What if everyone was taxed the same?

[Big Empty]

What would happen if everyone had a base tax rate of 15%. Whether you made $15000 a year or $5000000.00 a year. How would it impact the economy, jobs and the budget? Since tax seems to be the biggest complaint fir everyone.

[DarrinS]

I think it would hit those people who currently pay 0% the hardest

[pgardn]

The people with the most money would try to get their rate lowered to 10%?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It would have horrible results because the tax plan libertarians cream themselves to where everyone pays 15% or less is free market utopian fantasy

[Nbadan]

I think it would hit those people who currently pay 0% the hardest

Corporations?



A flat tax would hit low income tax payers much harder...let's say you make $30K your tax bill would be 4,500K and your take home pay would be 25,500..now suppose you make 400K...your tax bill would be 60K, but your take home pay would be 340K...chances are your not gonna spend all 340K, but the low income payer will be impacted by taxes like Social security, wages, and sales tax on all of his 25.5K

[Wild Cobra]

How about this. The government sends all citizens 18 years old or more a monthly check, around the $800/month level. Then we implement a national sales tax on all goods excluding basic food and basic need items, maybe around 20%. We do away with other federal taxes.

[The Reckoning]

How about this. The government sends all citizens 18 years old or more a monthly check, around the $800/month level. Then we implement a national sales tax on all goods excluding basic food and basic need items, maybe around 20%. We do away with other federal taxes.


lol wut

[Wild Cobra]

lol wut
OK, about $300.

[Goran Dragic]

How about this. The government sends all citizens 18 years old or more a monthly check, around the $800/month level. Then we implement a national sales tax on all goods excluding basic food and basic need items, maybe around 20%. We do away with other federal taxes.

So we have a regressive tax system since this system taxes the poor and middle class WAY more than the rich.

[LnGrrrR]

Imagine all the people...

[coyotes_geek]

What would happen if everyone had a base tax rate of 15%. Whether you made $15000 a year or $5000000.00 a year. How would it impact the economy, jobs and the budget? Since tax seems to be the biggest complaint fir everyone.

It would bankrupt the entire tax industry that depends on a complicated tax code to entice people into paying someone else to figure out their taxes for them and/or paying people into figuring out how to minimize them. It would also hurt politicians who depend on their ability to offer preferential tax treatments in order to entice campaign contributions.

In short, it's a great idea that will never happen because too many accountants, lawyers and politicians depend on our fucked up tax code remaining fucked up.

[Th'Pusher]

It would bankrupt the entire tax industry that depends on a complicated tax code to entice people into paying someone else to figure out their taxes for them and/or paying people into figuring out how to minimize them. It would also hurt politicians who depend on their ability to offer preferential tax treatments in order to entice campaign contributions.

In short, it's a great idea that will never happen because too many accountants, lawyers and politicians depend on our fucked up tax code remaining fucked up.
You honestly think a flat tax is a great idea?

[coyotes_geek]

You honestly think a flat tax is a great idea?

If somebody was letting me write a new tax code from scratch I'd only apply the flat tax to income over the poverty line, but generally speaking yes, I think a flat tax would be a great idea.

(income - poverty line) x (rate) = tax.

[Th'Pusher]

If somebody was letting me write a new tax code from scratch I'd only apply the flat tax to income over the poverty line, but generally speaking yes, I think a flat tax would be a great idea.

(income - poverty line) x (rate) = tax.

So, not really a flat tax...still regressive as hell. Can you provide me a country that has a successful flat tax you would emulate?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The only way to have a sustained middle class is an extremely progressive tax that prevents wealth from accumulating at the top by heavily taxing the rich. I'd love to see emperical evidence that says otherwise.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So, not really a flat tax...still regressive as hell. Can you provide me a country that has a successful flat tax you would emulate?
It would technically be a progressive tax, because they higher you're income the less the poverty line deduction would lower your effective rate.

I agree that it wouldn't work though.

[DarrinS]

We're much better off with highly progressive tax system + loopholes. :rolleyes

[coyotes_geek]

So, not really a flat tax...still regressive as hell.

I think it's a good hybrid plan that provides all the benefits of a flat tax (easy to understand, not easily manipulated) without being completely regressive.


Can you provide me a country that has a successful flat tax you would emulate?

Trying to define what constitutes a "successful" tax is as hopeless as trying to defined what constitutes "fair". But to answer your question, I'm not aware of any country that has a tax plan similar to what I've suggested.

