The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent

[Stealhead]

Imagine if there was a flat tax rate and you also got to choose where your money went and have to pick at least one agency or you could choose to divvy it up to as many government branches as you wished.

So lets say that you think that national defense is the most important you so select that 100% of your taxes went to the DoD.You would also say how much if any of your tax dollars went to the pay and benefits of Congress and the Senate.Of course they'd never allow that because most Americans would elect to give them nothing.This would insure that they do a better job as
if they did good work people might allow a share of their tax dollars go to them.

This is all of course is in my fantasy world.Though it supposed to be a government of the people right? So why not make it just that and let the people choose what their tax dollars go towards.

[AVGWarhawk]

Herman Cain suggested something similar. He was destroyed by the media. I don't think I would persue this line of thinking.

[eddie]

Forbes proposed the same thing years ago, haven't heard anything of him since!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Vendor

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=199135

Oops, sorry

Great post, Vendor, I'll merge this one into yours.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent



Alas, why can't we make it simple and just have all individuals pay a flat rate on their income, say 15%. No exceptions, no loopholes, no deductions.

not to argue too much, but 15% of 30,000 or less is a lot less livable than 15% of 1,000,000+. it would need to still have a minimum

Flat taxes with no loopholes?
Just for a simple starter.
Petrol, diesel, agri-diesel, autogas, heating oil?
Now work out the implications for individuals and business.

Originally Posted by u crank

Exactly how I act in strategy games like Victoria II, I'll tax every one of you bastards 100% if it means the country I'm playing stays out of debt.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by u crank

Nice one,
Agree Income Tax would be fairer if it was just a universal percentage for everyone. In fact I cant think of anything fairer that that.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Nice one,
Agree Income Tax would be fairer if it was just a universal percentage for everyone. In fact I cant think of anything fairer that that.

Hmm, why is this fair ?

A state or nation grants companies the allowance to use an infrastructure they did not build and pay themselves for, or they would find at otherwise cheaper places on the globe. They are also granted a lot of other advantages as well. Also before the globalization the access to the consumers via delivery, marketing and advertising was much better and shorter that way.
Since a worldwide distribution is possible and even cheaper (average loan 60 dollar cent for an hour, for workers building the iPhone in China), they do not cling to "their" nation anymore.

Wealthy and rich folks do not forget to mention all the time, what a (self-appointed) elite they are, and what they are doing for the plebs.
You would take that excuse away from them, impossible

(Not all of course, some really sell their company to e.g. General Electrics and then spend the rest of their life where they transferred the "tax" money all the time - like Cayman islands, Gibraltar, or Suisse.)

Greetings,
Catfish

[mookiemookie]

Flat taxes seem like a fair idea on the surface. What could be more fair than everyone paying the same percentage? But it presents problems when you dig deeper into it.

1. One of the biggest knocks on capitalism is that it takes money to make money. You could make the best coffee in the world, but you're never going to cut into Starbucks' market share. Too often the person with the better idea or product can't compete with the person with money - the one with money can essentially write the rules and regulations to favor themselves and present barriers to entry to any upstart, no matter how superior the upstart's product or service may be. A progressive taxation system addresses this inequality.

2. You don't need a flat tax to simplify the tax code. Too often these two ideas are conflated. Eliminating deductions and loopholes can be done while keeping a progressive taxation system in place.

3. Sometimes the old arguments are best - a rich person receives less marginal utility for each additional dollar earned than a poor person does....you may take away the rich person's ability to buy a 4th house by taxing them at that rate, but you may be taking away the poor person's ability to stay in their only house by taxing them at the same rate.

4. Our laws, infrstructure and financial system benefit those with money more than those without. If you've got $1 million in the bank, you need the government to protect that $1 million through law and military force a lot more than the guy with $100 in the bank. Why shouldn't the person with more to lose pay more?

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Oops, sorry

Great post, Vendor, I'll merge this one into yours.

No prob,

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

4. Our laws, infrstructure and financial system benefit those with money more than those without. If you've got $1 million in the bank, you need the government to protect that $1 million through law and military force a lot more than the guy with $100 in the bank. Why shouldn't the person with more to lose pay more?

$1M bucks in the bank is not nearly as protected as the $100.

For one thing the Fed only insures losses up to $250k whereas the $100 is totally covered. Secondly the amount of security required to protect a bank is the same regardless of whether one has a million in the bank or 10 cents.

Are you trying to say that $100 bucks isn't as important to a person as $1 million is to another?

$1M bucks in the bank is not nearly as protected as the $100.

100bucks is an entirely different stake than 1 million.

For one thing the Fed only insures losses up to $250k whereas the $100 is totally covered.

Irrelevant.

Secondly the amount of security required to protect a bank is the same regardless of whether one has a million in the bank or 10 cents.

Firstly you are off on the wrong angle, secondly even on that angle you are wrong

Are you trying to say that $100 bucks isn't as important to a person as $1 million is to another?

No he is saying one person has more of a stake to lose and as such gets more service.

[GT182]

I've heard that England is going to reinstate their Tea Tax here once again. Reason being the high tax rate they impose on their own people isn't enough for the British government to survive. And our government will do anything it can to raise taxes is the second reason.

Reason being the high tax rate they impose on their own people isn't enough for the British government to survive.

Does Britain have a high tax rate?
Perhaps you had better tell the French as they are complaining about Britains low taxes.