Why do citizens support a flat tax?

[Ben_Hecht]

At this point, is there anyone outside of Cain himself who thinks Cain could actually win the presidency? I know that's not the point of this thread, but I just have a hard time seeing any of this come to fruition.

It'll never come to fruition, but other Republican candidates will also campaign on some form of it. Perry already is.

I just find it absolutely fascinating that people think a flat tax will make them better off. It defines logic. I know that the Democrats should be easily able to counter the flat tax, but what ends up happening is that, "Obama is lecturing us like a professor!" while the Republicans are, "Keeping it simple!" by just repeating, "fair" and "simple" ad nauseum.

At some point, at a campaign stop, isn't a middle-class voter going to ask Cain or Perry straight-on, "Won't I pay more under a flat tax?"

How do they answer that?

Ringing in "simple" certainly has broad appeal to the basest of the GOP base . . .

 

[deskslave]

It works because the message isn't "you'll pay more, because that's your fair share." The message that gets through is "everyone ELSE will pay their fair share, just like you already do." The subtle implication is, as always, that there's some underclass of scroungers sucking up tax dollars from hard-working Joe the Plumber types.

And given the target audience of the message, the implication also includes the notion that it's "people who aren't like you" who are the scroungers.

It doesn't help that the Faux Newses of the world constantly peddle this bull****, which is just as much class warfare as what they like to decry elsewhere, with the nice added bonus of being racial warfare as well.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Intelligence-deficient people like Cain's plan because it's "simple" and "fair."

OK, how about this?

According to latest estimates, the US budget in FY 2012 will be $3.729 trillion.
According to latest estimates, the US population 2012 will be 315 million.

Run the numbers.

Every single person in the United States pays $11,838.10.

No exceptions, no deductions, no deferments, no credits, no age-indexing, no nothing. Everybody has the same "skin in the game." Cradle to grave.

Totally simple and totally fair.

(Plus, we've balanced the budget, which many of the same people want to do!!)

Let's do it.

That's what that John T Reed character proposed in the link I posted.

Yeah, I read your link while I was editing my last post.

Reed wimps out because he age-indexes -- for some bizarro world reason he doesn't want people paying any taxes until they turn 24. Why should the whipper-snappers age 0-23 get a free ride?

TOTALLY simple and TOTALLY fair. Everyone pays the exact same amount.

"TOTALLY" fair for an infant to cough up 11 grand?

Why should they be any different than anyone else?

Sure. They can earn money breaking up small pebbles with their rattles at the quarry.

 

[User 11148]

Wow, now that's some extrapolation. A flat tax regime is not only a bad idea, it's also racist! Who woulda known?

 

[RickStain]

The obvious solution is that national defense should not protect babies.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Intelligence-deficient people like Cain's plan because it's "simple" and "fair."

OK, how about this?

According to latest estimates, the US budget in FY 2012 will be $3.729 trillion.
According to latest estimates, the US population 2012 will be 315 million.

Run the numbers.

Every single person in the United States pays $11,838.10.

No exceptions, no deductions, no deferments, no credits, no age-indexing, no nothing. Everybody has the same "skin in the game." Cradle to grave.

Totally simple and totally fair.

(Plus, we've balanced the budget, which many of the same people want to do!!)

Let's do it.

That's what that John T Reed character proposed in the link I posted.

Yeah, I read your link while I was editing my last post.

Reed wimps out because he age-indexes -- for some bizarro world reason he doesn't want people paying any taxes until they turn 24. Why should the whipper-snappers age 0-23 get a free ride?

TOTALLY simple and TOTALLY fair. Everyone pays the exact same amount.

"TOTALLY" fair for an infant to cough up 11 grand?

Why should they be any different than anyone else?

Sure. They can earn money breaking up small pebbles with their rattles at the quarry.

So a flat tax might impose an added burden on infants that should be built into the system?

 

[YankeeFan]

Shouldn't babies owe a prorated portion of the $11,000 upon their birth if we get our way?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

So, Starman's biggest problem with the 9-9-9 plan is that Starman pays more?

