For the conservatives...

[fluxrad]

Would you pay higher taxes to support a flat tax?

That is to say, if your current effective tax rate is %25. Would you pay %29 if it meant everyone paid %29?

[Non_Comformist]

Whether or not I would support it would depend on that the effects were on total government revenues. I would not support an increase in the overall level of taxation.

[fluxrad]

This assumes the overall level of taxation would stay the same.

I should also mention you no longer get tax breaks for having kids, etc. If the rate is %29, then %29 is what you pay for your salary, capital gains, poker earnings, etc.

[Non_Comformist]

I would be inclined to support a revenue neutral flat tax, even if it meant that my actual tax rate would increase. The amount of the increase on me personally would have to be quite high for this to change.

[natedogg]

I'm not a conservative but I'll chime in.

I would not support a revenue neutral flat tax. The one tax we have that is fairly flat should be abolished: the payroll tax.

Note that I would support ANY tax scheme that reduced revenues, even if it raised my taxes somewhat. I'm MUCH more offended by the revenue totals than I am by the progressivity of the taxation. If everyone's income tax was slashed in half, that would be a good start.

Next: eliminate the corporate tax. Now we're getting somewhere.

natedogg

[Non_Comformist]

I am suprised that you would not support a revenue flat tax. Could you elaborate?

[The Dude]

No, of course I wouldn't.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The one tax we have that is fairly flat should be abolished: the payroll tax.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a tax. SSN including the medicare component is a government run insurance program. If you eliminate it, you have eliminated the insurance aspect of the program and have turned it into a welfare program that can be paid out of general revenues. Liberals just don't understand that SSN should be an insurance program, not a Welfare program.

[ACPlayer]

Next: eliminate the corporate tax. Now we're getting somewhere.

Are you suggesting that the entities that have the most access to manipulating public policy for their own benefit should not contribute to the running of the implementation of these policies?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
Only sensible way to impose flat tax in a globalized economy is to let the first app. $15k in annual earnings be tax-free. Unskilled workers compete against workers in much less taxed countries and can not be expected to contribute to state finances.

That said, I think flat tax is a good idea, we have this debate here too and everybody seems to somewhat agree but still it is not implemented.

[lehighguy]

If you had taken an economics course, ever, you would realize corporation don't really pay corporate taxes. They pass on the cost to consumers and employees.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you pay higher taxes to support a flat tax?

That is to say, if your current effective tax rate is %25. Would you pay %29 if it meant everyone paid %29?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but only with the caveat that the lowest 1/4 or so income bracket be non-flat as i wouldn't want those making, say, less than 20K/yr taxed at all and i wouln't want any incentive for people to earn less (for example, if tax is 25% at 30K and 0 below, there is no reason to want to move from 29K to 32K etc.)

fim

ps- prolly shouldn't answer this given the title. whatever.

[luv_the_game]

Well I think I'm probobly basically conservative so I'll give it a shot.

I would support a flat tax that resulted in a tax increas for me if:

1. It was revenue nuetral.
2. It took the place of all payroll taxes. (Social Security is a welfare program at this point. I see no reason to seperate the tax. Just pay for it out of the annual budget.)
3. It had an exemption up to the poverty line. I don't think that society as a whole would be helped by taking 25 - 30% from families starting out in life making for ex. $20k for a family of four. I believe we would be better off giving people a chance to become established. The money collected below the poverty line would not be significant enough to justify the crippling effect of taking the money from them.

[Bob Moss]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you pay higher taxes to support a flat tax?

That is to say, if your current effective tax rate is %25. Would you pay %29 if it meant everyone paid %29?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well DUH, I pay what they ask me to pay. What else am I going to do, tell the IRS I've decided to pay according to the old tax system?

Bob

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
If you had taken an economics course, ever, you would realize corporation don't really pay corporate taxes. They pass on the cost to consumers and employees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me the course in which you learned this. Please also explain how something that corporations "don't really pay" affects corporate behavior. Please also explain whether your theory holds true no matter what the price elasticity of the labor and product/services markets in which a given corporation competes. Oh, and, if you have an economics degree, please tell us where you went to school.

[ACPlayer]

If this thinking was correct, why do corporations go looking for breaks from Congress rather than passing those costs onto the consumer.

An example, the credit card industry spent millions in lobbying congress for the recent bankruptcy changes to reduce its exposure from bankrupt consumers. Do you think this was becuase they are interested in public policy or concerned about the costs they bear from the bankruptcy. Why not simply pass along the costs from the bankrupt consumers to the other consumers?

YOu can argue that the corporate tax is bad, but I dont think your offered argument bears scrutiny.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
If this thinking was correct, why do corporations go looking for breaks from Congress rather than passing those costs onto the consumer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on AC, think about it. It's pretty simple. They seek tax breaks to get a competitive advantage. If there's no corporate tax, there's no jockeying for tax breaks by bribing -oops I mean lobbying- congressmen. So all the corporations ARE passing their tax costs onto consumers or giving reduced returns to shareholders, etc. ... but if a given corp can avoid that cost through lobbying, it can decimate the competition.

Let's two identical steel producers each paying $1M per year in taxes. You own 100 shares of each company and this year one of them succesfully lobbies for a $1M tax break. The dividends and earnings go up along with some combination of reduced prices and bigger market share.

How stupid do you have to be to not sell the shares of the fully taxed, and now uncompetitive, steel producer and buy more shares of the tax-free one?

[ QUOTE ]
You can argue that the corporate tax is bad, but I dont think your offered argument bears scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

All taxes are bad. Every single tax, without exception, is a detriment to economic growth and productivity, and subsequently it is a detriment to wealth creation and overall prosperity for the citizens who live under the system with that tax. That includes the corporate tax as well. It's not a free ride, as many legislators like to think.

Obviously, some level of tax is a necessary evil. But they are all bad for the economy.

The corporate tax is a particularly evil one because

1. It is merely a hidden tax on consumers, shareholders, in addition to being a job killer.

2. It creates a corrupt environment where corporations can achieve an unfair competetive advantage by simply buying off the right group of congressmen. This is patently unfair and anti-capitalist.

Better not to tax the corporations at all, for two reasons:

1. a purer more level playing field for everyone

2. The current portion of GDP sucked up and shat down the drain by government would have to be shouldered by citizens directly, they'd be more cognizant of just how much is being taken from them.

natedogg

[wmspringer]

hmm...you said conservative, but I have a feeling you really meant republican. I'm fiscally conservative (and therefor not a republican) but I'll answer it anyway.

I think that a flat tax with a flat $20k exemption and no others (ie, the first $20k isn't taxed, all other income from any source is taxed at the same rate) would be a great idea. I doubt it would raise my effective tax rate any, but a few percent? Sure. After a year or two we should be able to bring the rate down due to the savings from the greatly reduced complexity of tax law.

This is contigent on the flat tax replacing ALL federal taxes - federal income tax, social security, etc.