Forum Post: Explain why a flat tax isn't fair
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 16, 2011, 2:47 a.m. EST by elpinio
(213)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why should we rob from the rich to give to the poor? It makes for a good legend, but it is a poor (mind the pun) and unfair way to run a country.
Because the rich rob from us daily. Working hard dose not get you rich. Getting other people to work hard for you gets you rich or being a slime ball salesman with no empathy.
Crazy Right Wing Website -- Called Unoccupy -- trying to destroy this forum
Posted 19 minutes ago on Dec. 30, 2011, 1:36 a.m. EST by kiddclass101 (New York, NY) | edit | delete This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://unoccupywallstreet.zxq.net/HowToStop.html
WHAT FOOLS !!!
HowToStop
They're main source of communication is http://occupywallst.org/, from there they communicate events and strategies via the forum http://occupywallst.org/forum/
The best way to stop the flow of communication is to post absolute nonsense on the forum.
Do not directly get into arguements with members on the forum or use hurtful language or pornographic content on their forum.
Examples of good nonsense posts: http://occupywallst.org/forum/now-hiring/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-not-occupy-the-north-pole/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/monday-night-football-watch-atlanta-falcons-vs-new/
They do not moderate their forum, this tactic will easily yield a 100% rate and will disrupt their communication.
Working hard does not get you rich? Tell that to Bill Gates, the Google founders, Zuckerberg of Facebook, Steve Jobs. You don't get rich by being lazy. You get rich by working hard. There's a life lesson for you.
I work hard everyday and I aint rich. All I am doing is helping the rich get richer. Then when time comes to collect my compensation I have to argue over how much I am suppose to be paid. Not because the boss misunderstands our agreement he just likes trying to take what other people earned. Not because he needs it just because it makes him feel good about himself knowing that he has that power. I have 2 jobs and work 7 days a week. For what for 40000 a year. I make the boss hundreds of thousands of dollars a month and he dont do shit. Like I said you dont get rich working hard, you get rich getting other people to work hard for you.
Start your own business then and quit whining.
Dont be the worker bee then. Start your own business and be the boss. If you don't have the balls, that's your fault.
I bet you do not have a problem paying an athlete tens of millions of dollars a year.
I dont watch team sports and I think all sports stars are a bunch of steroid slamming losers who other wise would live in the slums. I also am aware that major sporting outlets make billions of dollars a year in advertising and less than 10% of it is filtered down to the player and all the people with the biggest pay checks did little more than shuffle paper work around. Then you got the owners of the team sitting in the private box claiming he gets to keep 80% of the profits and all he did was sit there and yell go team wile the guys on the field are the ones that bring all the fans that encourage the advertisers to adjust their rates so high. How did he earn it? People dont goto games because they like the owners.
Who cares how the owner gets his money, he owns the team. Stop looking in someone else's wallet as the source for your income.
That was a weak. All you basically said was "thats the way it is live with it".
If you are the owner should you not receive the lions share?
If you did something to earn the lions share. The owner should take a fair share and compensate a fair share. Give people what they earned not what somebody else earned for you. Like I said you dont get rich working hard you get rich getting other people to work hard for you.
You do not understand life at all. Who is to determine "fair share"? If I build a company from zero then reach a point where I can take it easy by hiring people to work, so what. If you apply for a job and determine that it does not pay what you feel is your "fair share" of the profits,do not take the job. That cannot be too hard to understand, can it?
they didn't necessarily work harder than anyone else--they came up with the right idea at the right time. even gates admits publicly in writing it had a lot to do with luck.
yah, besides hard work, you also have to be smart - to come up with the right idea at the right time.
you know my grandpa was a CEO and he spent 24/7 in his office trying to keep his business afloat.
He died of stress.
Don't make false statements.
Gandi once said," I dont understand why man sacrifices his body to make a fortune then pays a fortune to a doctor to fix him. He then dies from working himself to death and never got a chance to live."
So don't do it. It's your choice. Go squat somewhere and live like ghandi.
Yeah, so you should all stop yelling about the CEOs don't work. They work hard and it isn't any of your business telling them they can't.
They don’t work hard they shuffle paper all day and sit around trying to think up even more creative ways to screw people that work for them out of more money. They cannot be happy living like that, stressing yourself out to squeeze few more cents out of some poor people. It takes a person that truly hates himself and the world to live such a way.
You might have described one type of CEO, but not all CEO's are like this. Generalizations do just as much harm as their perceived good. A CEO is basically a leader, there are good ones and bad ones. Your comments seem to be a little extreme and knee jerk to be taken seriously.
You're just jealous because your life sucks and theirs doesn't.
dont you dare say that all they do is shuffling papers. They go through years of business education in high level colleges so that they don't get beating by competitors.
If you think it is so easy start your own business. I did it.
so did i but i don't think that is what anyone is talking about - the ceo of goldman etc - very hard working but smart - doesn't seem so - and they (and others) wrecked the economy - should we go through all the top ceo pay for people who did not do a good job for their company or the country and it's economy
What kind of bullshit business did you start, and how?
Your paranoia is very extreme.
Get a life creep. If someone wants to work themselves to death getting rich, or allowing themselves to be exploited, it's nobodies business, but their own.
Having a lot of stress isn't the same as working hard. It just shows that it's not a natural way to spend your life.
who the fuck cares what Gandhi says?
[Removed]
You know, dumbass, that with a flat tax the rich still pay way way more taxes right? It just makes it to where everyone pays the same percentage, other than the poor who should pay none. Why exactly are you so against civil fairness..?
If you don't want to pay high taxes go ahead and make 18 thousand dollars a year and tell me how awesome not paying income taxes is.
A lot more awesome than paying 50% taxes ($9000) which is basically the rate at which I am paying now.
Oh my! I had to pay 5,400 dollars in taxes last year and I only get taxed at about 18%.
So you only make 18 grand a year and get taxed at 50% ??
9,000 X 2 = 18 grand. If you get taxed at 50% and you paid 9 grand in taxes, you only made 18 grand last year? or are you just making it all up?
Read my post again and get back to me when you understand.
"A lot more awesome than paying 50% taxes ($9000) which is basically the rate at which I am paying now." You said.
Pay your fair share in taxes or people need to be paid more fair wages.
I honestly think if they pass Dennis Kucinich's NEED Act HR 2990, we all could have much lower taxes. but the current system doesn't allow that to be the case.
Please define poor. I know what most of us here define it as, I'd like to hear your definition.
Well it depends on the size of the family. I say anything less than about 20-25k a year per person (location depends too) could be considered poor. not poverty, but poor.
In 2009 the poverty levels were published as being as follows.
1 person $10.830.00 2 persons $14,570.00 3 persons $18,310.00 4 persons $22.050.00 5 persons $25,780.00 6 persons $29,530.00 7 persons $33,270.00 8 persons $37,010.00
These amounts reflect poverty level incomes. Far below your estimates. The poor should pay more in taxes? What would you have them give up to be able to pay those taxes?
Keep in mind the numbers I have listed are for the total number of people, not per person.
You are talking about poverty, I am talking about poor. those are two different levels. We need a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage, except for poor who pay nothing, and poverty, who receive a free return based on how much they need (as long as they have a job NO HANDOUTS) unemployment benefits should be a maximum of 6 months, maybe only 4. And they should be dependent on the recipient submitting a copy of at least one completed resume per week (and thats being nice) to be examined for sincerity.
You are the one who defined poor as well above the poverty levels, I merely pointed out your misconception.
I'm not providing a misconception, i was giving you MY opinion of how I think it should work.
I didn't say you were providing a misconception, but rather that you appear to have had one.
One dollar above the poverty limit qualifies one as poor, most programs I have studied have defined poor as 125% above the poverty level.
These people make the only contribution to the economy that they can. You want funding for the government, then rebuild the middle class. That's what works.
I agree completely, America thrived because of middle class. As much as everyone wants to "tax the rich" you can only tax them so much.
I don't want to tax the rich, I want the rich to have to obey laws and conduct themselves as civilized human beings, not insatiable greed-driven lunatics. Why should a person be allowed to hoard billions and billions of dollars made off of the backs of the people who do the work? What evil bullshit do you do for a living?
let's go back to pre-kennedy tax rates fix the whole fucking country it needs fixing it is 2011 time to modernize before we get left behind prob a good thing to do every 20-50 years
[Removed]
the rich are profiting off our society and need to pay accordingly
With that said I can say the poor are leaching off of society as well because they foreclose, sit on their asses, and collect welfare. That doesn't seem fair to me at all. At least in your scenario the bad guys are contributing something.
eh? are you dense as lead? the poor are what the society lives on the backs of there is no such thing as welfare first of all that ended in the 90's second of all the only reason those bastards are so rich is because they push all the social costs of their unethically run companies onto us
Nah dense as gold and half as pretty. I thought society lived on the backs of politicians. They do work sometimes. The poor that don't work sit and leach. Spectrums do go both ways you know that right.
i have never known someone who didnt want to do fair work for a fair wage maybe you just have your head up fox news and conservative radios ass we live on the backs of politicians you are funny the rich don't work i don't care if they are at the office 80hours that is not work
People have told me that before but I don't actually watch any news. Sorry. Its not work but as soon as the shit hits the fan then its their fault right?
it was always there fault OWS is trying to play catch up with me and my friends since day one.