EDIT: Just to offer up some additional clarification on my viewpoints here, it's not that I'm married to any specific taxation ideology. I just want a tax code that is a whole lot less complicated and a whole lot less easy for politicians to manipulate.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

We're much better off with highly progressive tax system + loopholes. :rolleyes
Awesome strawman argument tbh

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Trying to define what constitutes a "successful" tax is as hopeless as trying to defined what constitutes "fair". But to answer your question, I'm not aware of any country that has a tax plan similar to what I've suggested.
Here's a better question, can you identify a country with a sustained middle class and a flat tax system?

[coyotes_geek]

Here's a better question, can you identify a country with a sustained middle class and a flat tax system?

That question gets you the same answer. As far as I know, no one is trying a flat tax.

[DarrinS]

If somebody was letting me write a new tax code from scratch I'd only apply the flat tax to income over the poverty line, but generally speaking yes, I think a flat tax would be a great idea.

(income - poverty line) x (rate) = tax.


I'm for a simple tax code like this. I can't stand going through all those itemized deductions -- pain in the ass.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That question gets you the same answer. As far as I know, no one is trying a flat tax.

Gee I wonder why.

I also don't understand why a flat tax would be any harder for politicians to manipulate. Another president like George Bush could just as easily come in and come up with a reduced flat rate for dividend income as the original W did, and law could just as easily be written that shelters income from taxation. What manipulation would a flat tax prevent?

[Th'Pusher]

I think it's a good hybrid plan that provides all the benefits of a flat tax (easy to understand, not easily manipulated) without being completely regressive.



Trying to define what constitutes a "successful" tax is as hopeless as trying to defined what constitutes "fair". But to answer your question, I'm not aware of any country that has a tax plan similar to what I've suggested.

EDIT: Just to offer up some additional clarification on my viewpoints here, it's not that I'm married to any specific taxation ideology. I just want a tax code that is a whole lot less complicated and a whole lot less easy for politicians to manipulate.

I am all for a more simple tax code as well. I just think it needs to be more progressive than (income-poverty line) x rate. Seems you could accomplish the same thing by keeping the progressive tax bracket system while eliminating loopholes or just capping deductions. A 15% tax rate for those making 100k - poverty line vs 1M - poverty line is only going to exacerbate inequality.

[coyotes_geek]

Gee I wonder why.

Because nobody wants to try it. Low income voters want to stick it to the rich, so they elect politicians who will support an allegedly "progressive" tax system. The rich then invest their money in politicians, accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to make that system less progressive than it appears. Low income voters are happy because they see higher marginal rates for the rich and think their getting over. High income voters are happy because they're getting their loopholes. Politicians/accountants/lawyers/lobbyists are happy because they're making money off the two sides fighting against each other.


I also don't understand why a flat tax would be any harder for politicians to manipulate. Another president like George Bush could just as easily come in and come up with a reduced flat rate for dividend income as the original W did, and law could just as easily be written that shelters income from taxation. What manipulation would a flat tax prevent?

It would be harder to manipulate because if you took away everyone's preferential treatments then you've maximized the uproar if congress ever tried to give one group their goodies back. Think of it like a group of 5 year olds, because that's about the emotional and intellectual level our nation's debate about taxation is on. Take away everyone's cupcakes and everyone will get over it. Follow that up by trying to give one kid his cupcake back and let's just say that will meet with significant resistance from the others.

[DarrinS]

I am all for a more simple tax code as well. I just think it needs to be more progressive than (income-poverty line) x rate. Seems you could accomplish the same thing by keeping the progressive tax bracket system while eliminating loopholes or just capping deductions. A 15% tax rate for those making 100k - poverty line vs 1M - poverty line is only going to exacerbate inequality.


And that's really the problem, isn't it?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And that's really the problem, isn't it?

:lol you think wealth inequality isn't the problem right now?

[Th'Pusher]

And that's really the problem, isn't it?

um. Yeah. I think inequality is a problem. I don't think it can be solved exclusively through the tax code, but the tax code damn sure should not exacerbate the problem.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Because nobody wants to try it. Low income voters want to stick it to the rich, so they elect politicians who will support an allegedly "progressive" tax system. The rich then invest their money in politicians, accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to make that system less progressive than it appears. Low income voters are happy because they see higher marginal rates for the rich and think their getting over. High income voters are happy because they're getting their loopholes. Politicians/accountants/lawyers/lobbyists are happy because they're making money off the two sides fighting against each other.
Or because it doesn't work and it leads to a non-existent middle class.

