[Scotty]

2) have everyone pay based on their ability (a little from poorer people, a lot from tremendously wealthy people & corporations)

That's exactly what a flat tax is.  It's a percentage, not an amount.  That equates to a little from poorer people and a lot from tremendously wealthy people and corporations.

[General Battuta]

2) have everyone pay based on their ability (a little from poorer people, a lot from tremendously wealthy people & corporations)

That's exactly what a flat tax is.  It's a percentage, not an amount.  That equates to a little from poorer people and a lot from tremendously wealthy people and corporations.

It's not proportional to their ability to pay without compromising their lifestyle, though.

[Scotty]

But what would you call compromising their lifestyle?  I can think of more than a few people where simply taking away a credit card would compromise their lifestyle.  It's not as if living beyond one's means is uncommon, these days.

However, I can see how that is a valid point.

[Liberator]

Living beyond our means is exactly what got us into trouble in the first place though.

[iamzack]

but it's our culture, and everybody knows Western culture is superior to other cultures

[Sushi]

but it's our culture, and everybody knows Western culture is superior to other cultures

Nonsense. Lactobacillus culture is clearly the most superior-est.

[Nuclear1]

but it's our culture, and everybody knows Western culture is superior to other cultures

Nonsense. Lactobacillus culture is clearly the most superior-est.

Ba dum tsh

[Sushi]

but it's our culture, and everybody knows Western culture is superior to other cultures

Nonsense. Lactobacillus culture is clearly the most superior-est.

Ba dum tsh

Thank you very much. I'll be here all night, try the veal.

[SpardaSon21]

Why do you want the rich to pay more, simply because they can?  Isn't that a bit arbitrary?

[Aardwolf]

Why do you want the rich to pay more, simply because they can?  Isn't that a bit arbitrary?

Because the government gets more money that way, and it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as they like to whine about it.

[SpardaSon21]

Why do you want the rich to pay more, simply because they can?  Isn't that a bit arbitrary?

Because the government gets more money that way, and it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as they like to whine about it.

Government getting more money is nothing but an excuse for it to spend more money, often on earmarks and pork for vote-buying.

[karajorma]

Why do you want the rich to pay more, simply because they can?  Isn't that a bit arbitrary?

The rich get major advantages from the state and federal government simply due to the amount of money they have. For instance, take a rich and a poor family. Who gets to send their kids to a better school? Why should a poor person have to pay the same amount of tax in order to get a ****tier service?

Now apply that to other government services. Who has better policing? Cleaner streets? The list goes on and on.

[Aardwolf]

Government getting more money is nothing but an excuse for it to spend more money, often on earmarks and pork for vote-buying.

Substitute in place of "excuse for" the phrase "necessary precondition in order to".

As for earmarks and pork, if people disliked the fact that the people they elected were finding ways to soak up federal tax dollars to spend on stupid in-state projects, they'd stop voting for candidates who did that... but that's not gonna happen. Problem is, people like pork, as long as it's their pork. Reducing federal tax revenue isn't going to convince to stop acting like sheep.

[Scotty]

Why do you want the rich to pay more, simply because they can?  Isn't that a bit arbitrary?

The rich get major advantages from the state and federal government simply due to the amount of money they have. For instance, take a rich and a poor family. Who gets to send their kids to a better school? Why should a poor person have to pay the same amount of tax in order to get a ****tier service?

Now apply that to other government services. Who has better policing? Cleaner streets? The list goes on and on.

The rich gets to send their kids to a better school by paying more for it.  Better schools are fairly expensive, at least around my part of the U.S.

That's still leaving aside that while the tax rate may be the same, that is in no way besides that the same amount of tax.  It's not like they're both paying a flat $5000 each or some strange sum like that.  They would pay the same proportion of their income, which would necessarily be different in they earn different amounts.

Say there was a flat tax of, say, 20%.  A person making $30,000 would pay $6,000, leaving $24,000, which is still 80% of his/her income.  A person making $250,000 would pay $50,000, also leaving 80%, but paying in an absolute sense a whole hell of a lot more.  $24,000 is still enough to live on, so it's not as if it isn't fair to anyone.

[iamzack]

But what if the person making $30,000 pays his 20% and the person making $250,000 pays 50%. the person making $250k still keeps $125k, which is (i think) twice what the average family makes. and then the person making $1 million pays 75%, keeps $250,000, which makes him in the top 3% *after* taxes.

so that's either $264k or $899k towards a debt-free country.

[Mars]

Have an exponential taxing bracket?

[Aardwolf]

Ooo, I got an idea! Tax everyone so they have exactly $5,000 to spare.

Scale it up or down if that's more/less money than there exists.

[BloodEagle]

Ooo, I got an idea! Tax everyone so they have exactly $5,000 to spare.

Scale it up or down if that's more/less money than there exists.

 

[Solatar]

Why do you want the rich to pay more, simply because they can?  Isn't that a bit arbitrary?

The rich get major advantages from the state and federal government simply due to the amount of money they have. For instance, take a rich and a poor family. Who gets to send their kids to a better school? Why should a poor person have to pay the same amount of tax in order to get a ****tier service?

Now apply that to other government services. Who has better policing? Cleaner streets? The list goes on and on.

To be fair, most of the advantages you've listed come from local property taxes (schools, etc. are all funded chiefly by property tax).  Bigger home fund better schools and cops.  ****ty system, but it has very little to do with the federal income tax we're discussing.

[SpardaSon21]

Actually, at least in California, cities get more money from sales tax revenue (80% of sales tax money sent to the state comes back) than property tax revenue (20% comes back), which is why eminent domain abuse is common here.

Yes, school districts get more money via property taxes, but school districts are state agencies that happen to have local elections for their boards and they are not run or controlled by the municipalities they encompass.