*Their fault.
3 million job openings 20 million people need work it's elementary school math that even if all the jobs are filled there still will be 17 million without work.
Considering that now days you usually need to have a job before an employer will even consider you, its pretty grim. There was a law in Congress to stop this but I don't know what happened to it.
Blame the corporations that moved our factories to China because of exchange rates and outsourced jobs overseas instead of the victims of these actions.
Without the poor who spend all their money and the middle-class who spend most of their money, the corporations would go broke quickly bring the rich down with them. See "Great Depression" for a limited example.
BS. You should pay for what you use. Not for how successful you are. Everyone has the same right to profit off the same society.
Why should the poor not pay as much taxes as the rich? After all, the poor use more of the country's resources than the rich.
they use a lot as a matter of fact if they had to pay a carbon tax for what they use we would really see some fairness and yes everyone has the same right however we don't have the same opportunity but hey you are obviously happy with the way the world is working you are probably about as authentic as a porn stars boobs
Rich don't use public schools, emergency rooms for routine checkups, unemployment benefits, welfare, foodstamps, public transit and more.
The poor do. Looking at it this way, a flat tax would actually be unfair to the rich.
the sure use the employees educated by public schools there is no such thing as welfare you earn your unemployment benefit, foodstamps and emergency room check ups are the social costs of these corporations that they push off on to us because they run an unethical business and public transport only makes sense and obviously you have never been to nyc because yes the rich use it provides less pollution, less traffic, and less noise. everyone uses nyc subway system.
I live in Manhattan. The rich are driven in from New Jersey/Long Island/Upstate NY or are flown in by helicopter from Connecticut. Few rich in NYC use public transit.
but they do use it when they want to get around manhattan i know this for a fact having lived in nyc for a few summers and working and living near times square at a luxury hotel named the hotel iroquois and i can tell you the 1%ers who lived in that hotel used it some were celebrities even most of wall street types had prostitutes and cocaine because i used to see the rooms sometimes while giving the maids and housemen a hand and they would sometimes leave coke mirrors out and straws and i would see the whores at night when i worked the front desk when they came in
No, they use car service and limos when they want to get around Manhattan.
The inequality of the so-called “flat tax” is self-evident. Given that the cost of living is indexed similarly, the one who has more income and wealth does not use as much to live, whereas the less fortunate and less wealthy use a greater percentage of their income to make ends meet.
Put another way, if it costs $500 annually to live, and you make $1000, that’s 50% of your income.
If it costs $500 annually to live and you make $10,000 that’s 5% of your income.
The effect of a flat tax is regressive.
Its not about tax fairness, its about what creates stable economic system.
WE never robbed the rich and gave to the poor, this is a false right wing narrative. From the New Deal thru the 1970's, working and middle class families worked for everything they earned.
How Dare you say anything else......
No, it has to also be about fairness. An unfair economic system will never be good. That's why we're in this mess.
You miss the point. When we hear whats a fair tax?, its an usually an effort to cut taxes on the rich. SO again:
Its not about tax fairness, its about what creates stable economic system.
You do remember me writing that, dont you. SO why do you then say:
An unfair economic system will never be good
Lets pay attention. OK?
What created a stable economic system in the past were hi tax rates, that gave huge deductions for incountry investment, to create US jobs. I describe this in more detail here
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/12/1015409/-Taxing-the-rich-promotes-smart-investments,-not-class-warfare
Most flat taxes exclude unearned income such as capital gains, interest and dividends. That is not fair to the middle class and poor.
Because historically we had a better economy when the rich pay a higher percent in taxes. An economy where we have a strong middle class ends up being a great economy for the rich as well because in our capitalist country the rich make their money from the spending of the poor and middle class. You want a good economy that's how to get one. You want a bad dysfunctional economy let the rich hoard money.
Please see what at least some of the rich have to say about this.
http://wealthforcommongood.org/
and
http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/
The economy goes up and down and reacts to many inputs one being the marginal tax rate. Kennedy began lowering it in 1962 in response to sluggish growth. There is never a one to one correlation with policy however it works more times than not and in many countries other than the US. Russia is only the latest example.
If lowering the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70% has a positive effect on the economy, that in no way ensures that lowering it from 70% to 64% will change anything except revenues. And so on down to our present low marginal rates.
The correlation isn't close to one. It is closer to zero. The top marginal tax rate and economic growth do not correlate significantly at all in the U.S. Yes, there have been examples of tax rates being lowered and economic growth increasing. There have also been examples of of tax rates being lowered and economic growth falling. They are not strongly linked.
It's nearly impossible to tell what the correlations are for all economic actions as so many variable are included and with tax rates the effect declines as the rates come down to the law of small numbers.
From the recent Roemer study:
"Tax changes that are made to promote long-run growth, or to reduce an inherited budget deficit, in contrast, are undertaken for reasons essentially unrelated to other factors influencing output. Thus, examining the behavior of output following these relatively exogenous tax changes is likely to provide more reliable estimates of the output effects of tax changes. The results of this more reliable test indicate that tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent."
I've seen a study that looked at what the correlation between the top marginal and GDP was over the time we've had an income tax. They weren't significantly correlated, which indicates that one of the most important measures of economic health is not influenced by the top tax rate.
I apologize that I have yet to find this on the web, and I didn't keep a hard copy.
No- JFK did not lower taxes, that was in 1964 when the top rate on income tax was lowered to 70%.
House Testimony:
"The Kennedy Administration's proposal to reduced taxes on business continued into 1964. In 1964, the corporate tax rate fell from 52 percent to 48 percent. Also, individual tax rates fell. The top marginal tax rate fell from 90 percent to 70 percent. The lowest marginal tax rate fell from 20 percent to 14 percent. The result was an expanding economy. Real GNP growth, which averaged only 2.4 percent from 1952 to 1960, rose to 4.5 percent in the sixties (Figure 4). When the expansion that started in February of 1961 ended nearly nine years later, it was, and still is, the longest expansion in the history of the United States."
Testimony from Walter Heller, Kennedy's Chief Economist in front of Congress:
"What happened to the tax cut in 1965 is difficult to pin down, but insofar as we are able to isolate it, it did seem to have a tremendously stimulative effect, a multiplied effect on the economy. It was the major factor that led to our running a $3 billion surplus by the middle of 1965 before escalation in Vietnam struck us. It was a $12 billion tax cut, which would be about $33 or $34 billion in today's terms, and within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut.
Did the tax cut pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did".
SO you agree that JFK did not cut taxes..... Just to make it clear that you are wrong again.
Ok if you want to be persnickety about it JFK did not lower tax rates.So your point is...?
Interestingly the last time there was such a divergence between rich and poor in America were the years leading up to the great depression. You can only sell so many products between rich and rich. If you made T-shirts would you want to sell them in a country with a hand full of the very rich and the majority poor or would you want to sell to a country with a thriving well paid middle class. Most entrepreneurs would prefer the second option but those same folks would vote for a guy who would bring down the minimum wage and their taxes.
Yes 1929 was the last time there was a divergence but I am not sure that taxes were the cause of that. I think it's more that you saw strong economic growth in that period that increased the amount of success and profit and those folks who started companies did well. Unemployment in high growth periods went down driving net immigration into the US which causes wage pressure.
I don't really have numbers but I'm going to bet it was due to low wages. The bubble that ended in the crash and depression was due in large part to a line of wall street products called Investment trusts that relied on leverage to create exceptional profits in an up market. People were also allowed to buy stocks on margin, opening up the stock market to folks who had never been able to afford investing. The mathematical structure of the ' 29 bubble and crash is remarkably like the 2008 bubble, substitute CDO's for the trusts and real estate for stocks load up on the leverage and when thing start to go down all that leverage working in reverse wipes out the wealth of the entire country.
Yes leverage in the stock market caused the bubble and when it broke the monetary authorities tightened credit. If they had done nothing, like they did in 1907, it probably would have been different. Once the momentum and confidence wanes it takes a long time to recover.
Yup they did send things the wrong way right off the bat. I could argue about the law changes that recreated the 1929 scenario --------and I could argue about how we handled the bailouts but we did need the liquidity, the liquidity has probly saved us from something much worse -------so far anyway. Who knows what other exploding derivatives are lurking in our banks.
I was against the bailouts at the time because it has not allowed the system to clear. Yes there would be pain, isn't there already, but we would have come out of this Dow growth period faster. The Fed had to provide liquidity but I think they should have forced the AIG bankruptcy and if Goldman went under, so be it.
I spoke to a person at Treasury a few weeks ago who truly think they are saving the world for the peons.
