The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Explain to me again why a "Flat Tax" is unfair? Thank
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 17th, 2017 5:25 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34712265) |
Date: November 19th, 2017 4:32 AM Author: Big-titted dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34722273) |
|
Date: November 19th, 2017 6:14 AM Author: Disgusting garnet station DAT ability to pay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34722349) |
|
Date: November 19th, 2017 7:21 AM Author: concupiscible travel guidebook sanctuary High-earners end up paying a disproportionately high amount in absolute terms (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34722379) |
 |
Date: November 21st, 2017 12:12 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739622) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 12:14 PM Author: Mewling psychic lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739631) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 12:19 PM Author: provocative twisted french chef (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739652) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:30 PM Author: Charcoal Senate Yarmulke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740223) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 8:59 PM Author: Razzle Narrow-minded Site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744372) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:09 PM Author: Medicated Dashing Fortuitous Meteor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744435) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:07 PM Author: Erotic property (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744832) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:21 PM Author: Curious Drunken School (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744967) |
|
Date: November 19th, 2017 8:45 AM Author: walnut brunch FAIR SHARE FAIR SHARE FAIR SHARE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34722494) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 12:15 PM Author: Charismatic base Would be horribly regressive to low income earners. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739633) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:24 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action yeah, no. try again. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740165) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:40 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740306) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:59 PM Author: Charismatic base As compared to the current system, any amount of tax paid would necessarily be considered horribly regressive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740469) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:17 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma I agree. But why do 46% of Americans pay ZERO federal taxes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740577) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:22 PM Author: Charismatic base Because somebody thought it was a good idea to let non-landowners vote? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740615) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:25 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma It's not like they actually vote anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740645) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:22 PM Author: brilliant orchestra pit dingle berry TBF, income taxes brother. Not all federal taxes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740616) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:24 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma yes... why do 46% of Americans not pay federal income taxes?
I feel like economic theories are all bullshit fraudlie$. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:33 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action that's a misuse of the term. when your car slows down you aren't going horribly in reverse less progressive =/= regressive |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 3:12 PM Author: Charismatic base I provided a standard shitlib response for entertainment purposes only.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Hall-Rabushka tax would be highly regressive, in part because high-income households tend to consume less of their income than lower-income households and because investment income would not be taxed (or rather double-taxed).
|
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 3:21 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action fair enough on your first point but why bring up a consumption tax when we are talking about income tax? and just because 'tend' exists, a flat tax on consumption is still a flat tax. investment income should be taxed as income. it is income. that aspect of hall rabushka is fairly considered regressive because it treats different types of income differently, by definition, to the wealthier peoples' benefits
|
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 12:15 PM Author: bat-shit-crazy fishy faggot firefighter It’s communism, you are taking from each as they can. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739637) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 12:22 PM Author: Sapphire Sinister Stage I’d support it. But I always lulz when my libertarian friends making like $100k poast about how great it would be on Facebook. These are dudes with SAHM wives, kids, and mortgages. A flat tax would absolutely fuck them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739669) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:19 PM Author: mauve outnumbered headpube "What do you mean college expenses, mortgages, food, utilities, and car payments are consumption?! How am I supposed to live if I have to pay taxes on all of that?!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740107) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:25 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action no, it wouldn't.
|
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:40 PM Author: Sapphire Sinister Stage lol, just, lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740313) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:43 PM Author: titillating masturbator tank (dumbass) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740341) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:26 PM Author: Bipolar henna library (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744523) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:39 PM Author: Alcoholic Hell Google "marginal utility." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740304) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:42 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma He He Hehehehehehehehhehehehehehhehehehehehehhehehehehehe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740335) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:21 PM Author: trip chapel scourge upon the earth Lol cr lol at this libertariantard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740602) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:49 PM Author: Supple mahogany rehab That assumes that everyone has the same income/wealth utility curve. Which is stupid. What happens if higher income earners have a curve which is parallel but shifted up materially higher vs low income earners? Point being we have no way to measure or asses utility curves between people only within one person so you can never use marginal utility to justify a macro policy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740866) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 8:59 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744369) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:00 PM Author: walnut brunch Nice to see you going full retard again (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744380) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:10 PM Author: demanding french theatre (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744438) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:12 PM Author: glittery cordovan area cuckold Lol cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744442) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:04 PM Author: Turquoise duck-like house LMAO (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744400) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:13 PM Author: glittery cordovan area cuckold Utility monster arguments are sps little bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744448) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:50 PM Author: Supple mahogany rehab I'm not taking it that far. It is entirely plausible, for example if taking $200 from a poor just means they can't afford oxy for the next little while vs. taking $200 from a UMC means he isn't gonna enroll his kids in soccer camp.
