Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2) The assumption that prices wouldn't go up is wishful thinking.
I could say the same of social medicine improving our heathcare system, but both would be bold assumptions with no data to back them up.
Quote:
3) I have already explained in great detail why I think flat taxation is regressive, and why a burden based taxation is the most fair. (Flat tax with a prebate is still a flat tax.)
I might be slow, but I still don't get it. Assuming the cost of goods doesn't go up, how would anyone pay more for goods than today? Forget that everyone is paying taxes, that's irrelevant if people are no worse off for paying those taxes than today.
I hear a similar argument from coworkers from CA looking at moving to NC... the salaries are 2/3rd of what they are in CA. But they ignore that the homes are 1/2 the price (or 1/3rd of the price in most cases) and overall cost of living is lower. Look at how much is left in your checking account at the end of the month, not at how much you make.
Every person that works on the books (except for GreatDay) pays social security up to the top threshold at a flat rate.
Quote:
I could say the same of social medicine improving our heathcare system, but both would be bold assumptions with no data to back them up.
Big difference. What would improve our health care system tremendously is making sure that everyone has access to health insurance. This is not an assumption. Every credible analysis of health system agrees with that point.
Quote:
I might be slow, but I still don't get it. Assuming the cost of goods doesn't go up, how would anyone pay more for goods than today? Forget that everyone is paying taxes, that's irrelevant if people are no worse off for paying those taxes than today.
Right now, we have a somewhat progressive tax system. The more you make, the higher your tax rate on dollars above a certain threshold. A flat tax, makes people pay taxes on every dollar they spend. When you are middle or lower income, most every dollar you spend is NOT discretionary. Ergo, 100% of your money is being spent on necessities. So 30% tax on 100% of your income is a much greater burden than 30% of taxes on 10% of your income.
I hear a similar argument from coworkers from CA looking at moving to NC... the salaries are 2/3rd of what they are in CA. But they ignore that the homes are 1/2 the price (or 1/3rd of the price in most cases) and overall cost of living is lower. Look at how much is left in your checking account at the end of the month, not at how much you make.[/quote]
Every person that works on the books (except for GreatDay) pays social security up to the top threshold at a flat rate.
I still don't see what this has to do with how a fair tax increases the cost of an item to where people are paying more for that item after its implementation
Quote:
Big difference. What would improve our health care system tremendously is making sure that everyone has access to health insurance. This is not an assumption. Every credible analysis of health system agrees with that point.
Hardly... otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion. I could have been arrogant and stated that with certainty that socialized medicine will be the downfall of this country due to the overwhelming debt we already face, and how only my sources are credible... but I didn't. You make assumptions about the subject and should be able to admit it rather than hide behind selective sources.
Quote:
Right now, we have a somewhat progressive tax system. The more you make, the higher your tax rate on dollars above a certain threshold. A flat tax, makes people pay taxes on every dollar they spend. When you are middle or lower income, most every dollar you spend is NOT discretionary. Ergo, 100% of your money is being spent on necessities. So 30% tax on 100% of your income is a much greater burden than 30% of taxes on 10% of your income.
That doesn't change a thing. If you pay 25 cents for an orange today and tomorrow you pay 25 cents for an orange, but tomorrow you paid taxes, it's moot. I hate to break the news to you, but industry already passes any increased cost due to taxes or increases in transportation costs to the consumer... so everyone already pays these taxes regardless of the flat tax.
I still don't see what this has to do with how a fair tax increases the cost of an item to where people are paying more for that item after its implementation
I was answering your assertion that some people don't pay taxes. That is false. I am not going to answer an argument, (in red) that I didn't make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
Hardly... otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion. I could have been arrogant and stated that with certainty that socialized medicine will be the downfall of this country due to the overwhelming debt we already face, and how only my sources are credible... but I didn't. You make assumptions about the subject and should be able to admit it rather than hide behind selective sources.
No one refutes that more people being covered would be good for the health of our nation. (Red). That isn't the objection.
People's argument have to do with whether it should continue the way it is now, or be universalized and paid for by taxes.
Quote:
That doesn't change a thing. If you pay 25 cents for an orange today and tomorrow you pay 25 cents for an orange, but tomorrow you paid taxes, it's moot. I hate to break the news to you, but industry already passes any increased cost due to taxes or increases in transportation costs to the consumer... so everyone already pays these taxes regardless of the flat tax.
Big difference. Everyone also pays income taxes that are somewhat (barely) progressive enabling a more equal burden. The price of oranges is a flat cost. As is milk. But if you make 20 times more money than I am, you most certainly won't be buying 20 times more milk. You may buy twice as much milk. And if that milk expenditure is 5% of my hourly income, but 1% of your hourly income, then the cost of milk makes a much higher dent in my lifestyle than it does yours, even if you are buying twice as much. There is a certain point where one makes enough so that they don't have to spend every penny they earn. That is the breaking point where flat taxation STOPS taxing people. All those who aren't at that income level are taxed on every penny they earn, thus, REGRESSIVE taxation.
Let me correct you: GreatDay and millions of others who have also withdrawn from the Social Security system
Unlike many others on this board, I do not just grab numbers out of my hat.
I can only speak for you, because you have told us that you have withdrawn for the system. I can't speak for "millions of others" because I have not verified that information and don't chose to make stuff up (like many do.)
I was answering your assertion that some people don't pay taxes. That is false. I am not going to answer an argument, (in red) that I didn't make.
I don't believe that I said some people don't pay taxes... I may have correctly stated that some people get more in a refund of income taxes due to the EIC tha they paid into it.
Quote:
Big difference. Everyone also pays income taxes that are somewhat (barely) progressive enabling a more equal burden. The price of oranges is a flat cost. As is milk. But if you make 20 times more money than I am, you most certainly won't be buying 20 times more milk. You may buy twice as much milk. And if that milk expenditure is 5% of my hourly income, but 1% of your hourly income, then the cost of milk makes a much higher dent in my lifestyle than it does yours, even if you are buying twice as much. There is a certain point where one makes enough so that they don't have to spend every penny they earn. That is the breaking point where flat taxation STOPS taxing people. All those who aren't at that income level are taxed on every penny they earn, thus, REGRESSIVE taxation.
Again, that's completely moot. If you are not paying any more for an item under a fair tax plan, it's no worse off than your situation today. If you can't agree to that, I can't sit here and argue with you because you don't make any sense.
Extending your logic, people should be charged for an item based upon how much they make. Person A who earns five times as much as person B should pay $1.25 for an orange while person B should pay $0.25.
Unlike many others on this board, I do not just grab numbers out of my hat.
I can only speak for you, because you have told us that you have withdrawn for the system. I can't speak for "millions of others" because I have not verified that information and don't chose to make stuff up (like many do.)
And GD, I'm not referring to you.
According to CATO, it's roughly 5 million people who have opted out of SS.
My thoughts exactly. Also, we have had a progressive tax forever now. Are the lower income people doing great?
Um, there will always be lower-income people...
...unless, that is, you want to resort to a completely even redistribution of wealth.
Look, the point of a progressive tax is to keep from taxing the minimum amount of money needed to survive in the United States. Don't tax survival. Tax that which is above the survival threshold.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