Here's the problem with the AIG swaps this new law "Thus, the 2005 law encourages the monetization of synthetic and cash securities in repo markets, because if the bank goes bankrupt, then the repo counter-partys claim has far greater privileges in bankruptcy than that of a bondholder – with careful management of collateral the repo counterparty can be all but certain of being paid in full. It isn’t clear that anybody in Congress gave much thought to the consequences of monetizing derivatives contracts – or for that matter of monetizing junk bonds." http://syntheticassets.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/the-no-derivative-left-behind-act-of-2005-1-5/ In other words if AIG went BK the swaps would have needed to be paid off first then the bondholders then all the policies --------life, car , home, and the annuity funds. The payoff for the swaps was so monumental that the bondholders and policy holders probly would have gotten nothing. Goldman would not have gone BK but who knows how many policy holders would have been screwed. If I found out an X Goldman exec with a government job had written that law I would not be surprised. The fed, the treasury ,and the lawmakers have a lot to answer for.
there was never a time when the rich paid a higher percentage of taxes, the CBO has published data from 1979-2007 that shows the percentage of taxes paid by each income group, and that spans the gamut of marginal rates, from a top rate of 70% in 79-81 right through to the 35% rate of today the top income earners share of taxes is HIGHER under the lower marginal rates.....end of story
Even social insurance taxes paid by the top 10% are 25% of the total taxes collected for that use....
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf
I had no idea America started in 1979 always nice to learn something new
nice deflection...if you have information which challenges my assertion...put up...or shut up
The upper tax rate during the Eisenhower presidency was %91. Eisenhower didn't think it was prudent to lower the rate until the war debts were under control. That was back in the day when republicans were fiscally responsible and not the useless morons they are today.
and......what share of total taxation did they pay?
There were three recessions during the Eisenhower administration... not so fiscally responsible, at all.....
More than under any other marginal tax rate, the 90/91% tax rate produced 5 recessions....
and Kennedy DID think it prudent to lower the rate, and kickstarted the economy of the 1960's....even though he didn't live to see, it...that is when Democrats weren't centralized authoritarian statists....
So you think the financial wizardry practiced and voracious money printing and excessive borrowing during the past 30 years in order to delay a recession was a good way to go? Golly gosh I think we've caused a possible 10 year recession. No problem we elect a democrat and blame him
I'm sorry....in a proper discussion you address the point asserted, and then move on...that is how intelligent people have discussions, you don't deflect and move on to something else....
That's how those with no substance to their perspective do it.....oh, wait...now I understand...
So, back to the question, what was the tax share of the highest income group under the 90% tax rate...did they pay MORE, or LESS....under every other rate the "rich" paid MORE....
Now, to address YOUR point...
What was the borrowing of the last 30 years done to pay for.....the ever-increasing redistribution-al transfer state.....don't use tax cuts as an excuse..they INCREASED revenue...every time (remember the late 90's and the small deficits? they came on the heels of a capital gains rate reduction), and the total cost of the wars was less than a single year of the welfare state...not to mention the diminishing participation such a system creates....predictably concentrating wealth to those who DO participate, and away from the marginal or non-participatory....while they demand more for mere existence, rather than because they've earned it....
The recession of 2001, following the enron/dot-com bubble was far more devastating in real dollars than the events of 2008...IT WAS the response of the centralized Keynesian model that create the extended difficulty in the economy.....markets expand and contract organically, and when governments meddle with them they prolong the difficulty, and "stimulus" NEVER works..it didn't work for FDR and it isn't working now.....hopefully we won't need a world war to extricate us from the crisis caused by the bad policy of 6 years of liberal centralized planners, from the democrat controlled congress of 2007-08 through the first 2 years of Obama.....and the bad financial policies that are equally placed at the feet of both parties in the Financial Modernization Act of 99.....the problems of which the Dodd-Frank legislation did not correct (and that was an interesting name for financial reform, considering those parties are at the center of the mortgage crisis)
Tax cuts did not increase revenue. The borrowing for the last 30 years has been to coverup the lost revenue and productivity we lost due to giving our manufacturing to China. That's all it is.
right...keep dodging the question......
Borrowing to cover-up the lost revenue and productivity we lost to China?......WOW....you really are completely off your rocker, no wonder you cannot answer the question of the tax shares of the wealthy under the 90% rate....
As for revenue increases, they absolutely did increase subsequent to marginal rate cuts, that is a matter of fact, not opinion, or speculation....feel free to check, but I know you won't ;)
I think you are one of those people who thinks news stories are "facts"
No I actually understand global trading, the bond market, derivatives, leverage ,how interest rates move markets and read books instead of bumper stickers. there are many things that move markets beyond what you have read on bumper stickers
and you yet AGAIN, dodge the question......I surmise you know very little, as you seem unable to put it into practice.....
Like those who claim unable to take tests....just proof of a lack of practical knowledge and understanding....
Effective rates, 1979-2007 (also from CBO):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Total effective Federal tax burden:
1979: Top 1% paid 37%
2007: Top 1% paid 29%
The fact that their LOWER burden represents a greater SHARE of all taxes paid is a function of most of the middle moving towards the bottom, and having less income, while those at the top earn ever more.
[Removed]
Thank you. I actually hoped my thought experiment, two comments below, would make the point even clearer... But apparently it was fallacious. ;)
I'm sorry...do you not understand the difference between a rate and a share?
In 1979 the top 1% paid 15.4% of all federal taxes (70% marginal rate)
In 2007 the top 1% paid 28.1% of all federal taxes (35% marginal rate)
Half the rate twice the tax share
and the difference between the 70% marginal rate and the 37% actual rate is much greater than the difference between the 35% marginal rate and the 29% actual rate...again the lower rate wins the argument...
The person who says they've won has usually lost.
Thought experiment:
if 98% were in the bottom two quintiles and paid an average rate of 40%, and 1% were in the top quintile and paid an average rate of 10%, but the top quintile's share was 80% - would that be fair? Your argument taken to a (moderate) extreme says "yes."
those aren't the income shares though.....so your point is fallacious
Oh please. Go away.
of course...because you are wrong, and will always be wrong
[Removed]
[Removed]
Again...this is all over the place.....rebates, refunds, tax break, bailout (which was a loan, not a "bailout") and you list worldwide profits in some cases and US profits on others, you don't ever list the actual taxes paid, and you pick and choose the year to reference.....all propaganda spin tactics
[Removed]
Oh...and for the record: "slammersworld" has nothing to do with sports of any sort
[Removed]
All the edited postings are cute.....
But...here are the facts, and I don't need someone else to do a "comprehensive study" to find them...each state and the federal government release the taxation info to the public each year...so it just takes a bit of research to find the data.
For the federal government...I have already posted the data on the top 10% and their levels of taxation, and other info, including tax shares, by income group and type, effective tax rate, etc.....are available on the CBO site....here:http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13
As for states.....
41 states pay state income tax.
Nine states have no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.
The states of New Hampshire and Tennessee tax their residents only on income earned through interest and dividends....
34 states have progressive tax systems.....
5 states have no sales tax,
Only two states...Alabama and Mississippi tax groceries and food at full rates without offset tax credits...
5 states, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island have no tax on clothing....
The links provided by Modestcapitalist use models to predict taxation at the state and local level...relying highly on sales taxes, and property taxes to make the assertion that low and middle income earners pay tax levels equal to those of higher income.....
Sales tax is incalculable for specific economic sectors, it is, at best, a guess....and more likely a complete fabrication....
Property Taxes are also not listed in any state by income level, so this is another concoction of supposed "fact" to skew the reader into believing something that is mathematically impossible.....that the poor and middle income sectors bear the largest share of tax liability....which is completely false.....
He, and many of the others on the left attempt to divert the discussion using these "models" "projections" and "estimates" to discussions of "effective rate" using sales taxes and property taxes in the equation, both of which are elective taxes....a spendthrift in the 1% income level earning $400,000.00 and living paycheck to paycheck would have a higher percentage of sales tax "as a percent of income" than would a middle income family who was financially conservative.....
sales taxes and property taxes are not related to income, they are what they are, A rich, poor, or middle class person would each pay exactly the same rate on a specific property...there is no difference in taxation based on income, and as such is fallacious as an element of "effective rate" of taxation.... as owning property is not mandatory, but paying tax on income is.....also, in the same vein, sales tax liability is an issue of behavior, the more you spend on items the more you pay...and that has nothing to do with income level......
The information given on the link he provided doesn't jive with the US Statistical Abstract for the year cited, so the results are suspect.....and given that it is published by a partisan website, that is not difficult to believe...
I told Modestcapitalist that if he could provide official data that verified his assertions that I would create a forum post admitting my error, but I am not going to engage in a debate, anywhere, where he uses fabricated unverified data as his position and contends that "I" must prove HIS data incorrect....that is not how a proper debate works...if you provide data, it is your obligation to provide proof of it's accuracy, not demand that others prove it false.....
It is simple belief that the work of others, blogs, and websites are "facts" without doing the research to discover whether that is true, that is Modestcapitalists problem...he assumes the accuracy because it says what he desires to be true, not because he knows...but because that is his preference.....truth is not a preference.