You're also grossly ignoring the 90,000,000 or so poor/middle class Republicans in this country who think the problem is that the rich are getting taxed enough so they don't have any wealth left to trickle down (the same 30% of the country that thinks a violent revolt is necessary because we're headed for socialism). If poor people actually knew what was best for themselves, the tax system would be a lot different.


It would be harder to manipulate because if you took away everyone's preferential treatments then you've maximized the uproar if congress ever tried to give one group their goodies back. Think of it like a group of 5 year olds, because that's about the emotional and intellectual level our nation's debate about taxation is on. Take away everyone's cupcakes and everyone will get over it. Follow that up by trying to give one kid his cupcake back and let's just say that will meet with significant resistance from the others.
1) :lol please. The imbalance of goodies in the tax code for the rich vs. the middle class/poor that currently exists would be causing uproar if this^ was anything close to how things worked. With a flat tax, the CPAs and tax lawyers right wing think tanks and lobbyists employ would simply come up with new preferential treatment for the rich and make it sound like it'll benefit the middle class too. Just look at how many retarded poor people/middle class people buy into the reduced dividend rate because they think paying out dividends to shareholders somehow spawns business growth. A flat tax would do next to nothing in making it harder for the rich to disguise the tax treatment they get.

2) Lets say you're right. Cool, we have a tax system now that can't collect any revenue since a flat tax would destroy the economy if it were higher than 20% while the rich pay even less taxes than they do now. Wealth concentrates at the top at an even higher rate than it already does, and the destruction of the middle class is expedited.

I guess that's cool since no one will be getting their tax cupcakes.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

um. Yeah. I think inequality is a problem. I don't think it can be solved exclusively through the tax code, but the tax code damn sure should not exacerbate the problem.

Given how bad it's already gotten, I'd say the only way to reverse it is heavily taxing pre-existing wealth in addition to income. The wealth sitting at the top will do nothing but create more wealth unless we start heavily taxing capital gains and start heavily taxing estates.

[Th'Pusher]

Low income voters want to stick it to the rich, so they elect politicians who will support an allegedly "progressive" tax system. The rich then invest their money in politicians, accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to make that system less progressive than it appears. Low income voters are happy because they see higher marginal rates for the rich and think their getting over.

This is a false premise. Americans are extremely tolerant of wealth. Wanting progressive taxation has less to do with wanting to stick it to the rich than simply understanding the economics behind providing rich world social services (i.e. somebody has to pay for them, so why not the people who have benefited most from the society?)

[DarrinS]

This is a false premise. Americans are extremely tolerant of wealth. Wanting progressive taxation has less to do with wanting to stick it to the rich than simply understanding the economics behind providing rich world social services (i.e. somebody has to pay for them, so why not the people who have benefited most from the society?)

:lol

[coyotes_geek]

I am all for a more simple tax code as well. I just think it needs to be more progressive than (income-poverty line) x rate. Seems you could accomplish the same thing by keeping the progressive tax bracket system while eliminating loopholes or just capping deductions. A 15% tax rate for those making 100k - poverty line vs 1M - poverty line is only going to exacerbate inequality.

I think there's a valid arguement to be made for a progressive system down at the bottom end of the tax scale, but not so much at the higher end. Higher rates at higher incomes only provoke higher incomes to invest in politicians to try and get loopholes. I think the benefits of a tax system that will take money out of politics outweigh whatever warm fuzzy feeling significantly higher tax rates on significantly higher incomes may provide.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Higher rates at higher incomes only provoke higher incomes to invest in politicians to try and get loopholes.
lol Reagan logic

Taxes on the rich are at 75 year lows while their investment in politicians is as high as ever. There's no empirical evidence to support the logic above.

It also doesn't make any sense regardless. "Well the rich will invest in politicians and fight tooth and nail to get tax blow jobs, so we should just give them tax blow jobs up front even though both scenarios arrive at the same result of wealth moving towards the top and no middle class."

[Th'Pusher]

:lol
Try adding some value.

[Th'Pusher]

I think there's a valid arguement to be made for a progressive system down at the bottom end of the tax scale, but not so much at the higher end. Higher rates at higher incomes only provoke higher incomes to invest in politicians to try and get loopholes. I think the benefits of a tax system that will take money out of politics outweigh whatever warm fuzzy feeling significantly higher tax rates on significantly higher incomes may provide.
Why not try and address the root of the problem, which is that people/corps can purchase favorable tax policy?

