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 ...
“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”.
“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”.
His money, food, and I won't bring up the other one.
“The first tax code was a ‘Flat Tax’; 7% for the wealthiest 2% and 1% for everyone else.”
That is a progressive tax.
I think the ultimate answer is to get Government (Us) out of the business of supporting/enabling/perpetuating the poor.
Who seeks protection from the armed forces?
The armed forces are charged with defending the borders of the nation.
Citizens should defend themselves.
“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.
“Citizens should defend themselves.”
Oh. OK.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“Do I have any idea what that amount would be? A LOT smaller than you would think...”
And that figure is?
“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?
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.
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.