I am done with this debate.......because...until he can provide certification of his assertions, due to the fact that they contain data which conflicts with that published by the official government reporting agencies, I assume them simple falsification, and since Modestcapitalist made the claim, it is his obligation to prove their veracity.....
no, real estate taxation is flat, determined by property improvements....you are just too inane to understand that property taxes and subsequent credits have nothing to do with property tax rates, they are based on use.....the taxes are still the same rate, but are reduced, or subsidized, for certain uses....I know you are having trouble with this, and I cannot help you with your faulty comprehension.....
Of course more jobs are created by small (and medium sized) business...who would argue that? Did you take your meds today?
You haven't proven anything proof requires reference and a leftist tax ideology based website is not valid reference......
It's not my job to do your due diligence.....I don't need a study to prove my point, I have the raw date that does that....I've done my own study, since I have the gift of critical thinking rather than being a parrot of some silly ideology...I again invite you to peruse the US Statistical Abstract and find me a single reference where taxation levels are equal.....
here, I'll provide you with the link to the data....good luck: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
BTW...I love you guys who pronounce yourselves winners....it's cute, just like all the other the participation trophy, self-esteem building, failures that society now produces, like retarded puppies to stupid to know anything but how to eat and shit.....hahaha
[Removed]
Just what I expected.....no source of verification, more conjecture, more appeal to authority instead of to the merit of the assertion....more Bullshit.
Your feeble attempts, which are nothing but more repetition of the unsupported assertions, to qualify that which is unqualified demonstrate your lack of comprehension and your reliance on the idea's of others..
You cannot explain, in detail, how the assertions of your web links (that you call "comprehensive studies".....just a note: comprehensive studies are annotated and contain source citations) are calculated..
You resort to ambiguity to hide your ignorance....sorry, it's not working.
don't use resources you cannot explain or verify, it makes you look like a fool...or just reveals you as the fool you are.......you're a confirmed citizen of the idiocracy whichever the case....
HAHAHA...you are certainly a drone, try and think for yourself, it's hard, but rewarding....
As for your link from the Citizens For Tax Justice, it is cited at the bottom as follows: "Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model, April 2009" (http://www.itepnet.org/)...a left wing tax policy website...that uses faulty models for calculating taxation....
"tax model" you do understand what "modeling" is, right......it's a hypothesis....a guess, it is not based on actual figures, sales tax cannot be calculated with actual figures.....tell me, how much of YOUR income did you pay in sales tax last year? How much did you spend on taxable items?.....don't know? Of course you don't.....no one keeps those sorts of records, but you think your "comprehensive studies", which are all based on the same fabricated data that has no official verification anywhere, can pull the rabbit out of their asses and accurately calculate the amount each person pays in sales tax.....
also, with property taxes...in order to calculate the effect of property taxes on a single economic group you would have to do a title search on EVERY single property owned in the US, determine the owner, and compare the property tax liability with their income.....I can assure you that has never, and will never, be done...but, if you can point me to a source which has that information, I will gladly admit you're correct
but you can't do it......all you can do is keep repeating yourself, that there have been "comprehensive studies".....which you cannot verify, but we are supposed to take your word, and the word of Robert Reich (the left wing hack, who opposed EVERYTHING that made the 90's the decade of prosperity that it was).
The bottom line, and final answer in this whole debate is the fact that:
YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
you only assume those who you cited (who themselves are making unverified assertions) are correct. I am sorry that you have trouble with comprehension, and that you cannot face fact and must resort to repetition like a retard at a bus stop.....
The facts are that your assertions do no bear even minimal scrutiny....
and your constant Argumentum Ad Nauseam (argument by repetition), and Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Argument by appeal to authority)....is logical fallacy, but you probably don't understand that either....
get a library card, and stop trolling left wing sites looking for groundless information that supports your wishes, try and find a fact or two by crunching the numbers yourself......you might have to put down the bong and the game controller for a bit...but, hey...what else do you have to do....
IDIOT!
I challenge you to explain, in detail, why and how the alleged equal effective rate is determined.....you can't...and that is proof of your ignorance.
Now, repeat yourself again and make claims about "comprehensive studies".....since that's all you have to say......
actually, only the first two are mine.....the first was disabled by someone changing the password so I could not log in....so I reregistered under slammersworldisback.....I don't know who "andthegoalis" is..
You didn't win any debate, and I didn't run anywhere....you presented the same fallacies in that argument that you present here....and they are just as false today as they were yesterday, and as they will be tomorrow.
It's not my job to check your sources, and if you are going to post news articles as fact, you might be better to start checking them for accuracy before posting them......do your own due diligence, that fact that you haven't points clearly to your ignorance and foolish idea's
[Removed]
I clearly stated that both of the slammersworld usernames were mine, and why, what on earth would I need a third for? You clearly have psychological problems, and anger issues....I can understand, incompetence can cause serious cognitive issues, and impotence can create the sort of rage you display....my prescription, educate yourself with something other than left wing news stories, websites, and blogs......and do something with your life, something more than "participation trophy" level effort, you aren't ok and special unless you can demonstrate some special ability and succeed at something.....the happy sparkly unicorn faery bullshit you have been fed all your life is wrong, you don't DESERVE anything you haven't earned....much less a piece of what others have earned...
As for your point, I am not sure where you get "some wealthy property owners" as a classification for those who get breaks (loopholes, as you libs call anything that prevents the government from confiscating funds) for forest reserve, timber management, or agricultural exception......those are not reserved for "the rich", I know several small organic farmers and lower middle class horse owners who get such tax relief..... Your assertion of it only benefiting "Wealthy property owners" is as full of holes as is the rest of your theory...
And...........property taxes are voluntary taxation, if you don't own, or purchase property, you don't pay them...property taxes, fuel taxes, sales tax (most states exempt food from sales tax, and some exempt basic clothing) motor vehicle fees, etc are all voluntary cost of living expenses, NOT mandatory taxation, and OF COURSE cost those with less income more OF that income....that is the perk of earning more....you have more? If you want to include ancillary taxation in the equation, then it is the payroll from businesses, large and small that pay almost ALL of the taxes in this country, without the payroll, which exists ONLY because of the enterprise, or person, providing the employment, there are no taxes due, or paid......the only exceptions are independent contractor, single person business enterprises....So...."the rich", if you want to bring in ancillary taxation, pay nearly ALL of the taxes of all types, the "poor" don't pay any taxes, as they are given the money to pay them, through payroll.... by the "rich"....
But, you see...that argument, like yours, is invalid, because that is not how we calculate taxation....nor is cost of living used as a calculation for taxation...Mandatory taxation, at all levels, is borne by the wealthier income earners, that is simply the way it works... you have provided no evidence to the contrary....., because you cannot, it doesn't exist.... Are you so stupid that you don't understand that? What is it you're after, equal incomes for all, despite unequal contribution? That will NEVER happen, you do understand "never"....right?
You dismissed the CBO, which lists taxation from all sources at the federal level, which is a part of the answer that invalidates your foolish point...and you completely disregard the US Statistical Abstract, which has data from individual states...but, that document is comprehensive and requires exhaustive research to locate specific data....surely THAT is the reason you don't mention it...it would require effort to investigate....effort is not you lefties "thing", you prefer others expend the effort while you steal the rewards...sorry pal, you will have to do your own study on this one...and until you post some proof of your assertions they remain hypothetical nonsense....and the consensus of other idiots, or repetition, does not make your absurdity accurate. Try to be factual, instead of an angry parrot, huh...you look, and sound, like a goddamn fool....
See, you libs have no grasp of economic psychology, you think that economics is a static science, like mathematics....you think if you raise on side you can lower another, if you take from one group they will continue to operate at the level and willingly allow the theft of their time/effort.... and every time you've had the opportunity to institute your idea's they have failed, miserably, and every time you get a chance in the future they will fail again......because they are incorrect and break natural law....
Hi, Slammersworld, I'm andthegoalis. Nice to meet you. Not going to get in the middle of this one as you seem to be doing a fine job, but I really don't think he wants to know the truth. If it's not written in one of his "reputable" "news" blogs he won't believe it. He really does not have any desire to think for himself (though I do think he's capable). None of the obvious facts I presented meant anything to him except the retraction of the article that his source referenced. Unless the left says it he won't believe it. period. Ironically, you and I are puppets because we can rationalize, analyze and simply think for ourselves. :)
[Removed]
apparently we are the same person.....hahaha
this dude is a tool, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and couldn't find it with both hands and a mirror....
It is unfortunate what the "self-esteem building", participation trophy, "everyone is special" trend in our culture has done to so many people....they think that they are winners for marginal participation, and they wander around with inflated ego's that are never backed up with any real achievement..... They think that all their answers are correct, because they've been taught that as long as they "feel" good about themselves that's all that matters.....
No wonder they can't do anything but shit and eat, and complain that others aren't taking care of them extravagantly enough....it's sad really...
He keeps harping about "comprehensive studies" which are nothing but partisan website postings without documentation or citation, and one even uses it's own modeling as a source......I guess in his world that is "comprehensive".....hahaha
[Removed]
without the creator there is no market.....the consumer is just an organism trying to exist....the creators and organizers create the market...not the consumer...the consumer only participates in the market, he doesn't create it...sorry charlie...