[coyotes_geek]

Gotta break for lunch. I'll be back tho.

Good talk Pusher/DoK. :toast

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol
That's telling him.

Compare America's tolerance of wealth to any other modern country in the world. Our occupy movement is dwarfed by riots across Europe in countries that you probably consider socialist. We certainly have a much higher tolerance for wealth than they do.

Where do you think the American people's tolerance for wealth should be? Saudi Arabia?

[Th'Pusher]

That's telling him.

Compare America's tolerance of wealth to any other modern country in the world. Our occupy movement is dwarfed by riots across Europe in countries that you probably consider socialist. We certainly have a much higher tolerance for wealth than they do.

Where do you think the American people's tolerance for wealth should be? Saudi Arabia?
The dude is just fucking stupid. He reads a phrase like 'tolerance for wealth' and jumps to: "why should wealth have to be tolerated? fucking socialist!"

[LnGrrrR]

It would be harder to manipulate because if you took away everyone's preferential treatments then you've maximized the uproar if congress ever tried to give one group their goodies back. Think of it like a group of 5 year olds, because that's about the emotional and intellectual level our nation's debate about taxation is on. Take away everyone's cupcakes and everyone will get over it. Follow that up by trying to give one kid his cupcake back and let's just say that will meet with significant resistance from the others.

You really think the low information voters are going to notice if some loophole gets put into a law somewhere?

[boutons_deux]

You really think the low information voters are going to notice if some loophole gets put into a law somewhere?

Congressmen missed the "Monsanto shield amendment"

[Th'Pusher]

You really think the low information voters are going to notice if some loophole gets put into a law somewhere?
This is why I like the approach of capping deductions. Crate all the loopholes you want, but cap deductions at $25k and all income is taxed the same earned/unearned. The special interests can fight over which loophole you take advantage of.

[coyotes_geek]

Or because it doesn't work and it leads to a non-existent middle class.

We don't know that because it hasn't been tried. At least not to my knowledge. Besides, the middle class seems to be getting squeezed no matter what tax structure is in place, progressive or otherwise.


You're also grossly ignoring the 90,000,000 or so poor/middle class Republicans in this country who think the problem is that the rich are getting taxed enough so they don't have any wealth left to trickle down (the same 30% of the country that thinks a violent revolt is necessary because we're headed for socialism). If poor people actually knew what was best for themselves, the tax system would be a lot different.

Yes, I'm ignoring them. A flat tax rate on all income, regardless of how it's earned (income, cap gains, dividends, whatever) renders their arguement null and void.

As for trickle down, that's a bipartisan concept these days.


1) :lol please. The imbalance of goodies in the tax code for the rich vs. the middle class/poor that currently exists would be causing uproar if this^ was anything close to how things worked. With a flat tax, the CPAs and tax lawyers right wing think tanks and lobbyists employ would simply come up with new preferential treatment for the rich and make it sound like it'll benefit the middle class too. Just look at how many retarded poor people/middle class people buy into the reduced dividend rate because they think paying out dividends to shareholders somehow spawns business growth. A flat tax would do next to nothing in making it harder for the rich to disguise the tax treatment they get.

With a flat tax there is no preferential treatment. Once you start adding preferential treatment in, you don't have a flat tax anymore.


2) Lets say you're right. Cool, we have a tax system now that can't collect any revenue since a flat tax would destroy the economy if it were higher than 20% while the rich pay even less taxes than they do now. Wealth concentrates at the top at an even higher rate than it already does, and the destruction of the middle class is expedited.

I guess that's cool since no one will be getting their tax cupcakes.

:lol A bit over the top to the melodramatic side.


This is a false premise. Americans are extremely tolerant of wealth. Wanting progressive taxation has less to do with wanting to stick it to the rich than simply understanding the economics behind providing rich world social services (i.e. somebody has to pay for them, so why not the people who have benefited most from the society?)

Disagree. Obama made his entire campaign about Romney's wealth and it worked. People voted to stick it to the rich guy.


lol Reagan logic

Taxes on the rich are at 75 year lows while their investment in politicians is as high as ever. There's no empirical evidence to support the logic above.

No empirical evidence? The high investment in politicians combined with the effective tax rates the wealthy are paying is proof positive that what I described is not only going on, but that it works.

