Article

2004-11-30 Europe

Eastern Europe Gives Taste of Flat-Tax Paradise

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-11-30 12:29:49 PM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 51% of Americans will believe the numbers. 48% won't.

Or should I have prefixed that with The party leaders of...?

Posted by .com 2004-11-30 1:06:27 PM|| 2004-11-30 1:06:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 This would be a perfect way to cement an enduring Republican realignment: not just impose a flat tax but also raise the standard deduction to something like $40,000. Impose a nationwide sales tax, including a $2 per pack on cigarettes and a tripling of gasoline taxes, with all gas tax revenues going toward funding of nuclear energy plant construction.

Posted by lex 2004-11-30 3:29:03 PM|| 2004-11-30 3:29:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Well that would be really nice but I still would have a state income tax.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-11-30 3:40:45 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-11-30 3:40:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 [R]aise the standard deduction to something like $40,000....

Careful lex, the median income in the US for a family of 4 is lower than that so you'll be excluding most people from paying income taxes. In the long run that's a self-defeating proposition because it allows the majority to demand an ever-increasing amount of services from a government that looks only to a minority to pay for them. Tax rates would rise on those paying (the highest earning and therefore most productive among us), incentive to work would fall among the most productive, productivity would suffer, and eventually growth would stagnate, the tax base would erode, and we'd become less competitve as a nation. In other words, we'd quickly return to our current state because you'd be creating the wrong incentive for the majority. Flat taxes are find ideas if you absolutely must have an income tax (why?) but to work you need more lik 80-90% payers and 10-20% beneficiaries.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-30 3:40:53 PM|| 2004-11-30 3:40:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I dunno...I like progressive taxation. The rich should pay more.

When a billionaire like Steve Forbes gets behind an idea, I get worried. Why else would he support it, unless he was going to make money from it?

Posted by gromky 2004-11-30 4:38:26 PM|| 2004-11-30 4:38:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Maybe because he believes in it? That's why Gates and Buffet (wrongly, in my opinion) support the death tax.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-30 4:47:09 PM|| 2004-11-30 4:47:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 The rich do pay more under a flat tax. E.g., under a flat tax of 17% someone making $10k pays $1,700 and someone making 100x as much ($1,000,000) pays 100x as much ($170,000). What in the heck is wrong with that?

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-30 4:47:35 PM|| 2004-11-30 4:47:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Under the current system, the middle class gets hosed. Most Americans in the 70-100k bracket pay a far higher share of their income in federal taxes than do Gates, Forbes, Maria Tereza et al. I believe Maria Tereza ended up paying something like a 12% rate in 2003.

Posted by lex 2004-11-30 5:08:33 PM|| 2004-11-30 5:08:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Yep. Any attempts to make a tax "progressive" will unavoidably end with the poor benefitting, the middle class paying, and the rich escaping. Given the political dynamics in this country there's just no way around that.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-30 7:27:46 PM|| 2004-11-30 7:27:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 MT would still pay a lower rate than the rest of us becasue her reduction was mostly the result of investing in municipal bonds that are exempt from federal taxes. But with the flat tax, the lower rates would reduce the advantage she would gain, and increase the borrowing costs to municipalities.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-30 9:00:16 PM|| 2004-11-30 9:00:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I dunno...I like progressive taxation. The rich should pay more.

Question: Once a person's hard work has paid off in a monetary reward/windfall or the prospect of substantial future earnings, is there any reason why that person should then be effectively penalized for being successful?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-11-30 11:39:47 PM|| 2004-11-30 11:39:47 PM|| Front Page Top

02:02 Crerert Ebbeting3481
14:22 lex
13:14 asdf
00:10 Wo
23:51 Mike Sylwester
23:49 Anon5607
23:43 Nero
23:39 Bomb-a-rama
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:28 Bomb-a-rama
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:20 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:19 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:15 Carl in N.H.
23:09 Alaska Paul
23:06 Chuck
23:03 Damn_Proud_American
23:02 Alaska Paul
23:02 Darth VAda
22:56 Darth VAda
22:54 Carl in N.H.
22:45 Carl in N.H.
22:43 Alaska Paul
22:40 Darth VAda