The top 1% paid 28.1% of ALL federal taxes (39.5% of income taxes)....in 2007...that includes SSN/Medicare, Excise, Income, and Corporate....
The top 10% paid 55% of ALL federal taxes (72.7% of income taxes)
True distribution of wealth is impossible to know, as there are too many unknowns and variables.....of the known, verifiable sources of wealth the upper incomes do retain more...but is that surprising? Of course they do, that is the perk of earning more? um...duh?
The idea that "wealth" is a pile of money, or a huge idle bank account in some bank, is the obscure perspective that you lefties try to convince the masses of...and it is patently false, like most of your assertions....
There is a reason for concentration of wealth over the past 30 years....most of the "wealth" isn't liquid in the form of freely spent dollars, it's in the value of the companies owned by the wealthy, and the value of that wealth changes drastically from day to day, and moment to moment with the swings in the financial markets, much of the "wealth" didn't exist in 1979, as tech companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, Etc didn't exist.....that wealth sprung forth out of thin air, because people wanted a share in the potential of those companies in the form of stock equities, and that is where the largest percent of wealth in the US, and the world lies...not in black-beards treasure chest, in a liquid bank account, or stuffed in a mattress in some huge mansion.....the concentration of THAT wealth is right where it belongs, in the hands of those who created it, and those who purchased shares of the creation....
There is no state of local jurisdiction that has a regressive tax structure (taxes lower incomes at a higher rate)and state and local taxes are flat rates, or progressively higher for higher incomes, so the "poor" DO NOT pay rate equal to the rich...not even close...the mandatory tax rates on individuals is lower for lower incomes, as a percent of income.....
You, and other's try to roll voluntary tax expenditures and cost of living into "taxes paid" in order to get to your fallacy of the poor paying equal rates at the rich...but it doesn't fly, all sectors of taxes whether they be income, or property, or sales, or any of the other types of taxation are paid in greater amounts, and greater shares, by the higher income sectors.....and that is a fact you cannot dispute, but....I encourage you to put up, or shut up....with some actual sourced statistics, which you cannot provide, because they do not exist....and, a news story is not "fact" so, don't try that one....
The Rich pay larger shares of taxation during periods of lower marginal rates, it occurred in the late 80's, in the late 90's (almost balancing the budget after a capital gains rate reduction in 1997) and in the early 2000's during the largest growth period in our nations history from 04-07
The only thing that will cause another Great Depression is the same thing that caused the last one, poor government policy and heavy handed intervention, and "stimulus" spending...which NEVER stimulates anything....The treasury secretary under FDR put it pretty clearly in a hearing before the Ways and Means committee in 1939 (8 years into the FDR administration):
"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot." Henry Morgenthau, Jr
[Removed]
you can keep posting your copy/paste bullshit, but repetition doesn't make it true...and you provide no source for that fallacious information....
I didn't search out a high number, that data is from the CBO: you can take a look for yourself, if you like....http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf
You are simply a fool, your assertions are false, your idea's are foolish, and you are quite childish and uneducated.....
It's funny you keep saying you win the argument...you must be a product of the participation trophy society, where there are no winners or losers, just people who are marginal or poor at everything equally.....although, with your arguments, marginal is a bit excessive.....
It's funny that you use a website called "Citizens For Tax Justice" as your source of fact, it's cute really......maybe I should post things from Heritage, or Freedomworks...huh? But, I don't, all my data, again, comes from the US government official websites...I can think for myself, and check the facts myself.....I don't need some propaganda site to do it for me....
Feel free to post a link to a US Statistical Abstract table, or a CBO/IRS publication for those figures...if you can't, then they aren't valid, or dependable, and I reject the substance behind them......
You are, again, trying to link mandatory taxation to voluntary behavior and using the residual income after living expenses as your "proof" of higher "taxes".....it's clear bullshit, and you have no verifiable data...so, why don't you run along and play with the other propagandists too stupid to make reasonable statements, or back up the assertions they make....
the share of taxes borne by the upper income earners far exceeds the share of income they earn, but....again, you have no idea what you are talking about, you're simply a parrot for some left wing pseudo-news site...
[Removed]
Why should the rich rob from the poor?
Our country would be so much better off if there were a well paid "middle" class. These people spend their money on products to keep up with the Jones'. The more they spend the greater the demand for products and the more employment improves. A flat tax ends up taking more from the poorest from an overall tax rate. The poor pay sales tax, property tax, and other fees that do not impact the wealthy as severely.
There is a recent stat that indicates that nearly half the population of this country is living at the low to poverty level incomes. How much more can they be bled?
I would love to see middle income rates average somewhere between the super rich and the poor. If this were accomplished then everyone would benefit. As the statistics show, the wealthy have steadily grown in wealth while the rest of us have stayed flat. How can that ever bring this country back to greatness?
You look at the problems but not at the cause.
The immediate cause is that you are now competing in a global world. You are competing with the Chinese and the Indians, who started off extremely poor and are now working their asses off to get to where you already are.
In this world (and it's not going back, so don't delude yourself), if you don't add value over those guys, you're not going to be paid more. That's only fair.
So the underlying question is given all our inherent advantages, why aren't we adding more value? Easy. Those guys are graduating hundreds of thousands of engineers a year. We have great universities, yet Silicon Valley, for example, has to import engineering and science students and tech workers from around the world because most of our young are lazy shits who study history, psychology, education, sociology, English, and anthropology.
Technology and the associated industries they have spawned is what made this country's economy - not our "enlightenment" or appreciation of culture.
So, the problem is inequality. But the solution is not to rob from the rich. The solution is to make the young have a skill set that will allow them to outcompete others. And that is done by realigning our priorities (because there is plenty of money already) and focus on education in both the household and the government.
Explain how a fair tax could be flat?
Percentages matter.
A flat tax isn't fair because wages paid to employees aren't fair and the ways and means by which the super-rich accumulate and hoard their obscene wealth is not fair. It's quite simple.
Boohoo. Ever consider that you are paid what you are worth? If the wages aren't high enough for you, go find another job that pays better.
If you can't find another job that pays better, acquire a new skill set. Yes, I know that takes effort. That's life.
Typical thoughtless meaningless, accusatory, devoid of humanity right-wing argument. What evil bullshit do you do for a living? I'd love to hear about all of the "hard work" you do to "earn" your money in the country you hate and should have to contribute nothing to but have benefited from greatly.
Doctor. 36hour shifts without sleep at the hospital to save people's lives. I think that's worth some money. But I'm an evil 1%er right? What do you do?
You set up a false premise. A progressive income tax is not robbing the rich.
Some have just enough for necessities. Some don't even have that. Some have huge amounts to spend after necessities are covered. Most people agree that these three groups should be taxed differently.
A flat tax is complete garbage.
You function today in a society that, spanning many generations, has made significant investments in infrastructure, education, commerce, and defense in order that you may utilize the tools of that investment.
Think of it as society's bank and not all persons are born to equal stations and opportunities. Further, some choose professions that draw exponetially greater upon that bank than do others.
Do you believe that an investment banker should earn 1000 times what a civil engineer does and pay an equal percentage of his earnings to taxes?
Do you believe that the owner of a trucking corporation should pay the same rate of taxes as your local mechanic?
We live in an ovarian lottery. Some of us are born with support, opportunities, and certain skills that allow us to exploit and leverage the current economic system (and all of society's past and current investments) to make extraordinary amounts of money.
Take away that investment.....move to Bangladesh for instance.....and see how much money you make as an investment banker. See how well your trucking firm does on dirt roads with armed guards of it's convoys.
See how well your staff performs when the smartest of the group has a fifth grade reading level.
Capitalism will always, even in a population of clones, have it's winners and losers. Coupled with the differential leveraging of our society bank, a progressive tax system is not only fair, it's intuitive.
A typical investment banker earns 70 million a year? You're in crazy land.
But yes, I think they should all pay an equal percentage.
Yes, we live in an unfair world. Deal with it.
"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."
~Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
we are a society no one is rich without its consent
that old rugged made it on my own is a myth
No one is rich without its consent.
Right, because of mob rule, where the majority, purely by their numbers can rob from minorities. That's how racism works too.
those in power are in power by force?
ya would the masses allow some people to have the majority of the money
I'm all for a flat tax. A flat BUSINESS tax. Say, that reminds me.
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. Note: This claim was made by Forbes.com in April of '10'. Shortly after, they published a followup article which included a rebuttal by Exxon Mobil. Forbes.com did acknowledge a mistake based on incorrect line items filed by Exxon Mobil. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
You do realize that a refund is not free money from the government, right? All that a refund indicates is that a company or individual paid mare than enough in taxes throughout the year to cover their actual profits, so the government has to give the excess money back in the form of a "refund." Put another way: not only did the companies you listed pay all of the taxes required on those profits, but they paid in excess of their tax liability, and the government was allowed to hold onto that excess until after they filed their taxes.