Remove the ability of politicians to hand out preferential tax incentives and you remove a lot of the incentive to the rich to invest in them. Not a bad thing IMHO.


It also doesn't make any sense regardless. "Well the rich will invest in politicians and fight tooth and nail to get tax blow jobs, so we should just give them tax blow jobs up front even though both scenarios arrive at the same result of wealth moving towards the top and no middle class."

Taxing all income equally above the threshold isn't a "tax blow job" to anyone. It's treating all people and all income equally.


You really think the low information voters are going to notice if some loophole gets put into a law somewhere?

If nobody is getting a loophole and then someone does get one I'm sure the politicians who want votes from the low information voters will make every effort to point it out to them.

[baseline bum]

Disagree. Obama made his entire campaign about Romney's wealth and it worked. People voted to stick it to the rich guy.

Disagree. People voted to stick it to the Wall Street asshole and the party trying to destroy medicare*.































*for all except for the baby boomers who are his base

[coyotes_geek]

Disagree. People voted to stick it to the Wall Street asshole....

i.e. the rich guy...


...and the party trying to destroy medicare*.

...and the party of rich guys.

[baseline bum]

i.e. the rich guy...



...and the party of rich guys.

strawman

[coyotes_geek]

strawman

Hardly.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

We don't know that because it hasn't been tried. At least not to my knowledge. Besides, the middle class seems to be getting squeezed no matter what tax structure is in place, progressive or otherwise.
Anyone with a basic understanding of math doesn't need to try a flat tax to know how it would work. Wealth would concentrate at the top over time and the middle class would be destroyed unless you coupled the flat tax with a confiscatory estate tax rate.

It also has been tried (qualifying it with "at least not to my knowledge" only means you're advocating a flat tax and your knowledge of historic flat tax usage is totally ignorant). Here's a link and image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Flat_personal_income_tax.png/800px-Flat_personal_income_tax.png
The dark green represents countries with a flat tax. If only we had the strong middle class Eastern Europe, Madagascar and Saudi Arabia have.


Yes, I'm ignoring them. A flat tax rate on all income, regardless of how it's earned (income, cap gains, dividends, whatever) renders their arguement null and void.

As for trickle down, that's a bipartisan concept these days.
lol ignoring the reason why I brought up the 30% of this country that's dirt poor but thinks lowering the rich's taxes will raise their wealth (hint: it has something to do with the retarded notion that people actually have a clue about how taxes in this country work)


With a flat tax there is no preferential treatment. Once you start adding preferential treatment in, you don't have a flat tax anymore.
If there's no preferential treatment with a flat tax, why do you suppose rich people love the idea so much? Must be the current big mean confiscatory tax policy, those richers have it so tough:cry


:lol A bit over the top to the melodramatic side.
If you understand basic math it's not melodramatic at all. A highly progressive tax code is the only way to create a middle class that can sustain control over a high percentage of the country's total wealth over time.


No empirical evidence? The high investment in politicians combined with the effective tax rates the wealthy are paying is proof positive that what I described is not only going on, but that it works.
That's empirical evidence that higher marginal rates leads to investment in politicians. That's not in any way empirical evidence a flat tax will lower investment in politicians. But idk why I'm arguing, Saudi Arabia proves how much a flat tax keeps the rich away from influencing government.


Remove the ability of politicians to hand out preferential tax incentives and you remove a lot of the incentive to the rich to invest in them. Not a bad thing IMHO.
Multi-billionaires with more wealth than they'll ever need pour millions into politics just to have that much more wealth. If there's the tiniest incentive for them the rich will try to influence Washington, and I fail to see how a flat tax removes any incentives, unless you're an idiot and you think a flat tax will magically make Americans informed thinkers who pay attention to proposed tax law.

You for example claim a flat tax "hasn't been tried" while you argue for it in spite of the fact it's the tax system primarily used in Eastern Europe. I'd say you're a shining example of Americans being ignorant and misinformed when it comes to taxes.


Taxing all income equally above the threshold isn't a "tax blow job" to anyone. It's treating all people and all income equally.
I feel like this is something you'd find in an Ayn Rand book.

[LnGrrrR]

If nobody is getting a loophole and then someone does get one I'm sure the politicians who want votes from the low information voters will make every effort to point it out to them.

People get fooled NOW with trickle down bullshit; they'd just be fooled into revoting for it. Additionally, you don't think Congress would run some sort of "You secretly give me this kickback, I'll give you that one"?

