|
Post by Azan on Jul 22, 2005 10:31:15 GMT -5
I believe in a flat tax rate
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 10:33:27 GMT -5
Me too, and for those of you who don't know, flat tax means everyone is taxed the same percent of their income.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Jul 22, 2005 10:34:27 GMT -5
Yeah, FTR has already shown it works, like in Hong Cong.
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Jul 22, 2005 11:28:41 GMT -5
well the redistribution of income is A. Economically efficient, B. the most equal C. good for the economy (different from economically efficent)
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 12:49:14 GMT -5
even with flat taxes the rich pay more, so. . . yeah.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 12:55:34 GMT -5
but that means that the poor have to keep up also though. if we charge more for the rich because they have more then that will help because the poorer and middle class can't pay as much cuz they don't have the same amount of income. so hwy not just tax a percent so that it will be greater for the wealthier and less for the poor?
i didn't vote cuz I don't know much about taxes right now.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 13:09:33 GMT -5
You mean a single percent (let's say 10% for everyone) so that rich people pay more than poor people? Yeah that's what flat tax means.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 13:10:16 GMT -5
yeah! well then what do we have now?
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 22, 2005 13:15:56 GMT -5
Right now it's really confusing because we have various percents for everyone and tax hikes and cuts determined by votes and other things and I think it would be much simpler if we just switched to flat tax.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 13:16:59 GMT -5
well it would be fairer I think because then the rich would pay more cuz they are richer and the poor would pay poorer cuz they are poor.
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Jul 23, 2005 11:07:31 GMT -5
right now, we have a declining percentage, before bush, we had decades of inclining percentage. so we went from rich pay a higher percent, to rich pay a lower percent.
the rich have to pay a higher %, however, as the poor must pay a larger % of their income to living wages. thus they end up paying a larger % of their surplus wages to government than a rich person does.
As for economic efficiency. If the rich were to pay, ever a 5% higher tax rate, an amount that would virtually go unnoticed to any rich person, would relive half of the poor person's taxes, which would be money that a poor person would not only notice, but also use, and practically double his standard of living.
As for good for the economy. Rich people save more money than poor people, thus if you were to give them 100 billion dollars (obviously split up amongst them), chances are, 75 billion of that would go into savings, and a mear 25Billion will be put back into the economy. THen that 25 billion would create new jobs, and maybe contributea small economic gain. If you were to give poor people 100 billion dollars (again, split up), chances are, no more than 25 billion would be saved, the other 75 billion would be spent, that spending would then increase demand, causing an increase in the quantity supplied, increasing the need for jobs, the wealth of the wealthy, the wealth of the poor, and the wealth of the nation.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 23, 2005 11:19:36 GMT -5
We're not giving anyone $100 Billion though.
I see your point, but remember that there aren't as many rich people as there are poor people. So an inclining tax might not do as much good as you think. In your third paragraph you wrote that if a rich person paid a 5% higher tax rate, it would double a poor person's standard of living. If for every rich person the standard of living for one poor person doubled, that would only be a small fraction of all the poor people.
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Jul 23, 2005 11:31:56 GMT -5
i did that based on the 1/5 richest (who have control of 50% of this nations wealth) and the 1/5 poorest (who have control of 5%), equal numbers of people. Besides, 5% higher taxes (basicly 21% instead of 20%) on a billionaire, is enough to doulbe the standard of liviing to hundreds of poor people.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 23, 2005 11:53:11 GMT -5
Don't forget that that money would go to the government, which would then use it as they see fit. Not all of that money would go back to the poor people.
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Jul 23, 2005 12:47:43 GMT -5
well the arguement is over inclined tax rates, so we are assuming that we use 1 average tax rate, and just different tax brackets (so effectivly, the rich paying more taxes, would in turn lower for the poor (+ maybe middle)
|
|