What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #92 - neoexdeath ONLINE (04/25/2013) [-]
This is why we need a goddamn flat tax, everybody pays the same percentage, and those who are wealthier pay more gross, but its the same percentage of their overall income has someone making minimum wage.
User avatar #98 to #92 - ablt (04/25/2013) [-]
Flat tax is regressive. Feel free to learn about economics at some point.
User avatar #173 to #98 - schneidend (04/25/2013) [-]
I actually looked up regressive tax, but I don't fully understand how a flat tax ends up with higher incomes paying proportionally less than lower incomes. 7.5%, for example, is a flat rate, but people with higher incomes can end up paying less than that somehow? I'm confused.
User avatar #185 to #173 - ablt (04/26/2013) [-]
It isn't really proportionately less because a percentage is a percentage no matter how much you're dealing with. The problem is that taxing someone who makes $10,000 a year 15% has more of an impact than taxing someone who makes $100,000 a year 15%. In this example, you're leaving someone with $8,500 and someone else with $85,000. The person making 10k a year has had their spending power drastically reduced, while the person with 100k can still live comfortably.

Now, I'm not some faggot who complains about rich people not being taxed enough, but I think the Fair Tax is a viable option. Just Google this one because I can't explain the entire thing here, but it works as a consumption tax, meaning that you keep all of your income and are only taxed on your purchases. The current proposal for the consumption tax is not regressive because there is a rebate for anyone under the poverty line to cover consumption tax up to whatever the poverty line is. So let's say that the poverty line is $30,000, you would get a rebate to cover sales tax on $30,000 of purchases.
 Friends (0)