Why do citizens support a flat tax?

[Mizzougrad96]

I think in order to get it to work, you have to eliminate the kind of tax shelters that prevent so many companies from paying taxes.

There's also a big difference between "paying the same amount" and "paying the same percentage"

 

[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."

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.

And people would be willing to surrender $4,000 a year for that?

Forgive me for being skeptical. I think that you offer a reasonable defense of it, but I still suspect that many and probably most of the people who answer "yes" think that they will see their taxes go down immediately. We're such an instant gratification society that I find it very difficult to get my head around the idea that people value the theoretical long-term benefits of a flat tax at $4,000 a year off the top.

 

[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.

And people would be willing to surrender $4,000 a year for that?

Forgive me for being skeptical. I think that you offer a reasonable defense of it, but I still suspect that many and probably most of the people who answer "yes" think that they will see their taxes go down immediately. We're such an instant gratification society that I find it very difficult to get my head around the idea that people value the theoretical long-term benefits of a flat tax at $4,000 a year off the top.

Again, that's a flaw with this particular plan -- the 9-9-9 plan -- not the idea in general.

The goal shouldn't be to shift the tax burden. (And, I should also point out, I'm not some huge evangelist of the idea, mostly because I don't think it will ever be enacted. Too many people have too much invested in the current system.)

The rate of taxation could still be graduated and progressive to keep the overall tax burden where it is. The key would be that every taxpayer pays a flat rate, not necessarily the same rate.

The focus should be on simplifying the system, not finding one magic rate.

 

[Clambake Clem]

I can\'t imagine anyone referring to Obama as \"Stepinfetchit\" before telling him to shine someone\'s shoes. How does this kind of post not get taken down?

 

[deskslave]

This "stake in the game" crap is so ridiculous. Forcing someone who makes $11K a year to pay income tax so that they can feel some kind of "ownership" of a government that wastes billions chasing nonexistent weapons of mass destruction around the desert? Bull****.

It's not about that, and it never was. It's about the rich, those long-suffering, put-upon scions of society, paying less and the poor, those lazy, layabout, shiftless scroungers, who'd be rich if only they'd do an honest day's work, paying more. Period. End of story.

 

[YankeeFan]

This "stake in the game" crap is so ridiculous. Forcing someone who makes $11K a year to pay income tax so that they can feel some kind of "ownership" of a government that wastes billions chasing nonexistent weapons of mass destruction around the desert? Bull****.

It's not about that, and it never was. It's about the rich, those long-suffering, put-upon scions of society, paying less and the poor, those lazy, layabout, shiftless scroungers, who'd be rich if only they'd do an honest day's work, paying more. Period. End of story.

I just disagree.

You're anger is apparent, but it does not allow you to ascribe beliefs to me or other Conservatives.

We believe the Government has a spending problem. We think too many people don't care. The Government is a poor stewrd of of our money, but as long as it benefits some, they likely won't care.

Everyone should have a stake in our Government and how it spends our money.

Then, every Congressman will have to answer questions about spending when they do a Town Hall meeting.

Then, every ribbon cutting ceremony will be accompanied by questions regarding the "value" of the program.

What the "rich" care about is return on investment. The government provides a poor return on investment. They **** money away.

Why do you think Buffet, Gates, etc. have spent years planning out foundations that will better spend their money after their death?

If they believed government would spend it well, they'd just fork it over in inheritance taxes. Instead, they're doing everything possible to avoid that.

 

[deskslave]

A spending problem? Yes. But not in the way you want us to believe.

What you believe is that the government has a problem of spending money on people who aren't you, who don't pass litmus tests conveniently set up so that you pass them and others don't.

 

[JayFarrar]

The government only has a spending problem when it comes to national defense and health care.

That accounts for roughly two thirds of the federal budget.

Most of the programs people complain about are fractions of a single percent in the total budget.

Those programs, along with national defense and health care, provide jobs. Big, good jobs in places that don't often get them. When those jobs get cut, say a post office closing, people in those areas complain long and loud. Because it isn't a spending problem here, just there.

This is comparable to how most people dislike Congress but like their individual congressman.