And, that's a legitimate objection in his case, but is illegitimate when others make the same case?

Higher taxes on other people = good thing.

Higher taxes on Starman ≠ good thing.

It's also good to see he's graduated from using the c-word to using racist terms to refer to a republican candidate.

 

[young-gun11]

Fair Tax all the way. I'm in no favor of any other tax program. FAIR TAX!!!!

 

[Dick Whitman]

It works because the message isn't "you'll pay more, because that's your fair share." The message that gets through is "everyone ELSE will pay their fair share, just like you already do." The subtle implication is, as always, that there's some underclass of scroungers sucking up tax dollars from hard-working Joe the Plumber types.

I think that this is the answer.

And what happens when people only get their news from partisan sources, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, is that they don't even get exposed to analysis like the one by the nonpartisan institute linked in my original post.

I don't have the time to wait it out, but I would love to watch Fox's coverage, over the course of several days, of plans like the Cain 9-9-9 plan. Do they ever even suggest that middle-class citizens would pay more than they are now? Or do they just repeat the mantras "fair" and "simple" and shift the target to the IRS?

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

It's Starman's money and he needs it now (to pay for the dry cleaning of his Klan whites - got to look spiffy for the rallies)

 

[Mizzougrad96]

We've established that he's misogynistic and racist. I'm sure in a few months we'll find out what he thinks of Mormons as well.

 

[Stitch]

Does anyone want to put money on whether support for a flat tax evaporates once the middle class figures out it would have to pay more once all the deductions (such as mortgage interest and charity donations) are eliminated?

 

[YankeeFan]

It works because the message isn't "you'll pay more, because that's your fair share." The message that gets through is "everyone ELSE will pay their fair share, just like you already do." The subtle implication is, as always, that there's some underclass of scroungers sucking up tax dollars from hard-working Joe the Plumber types.

I think that this is the answer.

And what happens when people only get their news from partisan sources, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, is that they don't even get exposed to analysis like the one by the nonpartisan institute linked in my original post.

I don't have the time to wait it out, but I would love to watch Fox's coverage, over the course of several days, of plans like the Cain 9-9-9 plan. Do they ever even suggest that middle-class citizens would pay more than they are now? Or do they just repeat the mantras "fair" and "simple" and shift the target to the IRS?

The basic belief on the right is that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

But, many on the right also believe, as do many on the left, that the tax code is too big and bloated, is to complicated, and includes to many (often hidden) loopholes for corporations and the rich.

So a simpler, smaller tax code has obvious appeal.

The idea is that whatever would replace the current tax code should raise the same amount of money as the current one -- not more, not less.

Admittedly, many on the right do want everyone to pay some amount of federal income tax. The idea being that everyone should have some "skin in the game". When everyone pays into the system, everyone has an interest in making sure the money is spent well. It also prevents a situation where only a minority of folks are paying taxes, and they can raise taxes unilaterally on the folks who do.

Aside from some small tax on everyone, I don't think most people are looking to shift the tax burden by instituting a fair or flat tax.

I think they'd be perfectly happy with a system that was far more simple, but hit people basically the same.

There's also a belief that a simpler tax code would help the economy.

The current system rewards some activity and punishes others -- which is not always in the best interest of the economy.

It would also free up people and businesses to focus on their core business and not on the tax code. GE would no longer need a 1,000+ person tax department.

Lobbyists would be largely irrelevant, and all the money spent on lobbying could be spent on business growth, or to the bottom line.

You wouldn't need an accountant.

There's a lot to like about a smaller, simpler system.

So, if 9-9-9 doesn't work, fine. What does? Could it be tweaked to achieve the above goals?

And, let's remember, when people say it will never pass, it's because the people it would most hurt are not taxpayers, it's lawmakers and lobbyists. It would take away their power. It would take a ton of money out of politics -- which is supposed to be a goal of many on the left, including the OWS folks.

