Flat Tax

Do you think a flat tax of =~17% would solve alot of our economical problems?

absolutely not. the tax burden is distributed unfairly, as even as it seems on the surface. taxes are not progressive enough.

the tax burden is distributed unfairly
So 98% of rich people (150k+) paying for about 70% of income tax, 50% of the middle ($35k - $150k) paying for about 20%, and less than 30% of the poorest income bracket paying about 10% is not progressive enough?  Progressive taxes gives the illusion that taxing some people less supports the existence of residential wealth and taxing some people more bolsters income collection from those with "wealth to burn."  Historically, neither of these assumptions have padded out.  If anything, progressive taxes, by being able to grow quicker than a flat tax, have demonstrated two things: there is a ceiling where you actually stop gaining revenue from your taxation level, and neither attempts to favor the poor by being them less burden nor punish the rich by giving them more burden has causes the poor and rich to coalesce into the middle.  The poor, for their own shortcomings, remain poor and the rich, for their own successes, remain rich; the middle either stays or goes either way, usually down.  Progressive taxes don't change this in good ways, either, though I would never recommend trying to engineer society in this fashion (we're sticking with the goal as "increase tax revenue").

>>1
Despite that, a flat tax will not solve anything on its own.  Getting rid of these special taxless entities that allow statistics and I to read numbers like "98%" "50%" and ">30%" is a start in some direction; but the basic reality is that no amount of taxation will be able to finance either our debt (as it is) or spur our economic recovery.  Especially if the money is constantly spent and then overspent as it is collected.  In fact, collecting taxes is entirely the wrong solution to look to in my opinion since it precludes the existence of wealth to collect.

What we need is to do is promote the private sector into generating and accumulating wealth again.  You can always legitimately create more which is why that will eventually produce the solution to the economic woes and debt at the same time (bar spontaneous forgiveness by our debtors).

>>3
Exactly, all I'm saying is that by giving people more money to spend in the private sector, we can boost the economy, and mayby even reduce a good deal of the public sector

The problem is that the rich actually have something like 90% of the money.  They get taxed more because that's where the money is.

There is a democratic village-state with a single business with a boss and 99 workers, they drive a short distance to the nearby town to buy goods and services they can't get in the village.

The boss earns 90% of the income, so the workers vote to tax him 50% to pay for social programs, after the election the boss simply factors in the value of the free things the workers get from the state and lowers wages to competitive levels, the workers know if they move to the town they will get higher wages but lose the equivalent gain in wages in social programs and the union doesn't call a strike because wages are competitive. There is little change in standard of living, however the village must now pay an accounting firm in the town to organize their social programs and extra taxes.

Next election the workers notice that taxation has no effect on income distribution and figure that the amount of GDP the state controls is the only way to redistribute wealth. So they raise tax to 100% and have the state manage people's salaries and decide how much to invest in the business, the boss is fond of the village and decides to stay and work as a bureaucrat doing much the same job as before, the workers are also model citizens and work just as hard even though they get the same amount of money regardless of how productive they are, the state is also highly moral and free from corruption, even Chomsky comes to visit and declares the village to be proof that socialism works. Nah not really, the boss and some mid-level managers are demonised by people who don't understand the significance of technology in a modern economy and are replaced by populist politicians wholly incompetent at the task who subsequently abuse their position as much as they can knowing no one has any alternative to the state, the workers work as hard as they always have initially but don't put any effort into improving their skills and slowly corrupt into freeloaders, Chomsky claims this is all due to a conspiracy by capitalists to make the village fail.

>>6
That is how unions are started dude.

We must observe that an increase in social spending by our government reveals that the private sector is failing to be independent. It is only obvious that a lack of morals and ethics within the ruling class is the reason this is happening. Government spending should be viewed as both helpful to keep the general standard of living up in times of need, but also stigmatized because it is not sustainable in any long-term situation.

Our private sector is failing. Tea Party and various other douches screaming about the free market are missing the fact that we're trying to be free market and that's why we're having problems!

>>8
Free market!? There hasn't been a free market in quite a long, long time. The private sector is failing because it's being regulated to death.

>>9

Regulations are detrimental, but I find it hard to believe that alone can cause the kinds of problems we have. It is obvious there are multiple factors.

We will never have ideological purity in practice. YES, we have had an incredibly strong free market streak in us, even now. Although I will agree it has decreased somewhat.

>>10
Regulations are detrimental, but I find it hard to believe that alone can cause the kinds of problems we have.
You're right, taxes also pay a big role. Hikes on property and sales taxes especially.

>>1
That's actually how the current tax system started. "Oh we'll just put a tiny tax on people here and there" back in around 1916 or so, now they send you to jail even if you're short a penny. How would a flat tax not become a progressive tax that will eventually hurt people who are obligated to pay it? What will keep it from being increased over time?