Let me be clear, I can also formulate many examples going the other way. I just don't like utility arguments like that because unless we are talking about the taking away of basic necessities (we are not) then its a stupid way to approach things. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:03 PM Author: Turquoise duck-like house (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744395) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:04 PM Author: swollen mint blood rage school cafeteria IF you believe in an income tax, THEN that tax should tax labor.
Gains in earnings for high income individual generally does not come from labor. Too often, these individuals gain income from capital, not labor.
Special interests will never let this happen, but tcr tax plan would be 0% up to $150k, ~20% up to 500k, and ~70% thereafter. This stat doesn't get pushed hard enough, but we could have 95% of this country pay jack shit and just tax the fuck out of the super rich. The idea that $60k earners should spend a week doing taxes to write an $8k check is absurd. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:19 PM Author: confused cheese-eating gas station titmfcr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744479) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:20 PM Author: sepia excitant piazza dog poop Everyone needs skin in the game. Even someone making $20k should have to pay $100. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744484) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:33 PM Author: swollen mint blood rage school cafeteria Yeah, that's absurd. Not even worth the time to fill out the form, have the government look things over, and deal with collections of back taxes.
And just LOL at the logic that not having skin in the game, or the threat of a higher rate, stopping someone from earning more. 10 out of 10 people will choose to earn more and pay more under ANY tax code.
I'm a huge Trumpmo and the plan in my OP is tcr populist solution. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:36 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma The IRS doesn't look at like 95% of tax forms. It's all computerized.
That said, I'm purposely being a contrarian faggot in this thread. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:45 PM Author: sepia excitant piazza dog poop It's too easy to spend OPM. Everyone contributes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744659) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:02 PM Author: swollen mint blood rage school cafeteria What is the benefit of this "everyone contributes" mantra? It's a fucking collosal waste of time for all involved. Are you some sort of sadist? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744787) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:18 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action agency. agency leads to pride. pride leads to ego. ego leads to not being worthless. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:21 PM Author: swollen mint blood rage school cafeteria Do you think today's 30k earners have "agency"? This is preposterous leap of logic and completely separate from the discussion at hand. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744966) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:07 PM Author: tantric coral hall stain its not unfair but impractical
there is no good flat tax rate to use unless you are willing to either destroy the federal govt or the poor/lower middle class people
set it too low to not affect the poor/lower middle class and you wont raise enough revenue. set it too high and you are going to make life miserable for people making < 60K or so |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:05 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action bullshit the flat tax should apply to corporations, too but your assertion is bullshit |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:08 PM Author: alcoholic carmine foreskin as you earn more money, it's used less for necessities and more for vanity. It's more of a hardship to take $1 of someone's necessity $ than another's vanity $. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744430) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:09 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma But, I want poor people to starve and die. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744437) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:14 PM Author: glittery cordovan area cuckold (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744452) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:10 PM Author: tantric coral hall stain one mans necessity is another mans vanity. i mean most of what XO bros think as normal stuff (vacations, multiple cars, home improvements) would be considered absolute waste by the poor. So I dont believe in this argument (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744440) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:15 PM Author: glittery cordovan area cuckold Yes, and that's exactly why the middle class is taxed more than the poor. Everyone gets taxed the same on the first 15k so they can rent a house. If you make 30k, the next 15k is taxed more because you're gonna buy luxuries with it (extra clothes, nicer food).
If you're arguing that middle-class guy X values tshirts more highly than poor guy Y values a house, you're making cgm's argument above, to which the government says I don't care. If rich guy Z values everything more highly than everyone else he doesn't just get everything, because that's not fair. Those are arguments against the utility monster. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:15 PM Author: Supple mahogany rehab Do you see what poors buy? This is not the Congo. Poors are buying useless shit not necessities.
what you are effectively saying is that there is more "use" for a poor dood to buy a bag of chips every week vs. a UMC dood buying a golf club. I don't see how you can actually confidently say this. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:27 PM Author: glittery cordovan area cuckold Again, if umc guy derives 100 utils from each $100 golf club and poor guy derives .5 utils from each $1 bag of chips, it would be more efficient for all the poor people to starve and for umc dudes to have 1000 golf clubs each.
