Please help me debunk the 'flat tax' meme.

[LaydeeBug]

I've gotten myself "in it" again.

This:
I would like to propose a flat tax rate of 5%, for every man woman and child living in the USA. A couple with no children would pay 10%, 1 child- 15% and so on. Even those receiving assistance should be paying taxes of 5%. I would hope this would allow people who can afford it to have larger families yet contribute more because they take more, and multiple children born into poverty from the same parent less likely, because the more you have the more you pay.


On edit to add this link, so you know I teh googled: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/12/flat-tax-is-class-warfare

[JaneyVee]

1. Debunk it? This is the dumbest proposal I've ever heard.

[clydefrand]

2. Sounds great, even if it does sound like

a GOP idea... However, I don't really think the democrats in Congress/Senate would pass it.

[LaydeeBug]

3. Um…it's NOT great as it shifts the tax burden further on the middle class and the poor. nt

[clydefrand]

4. But worse even than a tax increase, is it would be

a Chinese form of birth control. No way.

[Proud Public Servant]

5. First of all

Don't let them hide behind the label "flat tax." This is not a flat tax; it's a tax on children, period.

Second, note that, if it works, his scheme will discourage childbirth, resulting in a negative birth rate. Ask him if he has any idea how economically devastating a negative birth rate would be; point to Japan as a good example.

Third, don't let him argue that the rich will have more children. Right now, paying lower taxes than he's proposing, the rich don't have enough children to keep our birth rate positive; they certainly won't have more if his idea works as intended.

(Finally, obviously, the proposal is stupid and unjust; there's no logic to a society wanting people who raise children to have less money that those who don't (which is what he's proposing in the end). I assume he is immune to arguments about justice and fairness, but make them anyway.)

[n2doc]

6. And how long are the people with children to be taxed?

Until they are 18? 21? Until they find a job? How do you assign taxes with deadbeat parents?

I guess if you wanted to incentivize a population decrease it might work, but seems pretty stupid. You would also provide a major disincentive towards marriage, which the righties would hate.

Although, on edit, it would be fun to hear what the Duggars think of this proposal

[HughBeaumont]

7. This thread should give you what you need .. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5860668

[sendero]

8. Don't worry..

.... this is as likely to get any traction anywhere as I am to grow another head. It's a "proposal" from a person who probably aspires to average intelligence.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. For starters....

A tax at those rates would lead to mind-boggling deficits. Even otherwise reasonable people who support a flat tax concede that it would have to be north of 25% to be viable. So what you're describing would be a non-starter with regard to the economics.

[dawg]

10. Most people who favor a flat tax think that the rich are over-taxed.

If that is true, then a flat tax would - as a mathematical necessity - require raising taxes on everyone else in order to make up for taxing the rich less.

Oftentimes people propose flat taxes at reasonable sounding rates, like 15%, which make them sound somewhat appealing to ordinary people. But such plans would raise only a fraction of the money that is raised by our current tax code. A real flat tax would require a much higher rate, and most people would have to pay more than they currently do.

[JVS]

11. That's not even a flat tax.

That's a flat rate multiplied by family members. It would encourage smaller families though. It would particularly encourage being single and not having a kid.

[PDJane]

12. That won't work.

It's assuming that those who can't afford to have children will be able to access birth control or temporary sterilization. That isn't the case, and the very people who propose this kind of thing are usually adamantly opposed to free birth control or state-sponsored abortion. People will not stop having sex. Sex is not just for procreation, it's for bonding, it's for the need to feel close and loved and warm, and it's a universal human need.

What this will do, however, is to allow the rich to steal with impunity, and force the poor to pay for their roads and all the infrastructure and the military. It's an obscene proposal that could only come from the mind of someone with no logic and no empathy. It will increase the national debt, too, because there is no way that the five percent from everyone would cover the needs of a civilized country; well, either that, or the taxes would have to go up, and the poor can't pay those taxes. What the hell do the proponents of a flat tax think that the average person is going to live on? Air?

Of course, the way that is proposed, if the birth rate of the poor dropped, the taxes would drop, too: The rich do not usually have more than two children, the Romneys being an exception. Two is the usual limit, perhaps three; one of the reasons the rich remain rich is that they control their fertility. It really has to do with passing the wealth on, and ensuring that their offspring are taken care of. They will not increase their birth rate so that they can pay more taxes! It is another way to shift wealth to the top, however.

I realize that wealth transfer is a dirty word in the U.S., but civilized societies that wish to remain civilized do not permit the kind of wealth disparities that are now apparent in North America.

[HereSince1628]

13. Benefits from and costs for government service don't accrue per capita.

They accrue rather more porportionately according to wealth and influence

The homeless need no fire protection service for their non-existant homes. The bigger more expensive the home, the more valuable it's contents, the more its resident/owner benefits from fire protection services.

A poor person can't cause near the complexity of harms that a rich person can. Consequently we must have more regulatory and policing forces to protect society from the rich and the reach of their criminal influence. The homeless person has little direct need to be scrutinized by the securities and exchange commission.

Rich folks worry about shit like the need to go to war in Iraq and Iran to manipulate the oil and other resource markets. Because of the inifluence of the rich on going to war, the nation regularly encumbers hundreds of billions and recently trillions of dollars in current and future debt on behalf of those warring interests. The rich who benefit from these capitalist expeditions should pay a fair share of the costs, not a per capita cost.

[surrealAmerican]

14. That's not a plan.

1. If you charge people receiving assistance, they will need additional assistance, so there is no point to doing that.
2. People do not choose to have children for financial purposes. It always costs more money to support a child than to not support a child, whatever the tax code.

[Nye Bevan]

15. You have the incentives backwards. We need to encourage people to have kids.

To see this, imagine a United States where everyone is over the age of 60 and contemplating retirement. Who is going to do the necessary work and who is going to pay the Social Security taxes to fund the recipients of SS?

[Gothmog]

16. Regressive taxation is a bad thing

The flat tax is a dumb idea that is simply a way to give the rich more tax cuts. The rate proposed would not cover current tax revenues. The Bushies looked at the standard flat tax proposal and concluded that this did not work

[LaydeeBug]

18. That's exactly our debate…..he is saying it isn't regressive

This is my uncle and the 'generational respect' thing comes in a little bit

[Gothmog]

19. It is by definition regressive

There is a flat tax proposal that tries to lessen the regressive nature of the flat tax but that proposal is bogus. The Bush administration looked at the flat tax and concluded that it was a bad idea. I am late to a meeting but will find this analysis later.

BTW, the Paul concept of a 5% tax would not replace the revenues currently being raised. There was some analysis that showed that a 30% flat tax would not replace the revenue currently raised by the tax code

[MissMillie]

17. Are you talking income tax, payroll tax, both?

The bottom income earners pay very little--if anything--in income tax, but they pay a very high percent of their income in payroll taxes.