The GOP wants to snoop in your tax returns, and make them public if they wish

So it's your position that a flat tax is a progressive tax?

I wish we still had images on here, so I could put Inigo Montoya in.

I think you need to look up the word "progressive" as it relates to taxation, because BY DEFINITION a flat tax CANNOT be progressive.

This. Makes. No. Sense.

There's no reason in the world why Florida can't get rid of every form of taxation, and substitute the flat tax. See, in the United States, the feds get tax money, the states get tax money, the counties get tax money, and the cities get tax money.

But they'll pay less with a flat tax than with progressive taxes. You don't know this because you don't know what progressive taxation is.

FWIW, I favor a modified flat tax. NO deductions...not for your church tithe, not for your mortgage interest, nothing. A certain amount of exempted income per household member, and then a 2nd tax rate that kicks in at, say, $1M. If you want to get rid of that 2nd part, fine, so long as we adopt this general tax system across the board. Otherwise, the regressiveness of state and local taxes will make our overall tax system regressive.

 

No dave, a progressive tax is one that gathers more money as the level of income goes up. PERIOD!!! Therefore, a person earning $1 MILLION dollars will pay $100,000 in taxes while a person earning $100,000 will pay $10,000. However, both of those 2 individuals will pay sales tax at $7.75 per $100 purchase.

What you are referencing is a REDISTRIBUTION system.

Sales and excise taxes differ in that they gather the same amount of money regardless of the level of income of the spender. THAT is regressive.

 

The federal government imposes excise taxes, but the federal excise taxes tend to be on very limited products (such as taxes on alcohol, tobacco or fuel) or are used as proxy for income taxes (such as the excise tax on insurance premiums paid to non-US insurance companies).

The US has nothing like the VAT or GST that most of our traidng partners have. This acts as a copetative disadvantage to our manufacturers, as US manufacturers are taxed on their world-wide income while most foreign manufacturers are taxed only on the income earned in their home country.

 

State and local governments COULD tax but the reality is that the bite of the Federal tax is so much stronger that localities tend to feel constricted in their ability to raise revenue that they do not raise taxes to the level they feel necessary.

Also states feel the competition of neighboring states with lower tax rates in keeping their rates lower. This is a major issue we have felt here in California were tens of thousands of taxpayers, and hundreds of businesses, have fled California in favor of Nevada and Arizona where rates were lower.

A national tax, redistributed to states on a per capita basis, would level the playing field in this regard.

 

No dumbass (and that is NOT a personal attack, but a clear and convincing fact) that's a PROPORTIONAL tax.

Trust me, right now, everyone is laughing at you. Open you window, cup your hand around your ear, and you'll probably hear the faint echo.

 

Not to mention his excise tax example has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would have guessed (admittedly, pretty much randomly) that the spending of all 50 states, and all of the thousands of counties and 10s of thousands of cities would be more than the federal gvt.

I'm alot more confident that if federal spending is more, it's not "so much stronger" to have the kind of effect you're implying here.

And I just want to say, what the hell am I doing wasting my time discussing taxes with someone who doesn't understand the difference between progressive and proportional taxes? Only a conservative, misled by the conservatively biased media, could be so wrong about something so central to the discussion.

 

How is it not double taxation for me to take the money left over after income taxes, and then tax me on cigarette purchases??????

 

OK, marginalize it that way if you prefer. But you still have made no case for the advantage the present system has over a flat rate tax with Federal revenue sharing with the states. You can't.

The Federal system is more efficient and also based on a much greater economic base than the state or local governments can ever be. Just too many local issues which can disturb cash flow. Consequently, if you make the collection process even more efficient, and eliminate some of the loopholes, there are more benefits to all. THAT is the real issue.

 

Why the hell are we now talking about marginal tax rates???? Dude, time to lay down the pipe for a bit.

 

Excise taxes are used on a limited number of nonessential items or to place the tax burden on those who receive the benefits of the tax revenue. You're deliberately muddying the water simply so you can say "I’m right". Do you really believe an excise tax is the same as universal sales tax?

 

Do you understand the idea of "marginalizing" a concept? I'm sure you do. You just don't want to admit to an idea that is not the darling of the left.

This has nothing to do with marginal tax rates and you know it.