But we make sure people have money for food (by taxing lower incomes less) because they need to eat, even if it's not efficient |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:45 PM Author: Supple mahogany rehab Our tax system, whether current or proposed, has nothing to do with whether or not poors eat. That is a strawman. Any alternative tax protocol that could realistically be introduced in the US would, at worst, bite into the massive degree of frivolous spending that poors do and not their basic necessities. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744660) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:50 PM Author: glittery cordovan area cuckold A strawman exists when I characterize your position weakly so I can refute it easily. I don't see how I've done that.
And I don't at all see how that would be the case. With a flat marginal rate inequality will widen and disproportionately fuck the poors. I really don't think your obsession with poors buying potato chips is going to lead to an economic revolution. You might consider looking at corporate rents, which is growing faster as a share of the economy than land, capital, labor, etc and is without question a bigger waste of money than laquisha buying a sprite |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:07 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action leans into mic what fucks poors, if anything, are the incentives and tricks that corporations are permitted to take advantage of to avoid paying full taxes |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:13 PM Author: glittery cordovan area cuckold That's fine, but we can just talk about empirical/realized tax rates.
If the corporate rate is 35% but corps weasle it to 25%, and the flat tax is 15% with no friction, then the flat tax is still lower. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:14 PM Author: Massive know-it-all university marketing idea Taxes should, ideally, reflect a roughly equal burden on all citizens. Taxes on the wealthy should be higher to give them a burden similar to the one felt by middle class taxpayers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744451) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:17 PM Author: Supple mahogany rehab What about the bottom that pays nothing and just votes themselves goodies? What is their burden. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744469) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:21 PM Author: Massive know-it-all university marketing idea We have lamentably created a welfare state where many pay effectively nothing. That's a poor argument for creating a flat tax though when America's most damaging social ill is intensifying inequality. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744491) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:34 PM Author: walnut brunch Flame jumped the shark here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744580) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:37 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma (With HER) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744603) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:37 PM Author: walnut brunch Brother, you seem confused. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744604) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:22 PM Author: sepia excitant piazza dog poop Well they should pay something. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744502) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:24 PM Author: tantric coral hall stain nobody is supporting a welfare state ITT. opposition to flat tax doesn't mean we support a welfare state. i think its possible to oppose both (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744509) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:44 PM Author: Supple mahogany rehab My point is if you oppose the flat tax in favour of what we have now, then you must also face the fact that the current system PROMOTES a welfare state. So yea, you can say your against the welfare state, but if you are shooting down alternatives to the "progressive" tax system which allows poors to never face financial consequences for their voting habits, you are propping up the welfare state, even if that is not your intention. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744643) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:09 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action there is nothing more equal than a flat tax congratulations for making burden a euphemism
|
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:20 PM Author: Fantasy-prone adventurous national security agency associate Chris Rock summed it up best talking about alimony
"if you make 30 million and the bitch want 15, that's fine you ain't starvin. but if you make 30 thousand and the bitch want half, you just might have to kill her!" |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:27 PM Author: Big-titted dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744530) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:38 PM Author: Turquoise duck-like house (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744605) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:16 PM Author: alcoholic carmine foreskin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744936) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:39 PM Author: Orchid mind-boggling juggernaut menage i see nothing wrong with crying about the disproportionate share of tax paid by the rich without also mentioning the share of income that accrues to the rich (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744615) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:42 PM Author: walnut brunch I see nothing wrong with crying about the disproportionate share of services consumed by the poor without also mentioning the share of taxes paid by the poor
look, I can’t type stupid tripe just like you |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:57 PM Author: thriller double fault kitty cat As long as there is a rebate/universal basic income, could be workable, though all things in moderation, including simplicity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744748) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:10 PM Author: irradiated affirmative action as long as there is... spouts bullshit that runs counter to the entire point |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:03 PM Author: swollen mint blood rage school cafeteria *gets paid 80k in stock options*
One weird trick hehe |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:27 PM Author: alcoholic carmine foreskin ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34745011) |