. And no, socialism has never been introduced here. There has never been any mention of socialist programs ... quite the opposite ... what we have now is more socialist because we have so many who pay nothing.

You are imagining this like everyone going out to eat and paying the same. If we did that we’d be eating garbage.


37 posted on 11/30/2010 2:24:14 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

“Do I have any idea what that amount would be? A LOT smaller than you would think...”

And that figure is?


38 posted on 11/30/2010 2:32:04 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“You went off topic.”

On the contrary. you said: “So go on and argue about semantics. The point is you and flat tax lovers have no way of stopping a flat tax from growing into ever more brackets and becoming progressive.”

I replied: So I guess all of this Tea Party nonsense and Conservative reformation is just a bunch of shit? We’re all wasting our time? Good to know. Why bother coming here?

So how is that off topic? Your rebuttal to the proposed flat tax is what MIGHT happen, NOT what WILL happen and it assumes that we fail in our efforts to reform. Is that or is that not what you are saying?

I ask you; If you believe that, why try?


39 posted on 11/30/2010 2:36:08 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

My posts were not about ‘what might happen’ to the Flat Tax. The Flat tax has been tried in American history a total of 6 times starting with the very first tax code in 1913 after the 16th amendment was ratified.

If a flat tax has failed 6 times to stay flat then it is not difficult to understand why it keeps failing. The 16th amendment is a de facto business license for members of Congress, the IRS and tax lobbyists to tinker with the code.

There is nothing to stop a flat tax from creating more and more brackets to the point that it is no longer flat. What keeps new brackets forming is the 16th amendment and Congress. They will pass amendments to creat another bracket, then another and then another etc. Nothing can stop them because the 16th allows them to do it.

Take away the 16th and there will be no more tax insanity. But take away the 16th and a flat tax will no longer be legal. But the FairTax is legal under a Constitution where the 16th has been repealed.


40 posted on 11/30/2010 2:45:40 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“The Flat tax has been tried in American history a total of 6 times starting with the very first tax code in 1913 after the 16th amendment was ratified.”

Continuing to say that will not make it true. When taxes are levied at different percentages, as you have cited, it is not a flat tax. It is a progressive tax.

You do not understand the flat tax. This might help;

http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2010/03/29/the-flat-tax-good-for-america-bad-for-washington/

and there are many other sites.

Mr. Pence and I happen to agree that a FLAT tax (the same rate applying to all) is the best way to go to rid ourselves of the parasites and stop soaking the rich.

And I could not agree more that progressive taxes such as those about which you speak are unacceptable, but we need to start with a logical premise to have this discussion.

Either you refuse to do so because you do not want a discussion or you do not understand the difference between a flat tax and a progressive tax.

You sir, are dead wrong. We have not had and never have had a flat tax. We have always had a progressive tax - more taxes are paid by the rich as a percentage. Which, of course, is unfair. Flat means equal. Equal means fair.


41 posted on 11/30/2010 3:06:56 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

There have been about 6 sponsors in Congress for the Flat tax. There have been as many as 75 sponsors in Congress for the FairTax.

That’s 75 to 6. The Flat tax has no future because it is not a solution and will fail by weight of the 16th Amendment.

I know the flat tax because I was once a flat tax supporter. But that was before I was aware of how Congress can change tax code using tax authority under the 16th Amendment.

Yes it has been tried 6 times in American history; first at 7% and 1%, and now some fellow named Paul Ryan that Wisconsiners tell us is a young genius is touting a simplfied code of 10% and 25%.

You can try and say that a two tiered income tax is not a flat tax but you will get nowhere past the 6 or so sponsors in Congress with it. The flat tax can and will be amended to tax others at a higher income bracket at a higher rate and then it will grow so that in 10 to 15 years there will be many many brackets, and it won’t be flat anymore.

I’ll say again you can argue semantics but you can’t argue how you’re going to write legislation that prevents a future Congress from changing and amending your Flat tax so that it is no longer flat. You can’t do it because they have the power under the 16th Amendment to change the tax code, to create another bracket for the upper incomes, and so on until years later they have a bracketed ‘flat tax’ just as exists today.

One more time, how are you going to stop a future Congress from changing and passing amendments to create more brackets to your flat tax code?


42 posted on 11/30/2010 3:22:51 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“One more time, how are you going to stop a future Congress from changing and passing amendments to create more brackets to your flat tax code?”

One last time. I do not have an opinion on what might be. If you had asked me three years ago what my reaction to Obama as President, I would have said, of course, “who?”

Arguments based on what might happen are impossible to resolve ... but you knew that.

We have never had a flat tax.

We should try it.

Saying it won’t work is not an argument or a point. It is simple speculation and opinion based on no history and no good reasoning.

Let me ask you, since you are knowledgeable about this.

Are there any countries that use a flat tax?

How are they doing?


43 posted on 11/30/2010 3:33:18 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
The FLAT TAX, where EVERYONE pays the same PERCENTAGE after personal deductions, is the ONLY FAIR WAY TO TAX!!

