Obama's first failed appointment

Originally Posted by lookout123

And yet you're all convinced an easy to understand flat tax would hurt the poor and working classes.

An "easy to understand" flat tax is absolutely regressive...hurting the poor and working class far more than higher income groups with far greater disposal income.

And the more "complicated" you make it to counteract that inherent unfairness, the higher the tax rate will need to be just to generate enough revenue to pay for basic national needs.

SO, the current tax system is unfair because it is progressive and the rich pay a greater share of their income.

A flat tax is unfair because it is regressive and the poor and working class pay a greater share of their income.

Which group should pay that greater share of their income.....the group that relies on a large portion of its income to meet basic needs and perhaps a few luxuries or the group with much greater disposable income?

The answer is easy to me.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

An "easy to understand" flat tax is absolutely regressive...hurting the poor and working class far more than higher income groups with far greater disposal income.

And the more "complicated" you make it to counteract that inherent unfairness, the higher the tax rate will need to be just to generate enough revenue to pay for basic national needs.

SO, the current tax system is unfair because it is progressive and the rich pay a greater share of their income.

A flat tax is unfair because it is regressive and the poor and working class pay a greater share of their income.

great. show us the numbers from an un-biased source.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

great. show us the numbers from an un-biased source.

Consider the source to be the Univeristy of Common Sense.

There are two general approaches to the flat tax - tax on sales or tax on wages.

A flat sales tax of approx. 25% would have a more adverse impact on the dispoasl income of a person of $30,000 income as opposed to $3 million income - common sense.

A flat tax on wages generally excludes non wage income (capital gains) and would have a more adverse impact on the disposal income of a person making $30,000 (with nearly all of it from wages) as opposed to a person making $ 3million (with a large portion excluided from the tax as non-wage ,capital gains) - common sense

I share the opinoin of that capitalist that the free market guys always love to point to when it comes to deregulation, but not taxes - Adam Smith:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion....

But I accept that "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder and we willl never agree on this one.