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: awkward henna toilet seat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34712265) |
Date: November 19th, 2017 4:32 AM Author: awkward henna toilet seat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34722273) |
|
Date: November 19th, 2017 6:14 AM Author: buff exhilarant lodge sound barrier 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: federal church 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: awkward henna toilet seat LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739622) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 12:14 PM Author: bat shit crazy school cafeteria lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739631) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 12:19 PM Author: Lascivious Fantasy-prone Mad Cow Disease Love Of Her Life (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34739652) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:30 PM Author: Exciting pearly double fault really tough guy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740223) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 8:59 PM Author: Fragrant Carnelian Dog Poop (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744372) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:09 PM Author: bonkers twinkling native nibblets (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744435) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:07 PM Author: stimulating becky locale (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744832) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:21 PM Author: razzle forum (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744967) |
|
Date: November 19th, 2017 8:45 AM Author: big alcoholic coldplay fan 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: Idiotic opaque boltzmann elastic band 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: Narrow-minded Degenerate 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: awkward henna toilet seat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740306) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:59 PM Author: Idiotic opaque boltzmann elastic band 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: awkward henna toilet seat 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: Idiotic opaque boltzmann elastic band 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: awkward henna toilet seat 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: charismatic transparent national 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: awkward henna toilet seat 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: Narrow-minded Degenerate 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: Idiotic opaque boltzmann elastic band 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: Narrow-minded Degenerate 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: Sepia Parlour 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: Supple trump supporter 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: duck-like factory reset button "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: Narrow-minded Degenerate no, it wouldn't.
|
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:40 PM Author: Supple trump supporter lol, just, lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740313) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:43 PM Author: Costumed adventurous institution dopamine (dumbass) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740341) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:26 PM Author: Brindle whorehouse antidepressant drug (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744523) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:39 PM Author: Electric Well-lubricated Haunted Graveyard Google "marginal utility." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740304) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 1:42 PM Author: awkward henna toilet seat He He Hehehehehehehehhehehehehehhehehehehehehhehehehehehe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740335) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 2:21 PM Author: vibrant at-the-ready milk 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: Carmine liquid oxygen pervert 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: awkward henna toilet seat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744369) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:00 PM Author: big alcoholic coldplay fan 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: Fiercely-loyal low-t location (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744438) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:12 PM Author: beady-eyed cruise ship Lol cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744442) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:04 PM Author: Azure menage scourge upon the earth LMAO (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744400) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:13 PM Author: beady-eyed cruise ship 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: Carmine liquid oxygen pervert 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: Azure menage scourge upon the earth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744395) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:04 PM Author: Cyan Fluffy Organic Girlfriend 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: aphrodisiac painfully honest trust fund trailer park titmfcr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744479) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:20 PM Author: aromatic brass private investor therapy 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: Cyan Fluffy Organic Girlfriend 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: awkward henna toilet seat 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: aromatic brass private investor therapy 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: Cyan Fluffy Organic Girlfriend 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: Narrow-minded Degenerate agency. agency leads to pride. pride leads to ego. ego leads to not being worthless. |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:21 PM Author: Cyan Fluffy Organic Girlfriend 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: indigo hyperventilating crotch 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: Narrow-minded Degenerate bullshit the flat tax should apply to corporations, too but your assertion is bullshit |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:08 PM Author: Heady Voyeur 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: awkward henna toilet seat 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: beady-eyed cruise ship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744452) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:10 PM Author: indigo hyperventilating crotch 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: beady-eyed cruise ship 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: Carmine liquid oxygen pervert 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: beady-eyed cruise ship 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: Carmine liquid oxygen pervert 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: beady-eyed cruise ship 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: Narrow-minded Degenerate 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: beady-eyed cruise ship 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: titillating mood 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: Carmine liquid oxygen pervert 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: titillating mood 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: big alcoholic coldplay fan 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: awkward henna toilet seat (With HER) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744603) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:37 PM Author: big alcoholic coldplay fan 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: aromatic brass private investor therapy 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: indigo hyperventilating crotch 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: Carmine liquid oxygen pervert 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: Narrow-minded Degenerate there is nothing more equal than a flat tax congratulations for making burden a euphemism
|
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:20 PM Author: hairraiser filthpig dingle berry 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: awkward henna toilet seat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744530) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:38 PM Author: Azure menage scourge upon the earth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744605) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:16 PM Author: Heady Voyeur (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744936) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 9:39 PM Author: thriller yapping mental disorder toaster 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: big alcoholic coldplay fan 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: violent jet-lagged stock car 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: Narrow-minded Degenerate as long as there is... spouts bullshit that runs counter to the entire point |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:03 PM Author: Cyan Fluffy Organic Girlfriend *gets paid 80k in stock options*
One weird trick hehe |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:27 PM Author: Heady Voyeur ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34745011) |