For more than half the country, the tax code is insanely simple. That's roughly how many people file using a 1040ez. Add in the 1040a numbers and it goes up, way up. The people who benefit from a personal flat tax are the wealthy but because in America, everyone thinks they'll be among the wealthy one day, people will act against their best economic interest to further their economic dream.

Where the tax code needs work is on a corporate level but a flat tax on corporations simply doesn't work.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The government only has a spending problem when it comes to national defense and health care.

That accounts for roughly two thirds of the federal budget.

Most of the programs people complain about are fractions of a single percent in the total budget.

Yep. The people who think that they are going to eliminate the Department of Education and the Forest Service and, voila, spending problems all solved.

 

[User 11148]

The government only has a spending problem when it comes to national defense and health care.

That accounts for roughly two thirds of the federal budget.

Most of the programs people complain about are fractions of a single percent in the total budget.

Yep. The people who think that they are going to eliminate the Department of Education and the Forest Service and, voila, spending problems all solved.

OK, so we'll throw in the NEA and that'll do it, right?

 

[cranberry]

This "stake in the game" crap is so ridiculous. Forcing someone who makes $11K a year to pay income tax so that they can feel some kind of "ownership" of a government that wastes billions chasing nonexistent weapons of mass destruction around the desert? Bull****.

It's not about that, and it never was. It's about the rich, those long-suffering, put-upon scions of society, paying less and the poor, those lazy, layabout, shiftless scroungers, who'd be rich if only they'd do an honest day's work, paying more. Period. End of story.

I just disagree.

You're anger is apparent, but it does not allow you to ascribe beliefs to me or other Conservatives.

We believe the Government has a spending problem. We think too many people don't care. The Government is a poor stewrd of of our money, but as long as it benefits some, they likely won't care.

Everyone should have a stake in our Government and how it spends our money.

Then, every Congressman will have to answer questions about spending when they do a Town Hall meeting.

Then, every ribbon cutting ceremony will be accompanied by questions regarding the "value" of the program.

What the "rich" care about is return on investment. The government provides a poor return on investment. They **** money away.

Why do you think Buffet, Gates, etc. have spent years planning out foundations that will better spend their money after their death?

If they believed government would spend it well, they'd just fork it over in inheritance taxes. Instead, they're doing everything possible to avoid that.

Sorry but the U.S. deficit has nothing to do with welfare queens not having skin in the game.

That conservatives never think it's OK to cut defense spending is where the hypocrisy begins, so holler when that happens and we can begin a serious discussion.

And how come conservatives weren't screaming when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were setting new deficit spending records while extending more and more tax breaks for the rich?

To suggest that conservatives are people who like to pay their bills and balance budgets doesn't really square with history, does it?

And is it just coincidence that every single flat tax plan ever introduced shifts a larger piece of the tax burden to lower- and middle-income folks while -- big surprise -- reducing the tax burden of the wealthy?

 

[YankeeFan]

A spending problem? Yes. But not in the way you want us to believe.

What you believe is that the government has a problem of spending money on people who aren't you, who don't pass litmus tests conveniently set up so that you pass them and others don't.

Now you're putting words in my mouth again.

I think there are problems with all kinds of government spending.

And, because I pay taxes, it particularly bugs me. The thinking is that if everyone paid federal taxes, then everyone would question how the money was spent.

And, to your earlier point, maybe they'd care about military spending and/or foreign wars more.

Maybe they'd make their voices heard on all sorts of issues.

More people involved and invested is a good thing in my mind.

 

[YankeeFan]

The government only has a spending problem when it comes to national defense and health care.

That accounts for roughly two thirds of the federal budget.

Most of the programs people complain about are fractions of a single percent in the total budget.

Yep. The people who think that they are going to eliminate the Department of Education and the Forest Service and, voila, spending problems all solved.

Yeah, but you'll never get to the big budget items before you go through the little ones.

It's like a kid who's blown his allowance, but still wants to buy comic books & bubble gum.

It might be small percentage wise, but for anyone to take spending cuts seriously, then you've got to cut everywhere.

We'll never cut defense & health care if we're still funding cowboy poetry festivals.

 

[Dick Whitman]

A spending problem? Yes. But not in the way you want us to believe.