They fear this as much, or more, than they fear term limits.

 

[cranberry]

Republicans try to fool middle-class people every election cycle by telling them how much "simpler and fairer" a flat tax would be. Of course, it's no simpler and less fair, but it always sounds easy as, say 9-9-9...

This is really why the GOP wants a flat tax:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/business/flat-tax-doesnt-solve-inequality-problem.html?_r=1&ref=incomeinequality

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Cain’s proposal would increase the annual tax bill of a typical family of four earning $50,000 a year by more than $4,000, but would reduce the taxes owed by a similar family earning between $500,000 and $1 million by almost $60,000. The center also estimated that families in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households would enjoy an average annual tax reduction of nearly $1.4 million under the Cain plan. Similar distributional effects are common under all flat-tax plans, not just Mr. Cain’s.

 

[Azrael]

But it's flat!

 

[User 11148]

One reason I could support a quasi-flat tax regime (i.e., one with some hefty exemptions to ensure that the very low end isn't hit) is that it would, potentially, bring transparency to revenue generation. As Ragu and others have pointed out, by and large we have a flat tax in this country -- almost everyone who pays taxes has an overall effective tax rate in the neighborhood of 20% -- but you can't see that because of the myriad carve-outs, exemptions, exclusons, write-offs, etc. So we have threads like, Company X reports record profits but pays no taxes, or Billionaire Y has an effective tax rate that's lower than his secretary's. Then, we find out that everyone (and no one) is right because the devil is in the details. Further, all the little rent-seeking that goes on behind closed doors would be much harder to hide.

Now, none of the plans on the table seem reasonable, to me, but I could envision one that is reasonable.

As to why the public tends to be supportive of these initiatives, I think it has to do with a natural tendency to see certain numbers as simply reasonable. This cuts across all political viewpoints and you see it played on time and again in political settings. In the Obamacare run-up, for example, it was felt very important that the final bill be "scored" as having some impact not to exceed, say, $1 trillion (I don't recall the actual numbers, but you get the gist). For whatever reason, a $990 billion deal would be substantially more palatable than a $1.01 trillion deal. Similarly, the proportion of insurance revenues that could go toward overhead and profit was fixed at 80%. Why, because that's the right number (assuming such a thing exists)? Or because 80% sounds about right?

Cain's 9-9-9 plan sounds right to many people, and for many people, that's an important (perhaps primary) consideration.

 

[Dick Whitman]

YF, I don't think there is any chance in hell that the people in Des Moines who voted, "Yes, I will be better off under a flat tax," took their answer to mean, "Yes, I will be better off because, at that point, everyone will have a stake in the system, and thus, in the long run, they will be incentivized to make better voting choices regarding spending which, theoretically, will benefit me. In the long run. Somehow. Theoretically."

 

[User 11148]

I also think that many, many people really don't have a clue as to how "marginal rate" and "effective rate" are different. So if you're in either the 15% or 25% marginal bracket, Cain's 9-9-9 plan sounds like a tax cut.

 

[YankeeFan]

YF, I don't think there is any chance in hell that the people in Des Moines who voted, "Yes, I will be better off under a flat tax," took their answer to mean, "Yes, I will be better off because, at that point, everyone will have a stake in the system, and thus, in the long run, they will be incentivized to make better voting choices regarding spending which, theoretically, will benefit me. In the long run. Somehow. Theoretically."

I have to disagree.

I listen to right wing talk radio and consume as much Conservative media as anyone on this board.

The Flat Tax (or Fair Tax, or whatever you want to call a smaller, simpler system) is not a new idea. Steve Forbes ran for President on a flat tax platform 15 years ago.

Neal Boortz has been talking about it for just as long, and put out a book on it in 2005 with John Linder.

Hannity (who I rarely listen to because he repeats himself all the time and speaks to his audience like they're third graders) talks about it all the time.

And, everyone having a stake in the system and how the government spends their money has always been one of the main talking/selling points.