I am trying to prove that such drastic cuts in tax burdens cannot come in one fell swoop.

You can stop "proving" that, everybody knows.

I didn't realise that when you made it clear that moving an iota from what you want is a breach of the social contract and the same as abandoning all taxes, you were merely trying to make the point that tax systems might not be easily changed.

You completely missed your target there, I think.

"You completely missed your target there, I think."

You are a proponent of the flat tax, what are you saying here? It is something you like the idea of (like killing your neigbour) but agree would be foolish to implement.

If you are going to argue for something, at least believe in it.

This is an open debate, please try to read other people's posts too, not just your own.

That's why I asked. Who said anything about ending the social contract or abolishing taxes altogther?

For starters, I have done a subject just like this Link had my butt wiped across the floor because of a previous subject I did on welfare.

As for a national sales tax. NO WAY. The main reason being that it would be abused to no end. The poor with medical problems would pay way more than a healthy wealthy person. It especially wouldn't work because people have a tendency to spend more than they make hence paying more in taxes than they can actually afford.

Flat tax IS the way to go. No loopholes, no credits for nothing. you make $10,000 a year, you pay the same percentage as the guy making $1,000,000 a year. There is nothing unfair about it. It would also act as an incentive or sorts to make more since you know what you will pay in taxes will never be disproportionate to what you make. I see no reason why we should punish the rich and reward the poor. That's just ludicrous.

"Well deary, you have 3 kids and make around $15,000 a year at Burger Shot? We'll give you $8,000 more in February just because we can, and that won't count against your food stamps, TANF, medical, subsidized housing, or any of your other assistance. But if you make much more than that, we are not going to give you that extra money for being poor."

Then the rich/middle class gets punished for working hard and "getting ahead" "Well, you have worked hard and got an education and put jobs, products and services into our economy so now we will punish you with a 40% tax liability, better get a good Accountant (whom you will pay also) to help you find loopholes"

That sound real fair to me. *dripping sarcasm*

"no credits for nothing."

So the married couple on average earnings should pay the same rate as a millionaire bachelor?

Then you are punishing the couple who bothered to get married and have children (vital for a nation's future). It cuts both ways.

With single parenthood and marriage in decline in Western society, those who get married and raise children together should be encouraged in this.

So the married couple on average earnings should pay the same rate as a millionaire bachelor? Then you are punishing the couple who bothered to get married and have children (vital for a nation's future). It cuts both ways.

I would like to know how you figured this out? Just how are you punishing them? Because what you seem to be missing is the other perspective. That a millionaire "couple" pays the "same" as an average earning couple! So your statement carries almost no weight.

With single parenthood and marriage in decline in Western society, those who get married and raise children together should be encouraged in this.

Why? Not enough humans on the planet?

"Not enough humans on the planet?"

The breakdown of the traditional family unit is the cause of most social problems, the tax system is one tool to encourage the family along with the education system.

"That a millionaire "couple" pays the "same" 15% is a lot LESS than the current rates whereby lower earners pay LESS. How you can class a flat tax as "the same" is peculiar. "Whatever arguments against a flat tax you might have, you have certainly not told us what they would be." A flat tax would be unfair on lower earners, because they would pay more as they loose all kinds of allowances relating to circumstance. It would lead to massive deficits, less investment in public services, economic uncertainty, inlflation rises and recession.

This shows your ignorance of the "current" "American" tax code. As of right now between 19-23% are taken on average from lower and middle income earners. So once again your arguement carries no weight.

A flat tax would be unfair on lower earners, because they would pay more as they loose all kinds of allowances relating to circumstance. It would lead to massive deficits, less investment in public services, economic uncertainty, inlflation rises and recession.

And this piece of tripe is a VERY specious arguement.

"So once again your arguement carries no weight."

There are other forms of taxation, other than income tax. The only reason Gordon Brown can promise Britain he will not raise taxes is because he has found over 90 other ways of taxing us. If there is a deficit, governments will fill it. Better it is through the income tax system where politicians can be held accountable. This was the problem with the poll tax here during the Thatcherite government. An invented charge to plug black holes. It created riots. I certainly don't want public disorder on that scale again.

"And this piece of tripe is a VERY specious arguement."

How? Flat taxers are arguing against situation specific income tax i.e. all alowances are lost.

"Why would that be bad for society?"

Only the most vulnerable in society, particularly the elderly, will loose all increased personal allowances in the name of cutting tax bills of the wealthy. A mark of a society is how it treats its weakest, not its strongest. THAT IS WHY IT IS BAD!

"Your mere stating that a flat tax would cause a recession is NOT an argument against flat tax."

So a recession, ending ALL economic growth is not a good reason against it? You must be having a laugh.

"Surely the traditional family unit predates the progressive income tax?"

I said it was ONE way, not THE way. In a MODERN context, it is very good way. Surely the historical strength of the family unit is a new debate. You should write a thread about it if you want to debate it, now who is off topic?

No tax allowances, just the same rate for all. Never has there been a more elitist, socially unjust idea.

You want a progressive tax? Fine. I'll give you a progressive tax. As your income goes up, you'll owe the government more money. As your income goes down, you'll owe less money. It will still be a flat 15% (or whichever percentage is necessary) of your TOTAL income. How is that not progressive? The amount changes in proportion to the amount earned.

How is it unjust? Telling someone, "Okay, you just stepped over *that* income line, so now you owe us an additional 22% of your income. Sorry, that's the just and fair way to do it." Is that just? Don't think so. But that's what the progressive RATE does to the up and coming wealthy.

Is it just to tell everyone "okay, you owe the government $10,000 in taxes this year. Regardless of how much you actually earned this year, that's what you owe." That's being unnecessarily cruel to poorer folks and being overly nice to the well-to-do and wealthy. This is what I see your comment above to be aimed at.

Is it just that the government says, "For every dollar that you earn this year, you the government $0.15."? IMO, that is completely fair. Straight up and clear cut. No "Well, do all of these medical bills equal 10% of my earnings? No, darn! Can't deduct them." or how about, "Gee, I've got this $2 million sitting here that's going to be taxed. Lemme see where I can 'invest' it so that it will be out of sight and untouchable."

Are those fair? Nope.

We'll give you $8,000 more in February just because we can,

Last time....The MAXIMUM EIC benefit is $4,300.