What you believe is that the government has a problem of spending money on people who aren't you, who don't pass litmus tests conveniently set up so that you pass them and others don't.

Now you're putting words in my mouth again.

I think there are problems with all kinds of government spending.

And, because I pay taxes, it particularly bugs me. The thinking is that if everyone paid federal taxes, then everyone would question how the money was spent.

And, to your earlier point, maybe they'd care about military spending and/or foreign wars more.

Maybe they'd make their voices heard on all sorts of issues.

More people involved and invested is a good thing in my mind.

So people making $45,000-$50,000 a year right now are not "invested" enough, either?

And they seem to agree with that contention and think they are not invested enough, according to the polling in Iowa. They want to be more invested so that they can motivate themselves to care about government spending, which they do not right now because they are not yet invested enough?

 

[YankeeFan]

Sorry but the U.S. deficit has nothing to do with welfare queens not having skin in the game.

I never referenced welfare queens.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm trying to have a rational discussion here.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The government only has a spending problem when it comes to national defense and health care.

That accounts for roughly two thirds of the federal budget.

Most of the programs people complain about are fractions of a single percent in the total budget.

Yep. The people who think that they are going to eliminate the Department of Education and the Forest Service and, voila, spending problems all solved.

Yeah, but you'll never get to the big budget items before you go through the little ones.

It's like a kid who's blown his allowance, but still wants to buy comic books & bubble gum.

It might be small percentage wise, but for anyone to take spending cuts seriously, then you've got to cut everywhere.

We'll never cut defense & health care if we're still funding cowboy poetry festivals.

I don't subscribe to this. It's not self-evident. When we cut in our house, we don't cut the $7 a month newspaper first. We cut the $100 a month landline. Or downgrade cars to relieve ourselves of a $300 a month car payment.

People don't want to cut cowboy poetry fests on the way to cutting defense. No way. They don't want to cut defense, period. And they sure as hell don't want the "goverment hands on their Medicare!1111!"

 

[Greenhorn]

Quite simply, every voting citizen (regardless of employment status) has a voice in how our government should operate.

 

[deskslave]

A spending problem? Yes. But not in the way you want us to believe.

What you believe is that the government has a problem of spending money on people who aren't you, who don't pass litmus tests conveniently set up so that you pass them and others don't.

Now you're putting words in my mouth again.

I think there are problems with all kinds of government spending.

And, because I pay taxes, it particularly bugs me. The thinking is that if everyone paid federal taxes, then everyone would question how the money was spent.

And, to your earlier point, maybe they'd care about military spending and/or foreign wars more.

Maybe they'd make their voices heard on all sorts of issues.

More people involved and invested is a good thing in my mind.

Of course, if the conservative response to OWS is any indication, any attempts to make their voices heard will be met with condescension, scorn and derision.

Hilarious that you think the advocates of the flat tax want to hear from the average Joes who would suffer most under their regressive tax plans.

 

[deskslave]

Quite simply, every voting citizen (regardless of employment status) has a voice in how our government should operate.

So people who aren't citizens but are present legally, and pay taxes, they don't get a voice?

 

[YankeeFan]

So people making $45,000-$50,000 a year right now are not "invested" enough, either?

And they seem to agree with that contention and think they are not invested enough, according to the polling in Iowa. They want to be more invested so that they can motivate themselves to care about government spending, which they do not right now because they are not yet invested enough?

I don't think people making $45,000 - $50,000 need to pay higher taxes.

The flaw is with the 9-9-9 plan, which is one man's idea, not some consensus conservative opinion.

We can make the system simpler and flatter, without changing how the tax burden applies to people.

Hell, even for "poor" people, you could just stop separating out FICA and other payroll taxes that are not technically "income tax".

The government doesn't keep the money separate, there's no reason for it to be a different line on you pays tub.

Just make it a taxpayer funded government program. Drop the cap on it that "rich" people don't pay above it on, and don't pay Social Security to Bill gates or Warren Buffett.

How's that for radical? (And drop the employer payments too. They just mask the rate.)

Now, instead of "payroll" taxes and "income" taxes, you just have one line for federal taxes on your pay stub.

Now, we can fight over what that rate of taxation should be for various income levels.