[Removed]
Ok, let's take the first one. The fact that they received a refund does not mean they didn't pay taxes. Are you claiming that Exxon did not have to pay any Federal quarterly taxes throughout the year?
[Removed]
Your claim is not only false, but very self-flattering, and has nothing to do with my question.
I know what quarterly taxes are, but am still in doubt as to whether or not you do. A refund is an overage of taxes either that are paid quarterly and/or even from a previous year (as appears to be the case with Exxon, and I'll give you a source since you seem to need others to interpret tax issues for you - http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes /).
I challenge the assertion that they paid no taxes, because the numbers you listed (profits and refunds) do not tell us that no taxes were paid. Quite the opposite, actually. What they indicate is 1) that they made a profit and 2) they paid more than necessary in taxes for 2009 through quarterly tax payments and/or in a previous year(s) and therefore were due a refund. It's simple math, no slight of hand here. What concerns me is that one article that spons another and another all based on a misinterpretation of a summary of their financial statements can take on a life of its own. Because so many bloggers and news media repeat it you now think it's a fact, even though it's claim is completely counterintuitive and even when the original article issues a correction.
As for tricks, I have no desire to spin anything. I have no agenda. I'm not a politician. I have no stocks to speak of. I'm a concerned citizen interested in encouraging healthier debate in our country that challenges the rhetoric and seeks truth.
[Removed]
Oh, and you can save the threats. If someone has to resort to threats to "win" a debate they've obviously already lost.
[Removed]
and I'm NOT slammersworld... seriously need to get over yourself.
again, I am not your research lackey. You asked me to "check out that first example" and I did. Now you can do your own research... Have fun!
LOL. You are definitely slammer. I argued with you a couple hours ago and said to you:
Which you're now recycling. Classic
[Removed]
Thanks for the credit, but, again, not slammersworld. I am a actually a she, btw. And the fact that threatening someone in a debate makes your argument look weak isn't really all that new of a concept. Here's another great way to change that subject when you're losing a debate - just start claiming everyone who seems to have similar opionions must be the same person. Really, people??
[Removed]
Wow. First of all, this is the first day I have ever visited this site, and I'm doing so because of a friend of mine's pro-occupy posts on Facebook. I wanted to see for myself exactly what the Occupy movement's goals were. This is not personal. I don't know who you are, what else you've posted, and frankly, I don't care. Taking these things personally just distracts from the issues. And I say all this even though, you apparently won't believe me because you already told me not to "try to deny it." This is just a tip for you to chew on: Realizing that you're wrong about me and couldn't possibly have any legitmate reason to claim I am these other people you've exposed a weakness in your character - you assume you know a lot more than you really do. Not an uncommon one, granted, but something for you to think about.
I gave you a more legitimate source than you offered me, I've read most of the others I could google on it and they were almost exclusively just referencing the original article (that's now been corrected) from the same source I provided to you. I laid out the math for you. It's really very simple. Besides, the IRS likes to collect money. If there is money to be collected from Exxon, they would be all over it.
If you need further proof, that's your problem. I'm not going to be your research lackey. I've already proven my point, and if you can't accept that your assertion was incorrect after that there's really nothing else I can do for you. It's now up to you to step back, put your personal feelings aside and honestly analyze the facts.
[Removed]
Good for you! I'm glad you're willing to acknowledge it and correct past claims. That's a big step in the right direction.
PS: I'm still not slammersworld. I have not created and will not ever be creating any other username except andthegoalis for this site. My own integrity also matters to me. You have based your claim only on some sort of paranoia, but are still completely convinced that you are right... food for thought.
[Removed]
btw - when you do your tax return and find that you've paid more in taxes than you owe, you do expect a refund, right? Do you interpret that as welfare, too?
[Removed]
America has taxed the rich numerous times to help when we were doing bad . they have not done it recently but go back to the depression times It has helped before an would of helped us now if they weren't cutting their taxes. I believe to simplify the tax system is in order a set tax rate across the board should be set unless there are hardships from paying taxes ...stop giving refunds u.less there excess ....let those taxes support the peoples growth including the get plan for a se ond billof rights...:alot of us would be better off right now he was able to make that a reality ....we will not succeed on a dog eat dog society ....the world is watching
Let's make a difference
Let's start with Social Security, first dollar to last ALL forms of income.
You get that all back when you're old, so it doesn't count.
Do you really think it's going into a saving account? Besides in the 80's when it was to "the taxpayers" (ie rich people's) advantage they included it the deficiet numbers so Reagan wouldn't look as bad as he was, now the "taxpayers" are cryijng abouit paying back the money they took. As long as we're not counting certain money why tax wages at all? Where's the deduction for the time you invest to recieve the wages?
It's the same for everyone.
hmmm ok just for a laugh, in your flat tax would you include all froms of income, dividends and capital gains pay the lowest rate now, and since it's the "same" for everyone would you allow a reasonable up front deduction for the cost of basic needs that are the "same" for everyone, say $50,000?
No. There can be no free loaders in society. $50,000 is a luxury. Most people in the world live on less than $5 a day.
I am glad that you at least agree that inheritance should be banned.
Who said life was fair?
Ah, but that's another question. The moral justification of the OWS movement is fairness. But in reality, it is not fair - just mob rule. Majority punishing the minority, just like racism.
Thats an interesting take.
I believe it is the correct perspective.
The founding fathers understood the dangers of majority oppresion when they opted against direct democracy. That's why we have the electoral college. That is why we have 2 senators per state, regardless if you are California or Hawaii.
Here, a tax system where different people have to pay differing amounts even though they are all Americans and all have access to the same governmental resources, is by definition unequal and not fair.
However, we put up with this unfairness because most people are charitable and generous to some extent. But it becomes harder to digest when people complain about your charity and demand more - not on the basis that it is only fair - but on the basis of mob majority rule.
The poor have already been robbed by the rich in the form of low wages. Should we skin them to the bone a second time?
You get paid for what skills and benefit you bring. If you don't offer much, you get low wages. Blame yourself - not capitalism.
Tax corporations and tax imports, the source of federal revenue before 1913, the year the Federal Reserve and Federal Income Tax were initiated.
This is a rhetorical question, but why can't we all come together, give what we can (not what we have to) and see each other happy? We all have more than enough to share with eachother. And I mean the world. When we die, these resources and things won't matter. Why not make the journey a comfortable and happy one?
@ elpinio ....Taxation is not robbery, fraud on wall street and mortgage lenders is robbery.
It's not about fairness, it's the fact that many people (myself included) literally cannot afford to pay 9 percent, we are barely scraping by. Government is not a game, and it's not for everyone's equal benefit. Government is supposed to help people who have unmet needs and to protect them from danger.
That's your opinion. I am paying 45% and I feel like I cannot pay more.
the purpose of government is to create a bubble, within which people can live....it's purpose is not to provide people with unmet needs...your needs are your responsibility....not government, and by extension...your neighbors.
You take care of your needs, and I will take care of mine, and that is a reasonable expectation to have of EVERY functioning citizen....if you fail at, or shrink from, that basic task, why is it the duty of others to pick up your slack......adjust your lifestyle and behavior to suit your needs...don't expect everyone else to do that for YOUR benefit.....THAT is selfishness......as opposed to keeping what you rightfully earn instead of surrendering it for the benefit of others and their supposed "needs" which are largely the result of their substandard behavior....
they make more money. it's only fair they contribute a fair share of their earnings.
The country's resources are available to all equally. No reason why the rich, because they work harder and make better decisions, should pay more for the same resources.
poverty is socially entrenched socioeconomic condition caused by intergenerational lack of education and opportunity. this can take generations to improve while some can succeed no matter and over come the limitations of their up bringing. a prosperous society should value education but the US education system has been in serious decline.
I don't think the argument is that its unfair. The argument is that it is regressive. A person paying 10% of 20,000$ pays less than a person paying 10% of 2,000,000$ however 10% of 20,000$ has a larger impact on the taxpayer. The same thing is said about consumption taxes, as consumption actually decreases as a percentage of income as a taxpayer's income increases.
I actually support a flat tax. Make it higher, but ensure that those making 20,000$ are getting more back in benefits than they would have sorted themselves.
A flat tax isn't fair because the income tax (direct tax on income) itself is unconstitutional..
It's also because the IRS is as unregulated as the Federal Reserve. In fact income taxes were made necessary BECAUSE of the privatized FED.
Ontop of that, the functions of the IRS are abused by the Corporatocracy.
People talk about removing money from politics but guess what taxes do..
It's just another elaborate game being played with money to concentrate real wealth and resources.
Because why should I pay for the Super fund? Why should I have equal share in paying for an infrastructure that caters to capital more than it caters to the people. Why should I pay to police the streets when it is wealth inequality that causes crime. and why should I pay the same amount of taxes as someone who don't even know why a flat tax is bad? really, The question is as juvenal as the poser of the proposition.
The rich pay the vast majority of the nation's tax, but do not use: public schools, public transit, emergency rooms for checkups, unemployment benefits, foodstamps, medicare, welfare, etc.
