By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Flat tax rate system should be enforced now.

 

Flat tax rate system should be enforced now.

Sounds like a fair tax system. Sign me up!!! 22 24.44%
 
Another crazy numonex thread!!! 13 14.44%
 
You have got to be kidding me!!! 48 53.33%
 
Candy!!! 7 7.78%
 
Total:90
FreeTalkLive on 11 December 2010
PS3beats360 said:
FreeTalkLive said:
Brun2003 said:
numonex said:

Flat tax rate system should be enforced now. 20% tax rate on every dollar you earn. Fair simple tax system.

Government only provides Police services and military services. Both health and Education are fully privatised and run by free market system. Charity replaces social security system. Aged pensions are self funded, not from government. Water and utilities are provided by private enterprises, no government monopolies. 

No discrimination on socio-economic background. More jobs would be created and everyone would be better off. 

The 20% flat tax rate applies to all  individuals and all companies. A flat tax rate system applying to companies and individuals would be fair and reasonable. Conservative Libertarians would be over the moon with the implementation of a flat tax rate system. 

How about a flat tax rate system? 

That would be awesome!!  Have you read anything from Milton Friedman?  I am completely for a flat rate tax.  Did you know that progressive tax comes straight from karl marx.  The only other option I would be for would be eliminating the income tax and moving to consumption tax.

Milton Friedman is pretty good.  Have you heard of the Free State Project?  In New Hampshire we have an individual income tax of zero and a general sales tax of zero but we still have a bunch of smaller taxes and there are corporate taxes.  We are working to make it the state with the lowest taxes but it's hard to get the taxes lower than Alaska (which gets massive federal handouts and has tons of oil money).  Maybe in 4 years NH can finally be the place with the lowest taxes in the US.  I'll keep working at it.  At the very least, taxes should go down this year and maybe again next year.

Live Free or Die!

Oil mining stooges from Alaska and Texas keep on pushing their Libertarian views/opinions. Libertarians believe in low or no taxes and little or no government and no welfare system. Libertarians want to erase the 20th century from the record books.

Progressive tax rates are there for a reason to help provide all citizens with a chance of working their way up. In an egalitarian world people work their way and earn their position based on merit. Education and health should be available for all citizens not just the wealthiest members of society. 

Friedman/Hayek economic views are radical Libertarian in nature and just like every other economic theory they are extremely flawed. 

"Libertarians want to erase the 20th century from the record books."  I've never heard that before.  I've never met a libertarian that wanted to do that.  I'm glad that women can vote and blacks have equal rights.  These are the type of things I'm still working for.  I'd like pot smokers, immigrants, 18 year olds and so on to have equal rights but most people are very much against giving such groups equal rights in the US.  The will be a day when an 18 year old can go to the gas station and buy wine in the US and I'm working to help ensure that happens.

I'm not a fan of progressive taxes at all.  Some of the taxes in New Hampshire are progressive and that is not good IMO but most of the taxes aren't and I've very happy about that.  Hopefully some of the progressive taxes in NH can be removed over the coming years.  It's already the safest state, one of the healthiest and the best state to have a family in the US but that isn't enough.  The lower the taxes are in NH, the better it will be compared to the rest of the US, IMO.  We shall see if that continues to be true.

NH has lowest crime, http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/2042280-Study-NH-has-lowest-crime-rates-Nev-has-highest/

NH the most livable, http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2008/032508livable.html

NH the best state to own a car, http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/most-expensive-places-to-own-a-car-business-autos-car-costs.html

As for Friedman/Hayek,  I think you are using a very board brush if you are saying that Friedman is a radical.  He wasn't a radical and his ideas are very different from Hayek.  Friedman talked about mixed markets and how the government was often able to do lots of good.  For example, the federal income tax witholding was Friedman's idea.



 

Tired of big government?
Want liberty in your lifetime?
Join us @
http://www.freestateproject.org

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 11 December 2010
johnsobas said:
mrstickball said:
johnsobas said:
Baalzamon said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
ramses01 said:
Rath said:

A flat tax is basically 'lets fuck the poor so the rich get richer'. It's obvious that the poor can't afford to have as much of their income taxed as the rich can. A flat tax is not a 'fair' tax, it's a blatantly unfair tax when you consider quality of life, it essentially means that the rich will be able to live a better quality of life than the good one they currently have and the poor will be able to live a worse quality of life than the poor one they currently have. Because widening the wealth gap is what everyone wants right?

Also relying on charity doesn't work. Charity is nice, but it's not thorough.

 

Finally the 'trickle down' effect is complete rubbish, it doesn't trickle down, it just pools at the top.

This is complete and utter nonesense.  The flat tax is the only fair tax.  If you want to have segmented tax rates, then the poor should pay a HIGHER tax rate than the rich as they consume a disportionate amount of the services.  If the poor can't afford the taxes then they should get better jobs, it is as simple as that.

Who has more to gain from funding a military that protects America's oil and trade interests?  The poor or the rich?

Who has more to gain from funding roads and bridges to ensure the safe delivery of goods across the country?  The poor or the rich?

Who has more to gain from funding education and health care so they can have an educated healthy pool of workers to hire from?  The poor or the rich?

Who has more to gain from funding the bailout?  The poor or the rich assholes on Wall Street that got us into this mess?

etc. etc. etc.

Rich people get more out of America (or any stable government and economy for that matter), so they should put more back in.

Well, with your school remark, the people that get the most out of school are actually the people that strive to get the most out of it.  It is one's own fault if they did not try in school and could not do something as simple as getting at least semi-decent grades (C's and better).  I have to laugh, there was a kid in my high school wanted me to help him with math, because he has lots of trouble on it.  I decided, sure, I'll do a good thing.  Next day, he's texting in class.  No more tutoring him by me.

right, it never has anything to do with the fact that schools are paid for by property taxes.  It has nothing to do with the fact that schools in poor areas are severely underfunded.  Just blame the poor for being lazy. 

Actually, if you look at test scores vs. funding, you find that the less a school gets, the better the grades. Compare inner city Detroit schools which get ~$16,000 per student with my rural Ohio school which gets $6,000 per student. Actually, you can compare virtually every under-performing school in any city with virtually any school outside and find that the inner city schools always spend far more for far less.

Heck, look at Cornerstone in Detroit. They have a 98% graduation rate and cost about $10,000 per student. They take the same poverty-striken kids on welfare and graduate them at a rate 3x that of public school. I wonder...Why should we continue to fund failing schools when we see private ones that do so much better with so less?

i dont' have all the stats for everywhere in front of me, but for example in new york there is a direct correlation with graduation rate and the amount of money spent.  This is for new york state.

 

 School districts with graduation rates of less than 50% spent an average of $13,593; 

School districts with a 50% to 67% graduation rate spent an average of $15,009;  

School districts with a graduation rate of between 67% and 90% spent an average of $15,916; 

School districts with more than a 90% graduation rate spent an average of $18,551

That would be one HUGE outlier if they case.  It wasn't the case a couple years ago though.

I'm wondering if they increased funding to KIPP... and that's the cause.

Have a source for this?

Just a couple years ago New York was the prototypical example of how costing more money doesn't help.