Rand Paul's Flat Tax Proposal

[jamil]

Exactly. This 'flat' tax isn't even flat. A real 'flat' tax would be $2,000 per year regardless of income. This tax is already directly proportional to your income.

Every person we exempt from taxes is a person who will almost always vote for higher taxes for the rest of us.

ETA: I'm the only earner in my family, we would benefit HUGELY from exempting the first $50,000 and I'm still against it.

Last time I suggested that the truly "fair" but impractical tax would be, everyone would pay the same amount, not the same rate; I got booed. I admitted it's not practical. If we divided our current spending by the number of earners, each person would have to pay ~$20K/year. Obviously not practical.

Okay, so even though paying the same rate is not as "fair" as paying the same amount, the most practical fair tax IS a flat percentage of income. I'm okay with that. But the socialists boo that idea because it doesn't punish success.

 

[ATM]

There is absolutely no justification for income theft.

I favor any plans which will reduce the overall parasitic depredations of The State as a means toward starving it completely and defending the Liberty of its host.

Observations On An Increasingly Parasitic Government - Forbes

 

[steveh_131]

Okay, so even though paying the same rate is not as "fair" as paying the same amount, the most practical fair tax IS a flat percentage of income. I'm okay with that.

I'm certainly good with it too, but it needs to be understood that a tax directly proportional to income is as 'fair share' as you can get.

 

[jamil]

Heck yes.

And this idea that the money comes out before we get paid is ridiculous and needs to stop. Everybody should get a tax bill at the end of the year. Everybody needs to feel it when the government comes to take your money.

"You know what's ******-up about taxes? You don't even pay taxes. They take tax. You get your check, money gone.

That ain't a payment, that's a jack."

-Chris Rock

Yep. EVERYone should have to write out the check for their taxes. It's painful. It's even more painful when we find out how our money's being spent.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why not just take spending levels back to about 1990 levels and then do away with the whole income tax? That's what Rands father suggested not so long ago. Cut spending and kill the tax completely. That I could get behind.

 

[jamil]

I'm certainly good with it too, but it needs to be understood that a tax directly proportional to income is as 'fair share' as you can get.

I don't really agree with that statement. The most "fair share" as you can get is each person paying in exactly what they consume in public services. As I said, that's not really practical.

 

[malern28us]

Which is great except for Federal tax, Social Security, Medicare, Indiana State, Indiana local, and CEDIT taxes. We would still be at the 35% they take (combined) from my paycheck.

 

[ATM]

Why not just take spending levels back to about 1990 levels and then do away with the whole income tax? That's what Rands father suggested not so long ago. Cut spending and kill the tax completely. That I could get behind.

Perhaps this could be the next step for those afraid of jumping there directly.

Flat tax this year, repealed next year. I like it.

 

[NavyVet]

IMO 10% is plenty. My fear of a flat tax is that they will keep tweaking it up. I'd say 10% and Constitutional amendment that it can never be raised. Govt needs to know they have a finite amount to work with just like the rest of us.

I like this idea... If they want more revenue, do the things that increase the GDP...

 

[steveh_131]

Why not just take spending levels back to about 1990 levels and then do away with the whole income tax? That's what Rands father suggested not so long ago. Cut spending and kill the tax completely. That I could get behind.

I like this even better. But Rand's idea is at least a step in the right direction.

I don't really agree with that statement. The most "fair share" as you can get is each person paying in exactly what they consume in public services. As I said, that's not really practical.

No, not really practical. This is as close as you can get in a practical sense, I'd say.

 

[ATM]

Practical was once a secondary consideration only after principle had been satisfied.

In principle, theft is unacceptable. The fact that it is practical and customary are non-starters.

 

[jamil]

Practical was once a secondary consideration only after principle had been satisfied.

In principle, theft is unacceptable. The fact that it is practical and customary are non-starters.

In an imaginary world, sure. In the real world, on a large scale, no. Principle works up to the point where practice makes it impossible.

 

[PRasko]

Under 50K is over 60% of the work force.

Shouldn't be exempted, unless we're talking about eradicating section 8 and welfare. In which case I'd be totally ok with it.

 

[ATM]

In an imaginary world, sure. In the real world, on a large scale, no. Principle works up to the point where practice makes it impossible.

At what "scale" must principles be necessarily abandoned, which principles, exactly, and at what cost?

I doubt you'll be able to support such a flawed premise even for the sake of argument, but feel free to try.

 

[foszoe]

If forced to go flat tax, don't exempt an amount, exempt necessities, like food. That way all benefit rich and poor alike.

I favor a consumption or sales tax so that I keep my money until I choose to spend, but can't fully debate the benefits other than I don't like my money just being taken.

 

[jamil]

At what "scale" must principles be necessarily abandoned, which principles, exactly, and at what cost?

I doubt you'll be able to support such a flawed premise even for the sake of argument, but feel free to try.

It's probably workable for a few hundred people in grass huts to live by your principles. But for 400,000,000, we probably have to live in the real world.

 

[steveh_131]

It's probably workable for a few hundred people in grass huts to live by your principles. But for 400,000,000, we probably have to live in the real world.

400,000,000 people is nothing more than a million groups of 400 people.

The principles can work, but decentralization is important.

 

[ATM]

It's probably workable for a few hundred people in grass huts to live by your principles. But for 400,000,000, we probably have to live in the real world.

So, can you fill in any of the specifics requested? Have you simply adopted an imaginary premise to help you cope with the principle violations you see around you?

Coping is one thing, using that same mechanism to support or justify is quite another.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Another reason to vote for Rand. Guys don't go poo-pooing the plan yet. It's better than what we have and is a step in the right direction. We can't expect to get all the golden eggs at once.

 

[jamil]

So, can you fill in any of the specifics requested? Have you simply adopted an imaginary premise to help you cope with the principle violations you see around you?

Coping is one thing, using that same mechanism to support or justify is quite another.

Then practice your principles. Scale it up. Go for it.