Well, when you have a vast majority of the nation's wealth, simple math dictates you pay the majority of the bills. It's a percentage thing. Middle america pays a bigger percentage and that, my friend, is the problem. But instead of posing sill questions, tell my why i should equally contribute to those programs i laid out to you? Then we can have an intelligent conversation about fair.
I don't know. I think a flat tax of 50% on the richest 1% might be workable. I mean they might have to tighten their belt a little, the experience would probably be good for them. Besides as an example it probably wouldn't be to tough to get by on 250 mil/yr instead of 500 mil.... Hell lets consider a flat tax of 75% on the richest 1%. I know it sounds like a lot but somehow I think that they would still be OK without having to miss to many meals.
It would probably get more then a few sphincters trembling, but when you consider the cost of living today the 1% could probably get by living with a 90% flat tax on their income.
What ya think?
Sphincter puckering thought! Still I think the 1% could still squeeze by. If we were to consider a 95% flat tax on their income though, well then we might be getting a little harsh. Right?
Though when you stop and think about it, if they did a little economizing, they should still be OK.
Take a look at this. http://goo.gl/Jc3KO That's 30 US companies and corporations that paid LESS THAN zero in taxes in 3 years. Now they are suppose to pay 35%. Now a flax tax will reduce how much they are SUPPOSE to pay and with the same or similar write off's, they will get a helluva lot more of the people's tax money at the end of the year, just for being here. Again its con the people for more money for the elite.
Not true, a flat tax eliminates those deductions that allow people to skirt the rules. That's the point.
When the marginal tax rate was high back in the fifties, the effective tax rate for the 1% was low, lower than it is now because they had the incentive to skirt the rules.
US corporations don't pay enough tax? Who's fault is that? The government for making stupid laws. And who elects the government? The 99%. So is your point that you suck at electing officials? That democracy doesn't work? That's why in my other post, I noted that you should go for communism.
Oh i struck a nerve, your really sensitive. Your right the governement has been making stupid laws that has 30 corporations paying less than zero for instance. Thats the kind of things occupy wants to change. By the way, that old commie stuff doesnt work anymore.
Makes OWS look dumb though :). 280 posts.
Following the approach to the healthcare mandate. What if, the same guideline was put in as a cutoff to be tax exempt (1.5 x above the poverty level), then apply a flat tax to everyone above this level with no exemptions or loopholes. As a 99%er, I would be ok with this. We all should be paying taxes and the "rich/corporations" would pay large amounts. I do not have time to play with the numbers, but maybe I will when I do have some time.
It doesn't matter how you tax people, a flat tax without deductions would probably get more from the rich, but unless we get about 40% more tax dollars then we are currently collecting, we will still be facing a deficit. There are not enough rich people out there to get that kind of money.
No tax is fair. All tax is just robbery & needs to end.
If you don't like the progressive tax then you can giiiit out
Aren't you sort of paraphrasing Archie Bunker? America, love it or leave it.
http://rightalways.blogspot.com/2005/10/archie-bunker-was-right-america-love.html Some company you keep!
Good idea. I have been thinking about it, as have many of my friends. Also thinking about giving up US citizenship as US taxes it citizens globally, even if you are working in another country.
Tax everybody at the max then give subsidies to those who need it.
That's how a progressive tax system is supposed to work. Everybody pays the same tax rate on the same level of income, The higher the income, the higher the tax rate.
What we used to do in prior to 1980 was tax the rich @70% or even @90% and give them over half back for investing incountry, in US jobs.
We used tax policy as jobs stimulus, recessions were shorter and shallower from 1938 to the mid 80's....
Now its the norm to have "the Jobless recovery".
because it would NEVER raise enough money to cover that gaping hole congress dug. if you think it would, then i have some beachfront in kansas i want to sell you.
Congress dug this hole because the previous Republican administration did everything possible to do so. Tax cuts for the rich, war spending, part D medicare, deregulation that led to tax loopholes... Why? Because a nation in debt is an obedient nation.
two words: LOOP HOLES.
One of the concerns with many flat tax systems is that they are not true flat taxes, which in turn makes the debate over the equitability of the tax difficult.
a flat tax rate is difficult to extrapolate. Little data supports the idea that it would bolster our economy, they say, and other countries that have used a flat tax have not benefitted from it. The highest benefit would be only to the richest Americans, while the majority of citizens would see their taxes raised. A sliding tax rate is problematic, opponents admit, but a flat tax is not the solution.
The so called simplicity of a flat tax is only attractive because our current tax code is so complicated - the basic premise of a progressive tax code need not be complicated.
The story of Robin(the)Hood, is one of the most shameful stories ever written. Glorifying robbery is disgusting. A proper ending to RobinHood should have been one of him being hung in front of a cheering crowd. RobinHood was a complete asshole.
A flat tax is fair, in my opinion. Newt's flat tax IS NOT. ZERO capital gains tax only helps the wealthy get wealthier.
A flat tax applied equally, from the very bottom to the very top, sounds abundantly fair - it is a perfect "equality." The problem is that the necessary 30% tax, removed of all loop holes, will cripple all from the social services dependent bottom to the comfortable middle class. The debt is just too damn high.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-3hZsXrxaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Taxes need to be more than fair, they also need to be just. Making the poor pay more and the rich pay less doesn't sound like justice to me, or the foundation of a strong republic. A strong republic would want everyone to live well. The rich could still be rich, but is it fair to let children starve in this country if their parents don't have the means or even the right to determine their own destinies?
So you want fair taxes? The US economic system used to be stable, banks didn't fail and jobs were created for those wishing to work.
A system that destroys 20 million jobs for over 3 years is broken.
A system that cant keep its banks afloat is broken.
A political system on auction to the highest bidder is broken.
A system that steals our future is broken.
A system that destroys families is broken.
A system that increases income and wealth disparity is broken.
A system that economically oppresses people is broken.
Whats fair is an economic system thats stable.
Whats fair is to take the big money out of politics.
Whats fair is tax policy that creates a stable economy.
Whats fair is regulations like Glass Steagal that creates a stable banking community.
Whats fair is not stealing our future.
The seventies were horrible with slow growth, high inflation and high inflation. Do you not remember those years?
GDP from 200o-2009 was 2.55% GDP from 1980 to 1989 was 3.5% GDP from 1970 to 1979 was 3.9%
I thought you said the 70's saw slow growth?
People loved stagflation, that was why Carter was re-elected.
In the '70's GDP grew at 3.9% in the 80's 3.5%
In the 70's oil went from $13 a barrel to $44 In the 80's oil went from $44 a barrel to $11.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp+growth#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&tstart=345877200000&tend=661410000000&hl=en&dl=en
Unemployment was at approx. 4% in 1970 grew to a high to close 9% in 1975 and ended the decade at under 8%. Do I need to review the inflation numbers?
Move the goal posts much? Adding Unemployment to your list, only after your memory of the 1970's GDP growth is proved wrong.
Funny thing unemployment averaged 6.3% on the 1970's. Unemployment averaged 7.2% in the '80's
From the Bureau of Labor and Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
Inflation, low and behold, you are right again Inflation in the 70's averaged 7% in the 80's only .. .. 6.5%
"and ended the decade at under 8%"
You're right, in 1979 Unemployment was 5.8%
nice job again -the golden age of capitalism! keynes set up a pretty stable system (well not just keynes) - the korean and vietnam wars set the us on the path to debtor status. how about this from chomsky - There are two important consequences of globalization. First, it extends the Third World model to industrial countries. In the Third World, there's a two-tiered society-a sector of extreme wealth and privilege, and a sector of huge misery and despair among useless, superfluous people.
That division is deepened by the policies dictated by the West. It imposes a neoliberal "free market" system that directs resources to the wealthy and to foreign investors, with the idea that something will trickle down by magic, some time after the Messiah comes.
You can see this happening everywhere in the industrial world, but most strikingly in the three English-speaking countries. In the 1980s, England under Thatcher, the United States under the Reaganites and Australia under a Labor government adopted some of the doctrines they preached for the Third World.
Of course, they would never really play this game completely. It would be too harmful to the rich. But they flirted with it. And they suffered. That is, the general population suffered.
Take, for example, South Central Los Angeles. It had factories once. They moved to Eastern Europe, Mexico, Indonesia-where you can get peasant women flocking off the land. But the rich did fine, just like they do in the Third World.
The second consequence, which is also important, has to do with governing structures. Throughout history, the structures of government have tended to coalesce around other forms of power-in modern times, primarily around economic power. So, when you have national economies, you get national states. We now have an international economy and we're moving towards an international state-which means, finally, an international executive.
To quote the business press, we're creating "a new imperial age" with a "de facto world government." It has its own institutions-like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, trading structures like NAFTA and GATT [the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade], executive meetings like the G-7 [the seven richest industrial countries-the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, Britain, France and Italy-who meet regularly to discuss economic policy] and the European Community bureaucracy.
As you'd expect, this whole structure of decision making answers basically to the transnational corporations, international banks, etc. It's also an effective blow against democracy. All these structures raise decision making to the executive level, leaving what's called a "democratic deficit"-parliaments and populations with less influence.
