The nature of the flat tax places a larger share of the burden of total taxes in the US on the poor and middle class than currently; and a lower portion on the rich. That may or may not be an OK thing to various people - but fiscally, that's how it works.
You have to be kidding? If laws do not enforce a moral code then we shouldn't have yellow stripes down the center of highways, speed limits and stop lights at intersections. Laws are there to define what is right and wrong. That makes them moral by definition. If it is wrong to drive any way and any speed you want to then there will be laws made. If it is just an individual right to do whatever you please then there should not be a law. You do not understand what 'moral' and 'law' mean if you think that alcohol isn't a moral issue. That is why there are laws about age of consumption, driving under the influence, place of consumption, amount of consumption, behavior due to consumption etc. There are as many laws written regarding the use of alcohol as anything else. Just because there is not a blanket national prohibition of alcohol usage does not make it just a matter of individual freedom, you need to think about just how many laws regulate the individual use of alcohol and limit your individual freedom.
I really don't know enough about Huckabee but I don't like his tax proposal or any other candidate's proposal, except for Ron Paul. The economy is the most critical issue of this election and the only one who is for changing the debt crisis and has a plan to fix it is Ron Paul. The foreign policy, and every other issue will not get fixed unless the economic crisis is dealt with. 10 trillion in debt and counting (including an estimated 20 trillion or more in derivitive exposure)
^ Rhester I think you are simplifying it too much. Speed limits and yellow striping isn't the same as a law saying that gays can't marry. While yes at a very basic level laws protecting physical safety are a moral expression that we think that people should be physically safe but that is different from a spiritual or even cultural morality.
How do you figure? It is a consumption tax. If a rich dude buys a new house/boat/car/clothes/etc., all of it will be taxed. And the poor aren't taxed at all (ie. below the poverty line)
It is actually a very complicated issue. Let's say someone makes 15K a year. Basically all of his money will be taxed, so he will be taxed on 100% of his earning. Another person makes 50 million a year. He buys boats, go eat fancy restaurants, etc and spends 10 million a year. He is taxed on only 20% of his income. This is just to illustrate that it is not a simple issue, taxing "fairly" is very hard because what is "fair" is very hard to decide.
Perhaps I'm missing something in you and Fatty's discussion but my understanding of the flat tax is that someone earning 15K a year wouldn't have all of his money tax but 20% of his income, or whatever the flat tax percentage is. While 20% of 15K is much smaller than 20% of 50Mil so the millionaire pays more the difference in regard to fairness is that the person who makes 15K has far less income to spare for taxes so 20% hurts him more than 20% hurts the millionaire. It sounds to me like y'all are debating a sales tax.
Actually, you're only taxed on "new goods." Anything used isn't taxed. And everyone gets a prebate, which places a tax burden of people below the poverty line at 0%. And I love your "complicated" rhetoric. As if the current one is easy? Some more info. Read below. Another benefit of the FairTax is that, unlike other sales taxes, it would not hit the poorest Americans the hardest. The FairTax proposal calls for sending every American a "prebate" check to offset the cost of the national sales taxes paid by those living in poverty. This feature would effectively exempt those living below the poverty line from paying taxes to the federal government, and provide all taxpayers with a reimbursement of a portion of taxes paid. The FairTax rate is 23% on retail sales when calculated "inclusively," as are income tax rates. It will, in a fairer, more transparent and less-expensive way, raise the same amount of money the federal government now collects through the income and payroll taxes. Because it would be levied on consumption at the final point of sale, instead of on earnings, it would dramatically expand the tax base. The FairTax would collect revenue from the underground economy. Even illegal immigrants and the 40 million foreign tourists who visit the U.S. each year would pay it. The distributional effects of the FairTax have been extensively studied, and although the proposal has distinct advantages for investors and wealth creation across the income spectrum, the greatest benefit of the FairTax is to low- and moderate-income Americans. The effect of eliminating regressive payroll taxes is commonly overlooked when analyzing the FairTax, but it would have a very significant impact, as these taxes represent the single largest tax burden on these income earners. Significantly, the FairTax eliminates all loopholes, gimmicks, exemptions and deductions from the federal tax system. Under the FairTax, Congress would no longer be able to reward friends, punish enemies or manipulate behavior through the tax code. The FairTax would also eliminate the lucrative tax lobbying practices that represent more than 50% of all lobby dollars spent annually in Washington. It's no surprise, then, to see that vested interests have argued against the FairTax and in favor of keeping the mortgage interest deduction. But wouldn't it be better for everyone to stop the IRS from withholding from paychecks; to see the price of new homes -- and all other goods -- drop by removing embedded costs; and to have interest rates fall as the savings rate increases? Is it really in everyone's interests to keep the income-tax system so that one-third of taxpayers can go on deducting a portion of their mortgage interest from their federal taxes? There have been many tax reform proposals over the years, but most of them simply call for reforming around the margins of the existing tax system. The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform was assembled by the Bush administration and concluded its work a few years ago. Instead of seriously looking at the FairTax, the panel looked at a very different type of consumption tax, riddled with exemptions, and then declared that it would be too expensive and that the rate would have to be far higher than the FairTax rate. Politically, the FairTax will only become law once enough citizens demand that it be enacted, overcoming the self-interest that members of Congress and others have in holding onto the current system. It is debatable whether a modern, citizen-led tax revolution is possible. But the growing popularity (even among presidential candidates) of the FairTax suggests that another Boston Tea Party may be at hand.
I think we were talking about a sales tax. At least what Fatty was talking about was. Flat income tax have its good points and bad points like any other tax system, there are no perfect solution, that's the way life is.
why don't we just set a maximum amount of money that someone can make and anything above that goes straight to the government. According to your logic, that is what is "fair". Of course the guy that makes less is hurt more than the guy who is a millionaire. He's also hurt more when he buys a gallon of milk vs. the millionaire too. Should we have a sliding scale for milk prices based on how much you make. That argument is weak and ridiculous.
Essentially the greatest effective burden of the FairTax will fall on the lower tiers of the middle class - these people, who do not fall under the poverty line and thus do not receive prebates, but whose current tax rate is below 23%, face an increase in taxes. The rich, whose current tax rate is higher than 23%, face a decrease in taxes.
Everyone receives a prebate. Read above. Again, people aren't reading it. They're just going by what they've heard.
I am not sure there will ever be a perfect system. The sales tax idea should stimulate savings, which the Americans don't do much currently.
They don't receive a prebate making up for all of their higher taxation, they receive a monthly stipend of what is considered necessary for basic survival. Very different thing.
I agree, but I don't think a sales tax is the right way to go about it. It is far inferior to a value added tax anyways, which also increases savings but does not tax business expenditures and prevents cascading of taxation (taxes levied on taxes).
Right, they hate it because they are being taxed on imports, as the VAT does. The VAT is rebated on exports though, meaning consumers only pay the rebate rate in their own country - which allows countries to have different VAT rates without distorting international trade.
