What is it about a progressive tax that you find "unfair"?

Besides penalizing drive. Ambition and success and being patently unfair to have different percentages you mean?

The flat tax is nonsense rolled out by Republicans during every national election cycle under the canard of "simplification". In fact, it's an attempt at implementing a regressive tax system and putting even more dollars into the pockets of those who already have the most.

I'm surprised the democrats haven't embraced the flat tax concept as it is certainly more liberal in nature than conservative, as the 1% would pay much more in taxes under a flat rate system. Include a provision for minimum wage earners at a lowef rate. I would vote for the first Democrat to make it a major component of their platform.

I've got something fairer! How can anything be more fair than everybody paying the same amout? Nothing could be fairer than that! Let's just set an amount and it will be just as short sighted as a flat tax!

Go on...

Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.

You really don't understand what he's saying? If you're so worried about "punishing success", why should a guy who is successful pay any more at all? Just set a number. A straight head tax.

The concept of "fairness" isn't some absolute either. If my kid and your kid were in a kindergarten together and the teacher set out a box of cookies and my kid was strong enough and capable enough to grab all the cookies for himself, I'm certain you wouldn't say that was "fair", but when those kids grow up, your concept of what's "fair" for them somehow changes.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

That is completely bizarre. Just because someone makes more money than someone else doesn't mean that they did it by stealing or strong arming anyone. You probably make more than I do. Are you stealing from me? Do you not deserve more than your paper boy?

Who said anything about stealing? If my kid is strong enough and smart enough to get all the cookies why should he have to share them with the less capable?

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

When you have a large standard deduction, it is essentially a graduated tax. People below $50k pay 0%, people at $100k pay half of the flat tax rate (14.5% in this proposal), and so on. At $161,000, the tax payer finally pays a 10% tax rate. That looks progressive to me. In any case, one could certainly argue about the 14.5% rate being too low.

In this particular proposal, you are eliminating the individual's payroll tax, which is 6.2% for SS and 1.45% for Medicare.

I'd love to see the math on the Federal revenue loss. That is where I would have a problem. Low income tax payers would benefit greatly from this change, but I think the Federal budget would go very deep in the red. Thus, it may ultimately hit the poor hard with Federal spending cuts.

If you disagree with a flat tax, I respect your different of opinion. You're ok by me.

Besides penalizing drive. Ambition and success and being patently unfair to have different percentages you mean?

You don't seem to grasp that taxing a person has a more negative affect on a poor person than a wealthy one. In simple terms, a poor person has no disposable income. $2,000 dollars to somebody making $20,000 a year is about food, clothing and shelter. $100,000 to somebody making $1,000,000 means what? Less in a stock fund? Does taxing them at 15% really affect their lifestyle? Does it penalize their ambition? I'm guessing that you would still strive to maximize your income and would ultimately be very happy with $850,000.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Isn't there a stat that like that bottom 50% of earners pay no Fed taxes? I don't think there's a lot of "poor people" paying a lot of taxes here. They're not really being penalized much.

You don't seem to grasp that taxing a person has a more negative affect on a poor person than a wealthy one. In simple terms, a poor person has no disposable income. $2,000 dollars to somebody making $20,000 a year is about food, clothing and shelter. $100,000 to somebody making $1,000,000 means what? Less in a stock fund? Does taxing them at 15% really affect their lifestyle? Does it penalize their ambition? I'm guessing that you would still strive to maximize your income and would ultimately be very happy with $850,000.

Well, I am certainly no pioneer with this line of thinking. Nearly every analyses of a flat rate tax system has the 1%ers paying more.

Yeah, no.

Even without paying federal income taxes poor people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the "rich". This is a fact. It probably a good idea to look at all taxes instead of just federal income taxes.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I believe the subject at hand is the federal tax code.

I understand that. Focusing exclusively on federal income taxes won't solve problems for anyone expect the rich. People need to look at the entire tax system to see the poor are getting screwed as usual. A flat tax won't change that.

Nas, in Rand's plan, the payroll tax is rolled into the Federal income tax. The poor would pay nothing on their income. The tax code is not the reason people are poor. That's an entirely different issue. I celebrate success. The left is terrified by it.