1 million low info/income voters is probably about equal to 1 high income voter, to be honest. Money rules.

[ElNono]

what's stopping the wealthy from getting a better deal on a tax shelter overseas and stashing the money there like they do now?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

what's stopping the wealthy from getting a better deal on a tax shelter overseas and stashing the money there like they do now?

They won't out of the goodness of their heart. If there was a flat tax they would be so overwhelmed with how fair people treat them that they'll take it upon themselves to privately fund a middle class.

I think that's the gist of how Tea Party flat tax plans go. Ax (don't ask) Herman Cain.

[Jacob1983]

http://i.qkme.me/3ts9ek.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

I mean, really, when did the notion of fair change from "everyone does what they can" to "everyone does the same"? I'm not saying either definition is "right", but conservatives seem to act like only the 2nd definition is valid. And as mentioned above, I think it's hilarious that if only we had a flat tax, rich people finally would feel like they weren't being overtaxed so they wouldn't try all kinds of shenanigans and backdoor deals to evade taxes.

Real wage separation has increased greatly over the past few decades, and our middle class has weakened. Is there anyone who DOESN'T think these two are correlated? Is there anyone here that would rather have more rich people (who you know, are reinvesting their money into foreign companies/wages for the most part) instead of the middle class (who has the most buying power)?

[coyotes_geek]

Anyone with a basic understanding of math doesn't need to try a flat tax to know how it would work. Wealth would concentrate at the top over time and the middle class would be destroyed unless you coupled the flat tax with a confiscatory estate tax rate.

Does wealth accumulate at the top over time in countries that use a progressive tax system?


It also has been tried (qualifying it with "at least not to my knowledge" only means you're advocating a flat tax and your knowledge of historic flat tax usage is totally ignorant). Here's a link and image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Flat_personal_income_tax.png/800px-Flat_personal_income_tax.png
The dark green represents countries with a flat tax. If only we had the strong middle class Eastern Europe, Madagascar and Saudi Arabia have.

I'm guessing decades of communism (actual communism, not the fake red team outrage kind) has more to do with the plight of the middle class in eastern europe than their use of a flat tax does.


lol ignoring the reason why I brought up the 30% of this country that's dirt poor but thinks lowering the rich's taxes will raise their wealth (hint: it has something to do with the retarded notion that people actually have a clue about how taxes in this country work)

Go to a flat tax and anyone who can do math at a 7th grade level will know everything there is to know about how taxes in this country work.


If there's no preferential treatment with a flat tax, why do you suppose rich people love the idea so much? Must be the current big mean confiscatory tax policy, those richers have it so tough:cry

If rich people loved a flat tax so much, we'd have a flat tax.


If you understand basic math it's not melodramatic at all. A highly progressive tax code is the only way to create a middle class that can sustain control over a high percentage of the country's total wealth over time.

Care to cite examples?


That's empirical evidence that higher marginal rates leads to investment in politicians. That's not in any way empirical evidence a flat tax will lower investment in politicians. But idk why I'm arguing, Saudi Arabia proves how much a flat tax keeps the rich away from influencing government.

Saudi Arabia being a very relevant example to use here, what with them being a democracy and all...


Multi-billionaires with more wealth than they'll ever need pour millions into politics just to have that much more wealth. If there's the tiniest incentive for them the rich will try to influence Washington, and I fail to see how a flat tax removes any incentives, unless you're an idiot and you think a flat tax will magically make Americans informed thinkers who pay attention to proposed tax law.

You for example claim a flat tax "hasn't been tried" while you argue for it in spite of the fact it's the tax system primarily used in Eastern Europe. I'd say you're a shining example of Americans being ignorant and misinformed when it comes to taxes.

As mentioned earlier, eastern europe has issues that go far beyond their use of a flat tax.


I feel like this is something you'd find in an Ayn Rand book.

Wouldn't know. Never read her.


People get fooled NOW with trickle down bullshit; they'd just be fooled into revoting for it. Additionally, you don't think Congress would run some sort of "You secretly give me this kickback, I'll give you that one"?

1 million low info/income voters is probably about equal to 1 high income voter, to be honest. Money rules.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Congress' desire to play that kickback game is reason why we're never going to have a flat tax.


what's stopping the wealthy from getting a better deal on a tax shelter overseas and stashing the money there like they do now?

Nothing.