Not moving the goal posts at all as you know, it all depends on the start time and the end time when constructing figures and arguments. If you truly believe that the 70s were a good decade for the economy then so be it, but the public didn't. Do you notice there were two one term presidents in that decade - Ford and Carter?
The first semi-intelligent post I have seen. The tax system is NOT fair. The "progressive" tax system by definition rips off the rich. But America is also about generosity. The question is how much generosity you can force. As with any minority with interests different from the majority, the rich suffer disproportionately in the laws passed.
As with any minority with interests different from the majority, the rich suffer disproportionately in the laws passed. ha! they are suffering mightily don't you think - it is so easy to blow up your points - i can't believe someone would pay you but they must - no other reason for you to be hanging around! Report: Seven Largest Banks on Track for Record-Breaking $156 Billion in Compensation Facebook_20 Twitter_20 Reddit_20 Email_20 Addthis_20
In banking news, a new report from the New Bottom Line is predicting total compensation at seven of the biggest U.S. banks to total a record-breaking $156 billion this year. The report examined the records of Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, US Bank, and Wells Fargo. Six of the seven banks set aside more money for compensation through the first three quarters of 2011 than they did in the first three quarters of 2010.
Tax distribution is a hotly debated aspect of flat taxes. The relative fairness hinges crucially on what tax deductions are abolished when a flat tax is introduced, and who profits the most from those deductions. Proponents of the flat tax claim it is fairer than stepped marginal tax rates, since everybody pays the same proportion. Opponents point out first that it might not make sense for everyone to pay the same proportion when some get advantages of prosperity. Also, they note that for the state to raise the same amount of money under a flat rate tax (to the first order, that is, assuming people earn the same incomes as before) requires that the rich pay less and the poor pay more than they would under a more progressive tax system. Proponents respond to this argument by saying that second-order effects would compensate; a flat tax would remove economic disincentives and encourage economic growth, thus leading to higher incomes and more tax revenues. So taxpayers across income ranges could be paying at the same or lower rate than their old system. Economic models usually predict that flat tax will increase both output and inequality. Proponents claim that since everybody pays the same rate, it treats everyone equally and thus is fair to everyone. Opponents of the flat tax, on the other hand, claim that since the marginal value of income declines with the amount of income (the last 100 of income of a family living near poverty being considerably more valuable than the last 100 of income of a millionaire), taxing that last 100 of income the same amount despite vast differences in the marginal value of money is unfair. Many flat-tax proponents actually concede this premise since most proposals are not truly totally flat but have a threshold below which income is not taxed at all. Therefore, with the exception of flat-tax proponents who argue for no deductions and taxation of all income at one flat rate, both proponents and opponents agree in principle if not in degree with the basic premise of this concept. However, the sizable exemptions provided under most flat tax proposals go far in restoring effective progressivity. As income for an individual increases, the exempt income becomes an ever smaller percentage of total income. The issue of removing deductions, exemptions and special treatments is also relevant to the tax burden, if those special treatments currently benefit the better off. Example, the tax debate in the UK has recently (2007) focused on the fact that hedge fund managers, some with multi-million pound incomes, “pay less tax than a cleaning lady” (actually a lower tax rate rather than less tax), because the hedge fund manager’s “income” qualifies as capital gains, taxable at 10%, rather than the cleaner’s employment income taxable at 33% (22% income tax plus 11% social security charge). A flat tax that taxed both at the same rate is argued to be fairer than the current, supposedly progressive, system. We must also consider fairness in relation to the broader concept of justice. Proponents argue that a flat tax would:
Riddled with errors. And use paragraphs if this is going to be your manifesto.
The rich make their money off the poor's labor.
Flat tax is only fair if you have flat income. Even the founders of capitalism knew it.
Yes the rich make money off of the poorer people. That is how the employer,employee system has worked for ages. A good portion of money is spent on entitlement programs for the poor and illegal people in this country. Why is it fair to pay taxes for services I don't want or need?
Why? 1 person 1 vote. Everybody uses the country's resources equally.
In fact, the poor use most of the tax money. But the money comes mostly from the rich.
No, as a matter of fact most of the money the poor use comes from the poor. It's called payroll tax, a tax that is overwhelmingly paid for by the poor.
People do not use the country's resources equally, something that is made obvious in the relative net worths of each quintile.
Payroll tax? The poor pay for social security, but they get it back when they get old, so it is irrelevant.
Also, who uses public schools, public transit, unemployment benefits, welfare, foodstamps, emergency rooms for regular medical care, etc?
Hint: not the rich.
yes the rich and i say to you again what about the bullshit social costs a company like walmart pushes off on society we have to pay for their employees subsidized housing and medical care for their kids and food stamps to eat because walmart wont pay them enough to live it is bullshit if the social cost of goods was on the package instead off the profit price for 6 individuals who are as rich as the bottom 30% of society alone maybe an idiot like you will wake up it is bullshit.
I'm not a grammatical nut, but this is nonsensical. Reformulate this into a readable form, and I'll take a look.
ha ha ha ha ha ha not gonna waste anymore effort on you troll
what about the bullshit social costs a company like walmart pushes off on society we have to pay for their employees subsidized housing and medical care for their kids and food stamps to eat because walmart wont pay them enough to live it is bullshit if the social cost of goods was on the package instead off the profit price for 6 individuals who are as rich as the bottom 30% of society alone maybe an idiot like you will wake up it is bullshit.
What "bullshit costs" does Walmart push off on society? I think you have your context wrong....Walmart doesn't determine the social, cultural, or economic behavior of it's employee's...It provides an exchange of monetary compensation for labor, the level of which is determined by the task performed by the employee.....Whether they are paid "enough" for their lifestyle isn't the business of an employer, it is the responsibility of people to live within their means, not expect their employers to provide them with compensations to cover their needs. Unless those people have the experience, talent, or knowledge that increases their value to the employer they can expect low wages, and that is "THEIR" fault....not the employer
society pays those costs you list NOT because of Walmart, but because of poor decisions and behavior by people who should be expected to act better, instead of society making excuses and justifications for...you blame everyone for the circumstances of people...except the people themselves.....
http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php
See the second item especially, titled "$86 MILLION a Year to California Taxpayers"
yeah....WTF are you trying to say exactly?
Because the people who work at Walmart use public assistance it's Walmart's fault?....maybe those people should improve their skills...
An employer is not responsible for the life choices of it's employees
your head on my stake
hahahahahaha!!!! that's cute... you little pussies think you're badasses, if the system is disrupted you won't last a week without someone to wipe your ass and feed you
they wouldnt know talent if it bit them on the ass just look at the music business and hollywood cinema since they completely took over. you slow been dropped on your head?
you are so lost.... any reason to defend the rich right, any reason to defend the current system, any reason to fuck over the poor and push the social costs of shitty companies on to the taxpayer you are a fucking piece of shit that was designed wrong because your logic is so fucking flawed it is laughable.... they should be allowed to have wage slaves because they can fuck you... i can't wait till the spring when the full on revolution starts you will be pissing yourself... and i will put your head at the end of a stake loser.
I'm all zeroed in, bring it on.....
If you could re-format this into readable sentences, I will respond to you. Thanks.
i should edit my forum chat for you go fuck yourself i am a published author it not worth the effort to hit shift for you you just cant stand that i won and you lost
Published author of like facebook posts? Learn to use a period. lol
you still cant beat me your argument was crushed and actually i make my living writing blow me
You're not arguing. You're trolling. Every author I've ever met knows that your argument doesn't matter unless you make it in a way that's intelligible.
But you are right about Walmart. They pretty much suck.
I still don't see why that's an argument against the fair tax. spell it out for me like I don't know anything.
Legibly, please. ^_^
it is spelled out for you just fine arguing semantics of grammer when it is clear idc is pretty funny but again for you since you are so dumb what about the bullshit social costs a company like walmart pushes off on society we have to pay for their employees subsidized housing and medical care for their kids and food stamps to eat because walmart wont pay them enough to live it is bullshit if the social cost of goods was on the package instead off the profit price for 6 individuals who are as rich as the bottom 30% of society alone maybe an idiot like you will wake up it is bullshit.
Flat tax as a system is actually more complicated than it seems to be. For example, in the case of wealthier taxpayers, who often get a substantial portion of their money not from weekly wages but from stock dividends or capital gains, it is difficult to pinpoint precisely when that income occurs and thus when it should be taxed (NOT FAIR-- taxing only salary is a means to keep the people down; the rich pay death taxes).
Businesses, too, point out that they need some mechanism in the tax code that will allow them to deduct their expenses in order to be fairly taxed on their actual profits. There is also the complex question of how to deal with the tax components of imports and exports under a flat tax system.
Another criticism (of why it is NOT FAIR-- that is a flat tax NOT being FAIR) is that one uniform tax rate also prevents the government from using tax advantages as incentives to engage in socially positive behavior, as it is currently done with the home ownership mortgage deduction or the saver's credit.
FLAT TAX = NOT FAIR.