State shutdown -- thousands of Minnesotans will lose their jobs (Dayton: house, unemployed)

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

This nonsense drives me crazy. How about we end your "class warfare," stop taxing the poor more than the rich, and just adopt a flat tax? Why doesn't the left put their money where their "the-poor-pay-more-taxes-than-the-rich" mouth is and advocate a non-regressive flat tax?

I completely support the idea of a flat tax. It makes sense to me. But I lean left if anything, so obviously not all people on the left are against such a thing.

I also know folks who purport to support the Republican party who have very strong opinions against implementing a flat tax, so blaming the left for not wanting it seems a bit oversimplified.

The problem is, we seem to have members of at least one party who refuses to do ANYTHING if it involves increasing taxes. That puts a bit of a damper on the flat tax if taken literally as read, since at least some constituents would see a tax increase were such a thing to be implemented.

[tvdxer]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

This nonsense drives me crazy. How about we end your "class warfare," stop taxing the poor more than the rich, and just adopt a flat tax? Why doesn't the left put their money where their "the-poor-pay-more-taxes-than-the-rich" mouth is and advocate a non-regressive flat tax?

The problem is a flat tax is almost always regressive in effect.

Let's say you tax 10% of everybody's income. Three of those people are a neurosurgeon making $800,000, a construction worker making $50,000, and a chef making $20,000. The total taxes will be $80,000, $5,000, and $2,000; but the effects on the payers will be much different. The neurosurgeon could easily give up $80,000 of his income and live virtually the same lifestyle. The construction worker may use that $5,000 to save up for his children's college, on a family vacation, or to let his wife stay home. And certainly $2,000 would make a huge difference on an income of $20,000, perhaps between paying the rent or heat and not paying the rent.

Progressive taxation is a necessity in a just, civilized society.

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

While true, should it really hold that their ideals are more important to them in the short term than the actual operation of state government?

Compromise is not a four-letter word. Considering it is not a sign of weakness.

It IS a "sign of the times."
Among the conditions that would "mark" the last days are that men would be "not open to any agreement." (2 Timothy 3:1)


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by tvdxer

The problem is a flat tax is almost always regressive in effect.

Let's say you tax 10% of everybody's income. Three of those people are a neurosurgeon making $800,000, a construction worker making $50,000, and a chef making $20,000. The total taxes will be $80,000, $5,000, and $2,000; but the effects on the payers will be much different. The neurosurgeon could easily give up $80,000 of his income and live virtually the same lifestyle. The construction worker may use that $5,000 to save up for his children's college, on a family vacation, or to let his wife stay home. And certainly $2,000 would make a huge difference on an income of $20,000, perhaps between paying the rent or heat and not paying the rent.

Progressive taxation is a necessity in a just, civilized society.

You have to consider that that neurosurgeon is probably NOT paying 80K in taxes now with various tax shelters they are able to use but the 20K worker is probably paying 2K now-or close to it (considering all deductions). Now, it's possible that that 20K worker is getting some tax breaks at TAX TIME but it isn't income they see year round.

[ozzie679]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Not "very few"... maybe "relatively few," but not "very few."

Under 2% of the population is "very few" (IMHO).

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I completely support the idea of a flat tax. It makes sense to me. But I lean left if anything, so obviously not all people on the left are against such a thing.

I also know folks who purport to support the Republican party who have very strong opinions against implementing a flat tax, so blaming the left for not wanting it seems a bit oversimplified.

The problem is, we seem to have members of at least one party who refuses to do ANYTHING if it involves increasing taxes. That puts a bit of a damper on the flat tax if taken literally as read, since at least some constituents would see a tax increase were such a thing to be implemented.

I'm not blaming the left for not implementing it--I am blaming the left for not advocating it. Some conservatives may be against it, but I for one would support it. I think a lot of people would. If we want a "just" system of taxation, there should be no easier idea to unite people about than the flat tax with very few deductions (other than above the line, business deductions). And since the left is always pulling out the argument that golfgal just made about how "the rich" always pay so much less in taxes because of tax shelters, etc., one would think that lefties would have started advocating a flat tax already if they actually thought that rich people made out like bandits under our current tax structure. (It is true that the mega-wealthy among us probably do make out better than the "barely" wealthy, but they obviously pay way more in taxes than the "poor.") This is what leads me to believe that the whole "the-rich-don't-pay-any-taxes" schtick is just pure rhetoric to fire up the class warfare machine.

And to golfgal, there is almost no way that you could make $800,000 and pay less than $80k in taxes (especially in Minnesota). I know you may have just been throwing out numbers, but just thought I would clear the air.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

I'm not blaming the left for not implementing it--I am blaming the left for not advocating it. Some conservatives may be against it, but I for one would support it. I think a lot of people would. If we want a "just" system of taxation, there should be no easier idea to unite people about than the flat tax with very few deductions (other than above the line, business deductions). And since the left is always pulling out the argument that golfgal just made about how "the rich" always pay so much less in taxes because of tax shelters, etc., one would think that lefties would have started advocating a flat tax already if they actually thought that rich people made out like bandits under our current tax structure. (It is true that the mega-wealthy among us probably do make out better than the "barely" wealthy, but they obviously pay way more in taxes than the "poor.") This is what leads me to believe that the whole "the-rich-don't-pay-any-taxes" schtick is just pure rhetoric to fire up the class warfare machine.

And to golfgal, there is almost no way that you could make $800,000 and pay less than $80k in taxes (especially in Minnesota). I know you may have just been throwing out numbers, but just thought I would clear the air.

You'd be surprised....Not so much that you wouldn't have that taken out of your taxes along the way but come tax time, deductions, investments, etc. reduce your liability significantly.

[northstar22]

A flat tax would increase taxes on the poor while reducing them on the wealthy. That's the Republican way: screw the poor and middle class to help the rich.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by northstar22

A flat tax would increase taxes on the poor while reducing them on the wealthy. That's the Republican way: screw the poor and middle class to help the rich.

But I thought the rich pay less taxes than the poor...? You lefties need to take a timeout and come up with a coherent position on this. (And that was kind of my point--either stop whining that "the rich" pay less than the poor, or else put your money where your mouth is and advocate a flat tax.)

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by golfgal

You'd be surprised....Not so much that you wouldn't have that taken out of your taxes along the way but come tax time, deductions, investments, etc. reduce your liability significantly.

No, I'm pretty certain I would not be "surprised." You're talking about somebody making $800k and paying less than 10% effective tax rate. That is ludicrous. It might be possible, but the only way I think you could even get close is by earning almost none of it as salary (or other income that doesn't qualify for capital gain treatment) and giving half or more to tax-exempt organizations (i.e., "charitable" organizations). Like I said, it could maybe be done, but it could not be done without donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity. But since conservatives give significantly more money to charities than liberals (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html), maybe those evil, rich (but I repeat myself) Republicans do really pay lower effective tax rates...