When a billionaire buys something at the store, he pays the SAME PERCENTAGE of sales tax!!

44 posted on 11/30/2010 3:45:33 PM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion......the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

You are evading the issue. There have been several very simple 2-tiered tax rates that many Americans in generations past have called a simple flat tax.

The issue you are evading is that you have not explained how a new Congress 2 or 4 years out is not going to introduce an amendment to set a higher rate for upper income earners in order to be ‘fair’, so that your flat tax will be a 2-tiered tax structure on its way to becoming a multi-tiered bracketed tax structure.

You are nuts to think that past Americans having fought for a simpler income tax at only 2 brackets were foolish enough to think it was not a flat tax. It was a very flat tax, and yet all those reforms failed.

Even if in 1913 they had one rate 7%, what makes you think they would not have made another bracket for the super rich? And then years later added yet another bracket and so on.

Once again, how does your flat tax stop the next Congress from adding another bracket?

The answer is simple, it doesn’t because it can’t.

To ignore history and say we never tried it before is irrational. The previous 2-tiered tax rates were expanded into a hundred or so brackets.

What makes you think your flat 1-tier tax rate won’t be expanded to 2? 3? Hasn’t happened before?

Let’s repeat:

The original income tax code in 1913 had 2 brackets:

1% \
—> many many tax brackets through 5 major reforms
7# /

Your flat tax starts at :

X% —> many many tax brackets

What is to prevent the above? Why do you say it hasn’t happened when clearly it has with a simple 2-tiered system? You think it won’t happen with a 1-tier system? You’re nuts! Human nature says if pols can do it they will do it!

What prevents future pols from creating more brackets? Answer: Nothing!

What CAN prevent pols from creating many brackets is repealing the 16th and replacing the Income tax code with the FairTax code of tax collection and enforcement.

The Flat tax as a design is flawed. It will never stay flat.

The Flat tax as a political issue for 2012 is DOA.


45 posted on 11/30/2010 4:22:54 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

You are evading the issue. There have been several very simple 2-tiered tax rates that many Americans in generations past have called a simple flat tax.”

Just simply not true. There has never been a flat tax. Simply not true. You are fantasizing and projecting into the future. I don’t think this is worth pursuing. Give my regards to Cleopatra and Nostradamus when you see them.


46 posted on 11/30/2010 9:39:00 PM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MattinNJ

I wouldn’t mind having Pence as POTUS, but it’s very difficult to win any race for President from the House of Representatives. I would be very surprised, if Pence doesn’t run for Indiana Governor in ‘12, instead. He was or is leaning more towards a run for Governor, unless he has changed his mind. It’s much easier to win a Presidential race as a former Governor than as a former House Representative, and Pence is smart enough to knows this.


47 posted on 11/30/2010 11:59:40 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Pence major weaknesses in any run for POTUS are his running for POTUS from the House of Representatives and Pence’s past views on illegal immigration issues. Pence has been “squishy” on illegal immigration issues, and he might, still, be “squishy” on illegal immigration issues, today.


48 posted on 12/01/2010 12:03:35 AM PST by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
There has never been a flat tax. Simply not true. You are fantasizing and projecting into the future. I don’t think this is worth pursuing. Give my regards to Cleopatra and Nostradamus when you see them.

You know there is nothing quite as revolting as an ignoramus that consumes their own puke.

1. 1861 A flat tax was imposed on incomes.

2. 1867 After 4 alterations of the 1861 flat income tax to a progressive tax, the income tax was altered back to a flat rate.

3. http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hottopic/irs_history.html
In 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax.

4. Each of the preceding income taxes were challenged as unconstitutional but nevertheless they were imposed for awhile on American incomes.

5. 1913 The original income tax imposed a flat rate of 1% on more than 98% of all incomes.

You can argue that the 1913 income tax was not flat but more than 98% of all American wage earners had the same rate and it is likely they would have said it was flat.

Each of the 5 major tax reforms that came after the 1913 income tax made the tax rates flatter.

The point of this discussion is that each flat tax or flattened tax reform, all gave way to an alteration to a progressive tax structure.

It is a fact that there will always be those that push for a progressive tax structure. The 16th Amendment enables these people to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived without apportionment. That means Congress can single out any group of earners and lay a tax on their income bracket, hence a progressive tax.

The 16th allows both a Flat and a Progressive Tax. Without the 16th, both would be unconstitutional. The FairTax is constitutional regardless if the 16th is repealed or not.

Pence's flat tax is not new, is not a solution and will not stay flat.

49 posted on 12/07/2010 10:10:03 PM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
When you pay Taxes, you don't pay with money, you pay with your Labor.

The idea that one person has to work for the Government while another does not is not Equal Protection, it is Indentured Servitude.

10% bracket = work 5 weeks a year for the Gubmint.
35% bracket = work 17 weeks a year for the Gubmint.
So much for that Fair Share Clintonian crap.

50 posted on 12/07/2010 10:31:39 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (If Sarah Palin was President, you would have a job by now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson