I fucking hate flat tax rate douchebags

[Don Coyote]

And I doubly hate that I am having a hard fucking time to snatch up the hard numbers to explain why they are fucking retarded.

By virtue of making more than you, they should pay more, that's your premise, right? Minimum wage in NY state leads to a yearly salary of $14,872, that's forty hours a week, 52 weeks out of the year. It sucks and it's way below the poverty line. If you're taxed 5% you'll be paying $743.60 in taxes. Now let's talk about our president. He makes $400,000 a year. Let's give him a mere tax of 15%. He's paying $60,000. Even at just 5%, he'd still be paying $20,000. Am I wrong, or does he still pay more in taxes? People with more money spend it on new technology while its still new and expensive, they buy expensive cars that cost more to insure, spend more on high risk investments.

I want to fire back with that this put more financial burden on the poor, but I fucking suck at this shit. I usually just filter out these kinds of retards.

[The Johnny]

Synchronically enough, im typing some stuff about consumer habits of the different classes.

High classes only spend like 2 or 3 times in primary products as middle or low classes; but they spend about 10 to 200 times on "luxury"/"non-perishable industrial" products... and those products do not create a significant amount of jobs, nor boost the economy, its for all its worth, going down the drain just cause it looks shiny and it gives status...

so fuck cars and technology as a justification on their "well-used" spending that boosts society

[The Johnny]

Also, it boosts inequality, the rich get to accumulate more of their money while the poorest demography gets punished for just being poor and reproduces their situation.

[Doktor Howl]

And I doubly hate that I am having a hard fucking time to snatch up the hard numbers to explain why they are fucking retarded.

By virtue of making more than you, they should pay more, that's your premise, right? Minimum wage in NY state leads to a yearly salary of $14,872, that's forty hours a week, 52 weeks out of the year. It sucks and it's way below the poverty line. If you're taxed 5% you'll be paying $743.60 in taxes. Now let's talk about our president. He makes $400,000 a year. Let's give him a mere tax of 15%. He's paying $60,000. Even at just 5%, he'd still be paying $20,000. Am I wrong, or does he still pay more in taxes? People with more money spend it on new technology while its still new and expensive, they buy expensive cars that cost more to insure, spend more on high risk investments.

I want to fire back with that this put more financial burden on the poor, but I fucking suck at this shit. I usually just filter out these kinds of retards.

1.  Wealthy people get more out of the system - whether by luck or by hard work - than the poor.  Ergo, they should pay more back into the system.  At the end of the day, they're still far better off than the poor.  And $743/year means the poor don't get to pay rent one month per year, which means they get evicted.

2.  Someone making the mode income level in the USA ($19,800/yr) cannot afford to pay the same percentage as a rich person can, without being made homeless, even if you were to reduce the government's spending to the BARE minimum.  You want a military, you need to pay.  You want highways, you need to pay (and if any bastard wants to privatize THOSE, just have them drive around Chicago for a day, or until their axles break, whichever comes first).  The percentage rate, if progressive taxation is removed, would have to be somewhere around 20%.

3.  The person you are talking to isn't rich, and he's arguing for a flat tax.  This makes him a complete fucking retard.  Why are you even talking with him?

[The Johnny]

1.  Wealthy people get more out of the system...

Like banking bailouts.

[Don Coyote]

But I can see the retort to that being the wealthy don't have an obligation to use their money to foster anything other than making themselves happy.
But you got a source with that Because I still want to share it.

And I doubly hate that I am having a hard fucking time to snatch up the hard numbers to explain why they are fucking retarded.

By virtue of making more than you, they should pay more, that's your premise, right? Minimum wage in NY state leads to a yearly salary of $14,872, that's forty hours a week, 52 weeks out of the year. It sucks and it's way below the poverty line. If you're taxed 5% you'll be paying $743.60 in taxes. Now let's talk about our president. He makes $400,000 a year. Let's give him a mere tax of 15%. He's paying $60,000. Even at just 5%, he'd still be paying $20,000. Am I wrong, or does he still pay more in taxes? People with more money spend it on new technology while its still new and expensive, they buy expensive cars that cost more to insure, spend more on high risk investments.

I want to fire back with that this put more financial burden on the poor, but I fucking suck at this shit. I usually just filter out these kinds of retards.

1.  Wealthy people get more out of the system - whether by luck or by hard work - than the poor.  Ergo, they should pay more back into the system.  At the end of the day, they're still far better off than the poor.  And $743/year means the poor don't get to pay rent one month per year, which means they get evicted.

2.  Someone making the mode income level in the USA ($19,800/yr) cannot afford to pay the same percentage as a rich person can, without being made homeless, even if you were to reduce the government's spending to the BARE minimum.  You want a military, you need to pay.  You want highways, you need to pay (and if any bastard wants to privatize THOSE, just have them drive around Chicago for a day, or until their axles break, whichever comes first).  The percentage rate, if progressive taxation is removed, would have to be somewhere around 20%.

3.  The person you are talking to isn't rich, and he's arguing for a flat tax.  This makes him a complete fucking retard.  Why are you even talking with him?

To piss off that guy and and high school acquaintance because he decided that protesting is wrong because all it does is make people angry and they should make their voice heard politely or some other bullshit. Opinions like that seem to be common with people from my hometown.

[The Johnny]

Protesting isnt wrong, but its really inefficient at achieving its goals, its almost like an outdated model isnt it? It relies on getting a reaction from those in power, but that only happens if the protest is massive, and even then the reaction might not be the one they wanted (riot police f.e. and mass imprisonment)

[Doktor Howl]

But I can see the retort to that being the wealthy don't have an obligation to use their money to foster anything other than making themselves happy.

I don't want to pay my credit card bill, but I have to, right?

They don't want to pay for civilization, but they have to anyway.

[Doktor Howl]

To piss off that guy and and high school acquaintance because he decided that protesting is wrong because all it does is make people angry and they should make their voice heard politely or some other bullshit. Opinions like that seem to be common with people from my hometown.

There's this one amendment he may not have heard of...

[Phox]

Okay, so if i was working on minimum wage here, I'd be making about $13,200 a 5% tax rate would be $660.  While $20,000 is significantly more than $660, I was also paying significantly more than $13,200 in living expenses a couple years ago, so... you know. 

[Don Coyote]

Okay, so if i was working on minimum wage here, I'd be making about $13,200 a 5% tax rate would be $660.  While $20,000 is significantly more than $660, I was also paying significantly more than $13,200 in living expenses a couple years ago, so... you know. 

SHUSH NO LOGIC HERE!!!!!!

[Telarus]

Some good arguments:

-The Flat Tax would eliminate the tax-deductible status of charitable donations. Goodbye public charities. Goodbye your public school arts & science funding. Etc.

- This dude points that out, and also points out that income taxes aren't the only taxes and that a flat tax would actually shift more of the tax burden to middle and low class families:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/12/flat-tax-is-class-warfare

The current U.S. tax system consists mainly of taxes on income (personal and corporate), payroll (Social Security), sales, and property. In 2007, these taxes provided 92 percent of federal income and 51 percent of state and local government income. Sales taxes are regressive—they take a higher share of low incomes than higher incomes. State and local income taxes range from flat to mildly progressive. Payroll taxes are moderately regressive because they fall on only wages and salaries and only up to a maximum of $106,800 in earnings. The distribution of the property tax burden is not clear, but the family home is the primary financial asset for most middle-income households. Property taxes are levied on homes, but rarely on other kinds of financial assets. State and local governments also depend on fees and charges for services, which fall heavily on lower-income households, for 44 percent of their revenue. So a moderately progressive federal income tax, with rates ranging from 15 percent to 35 percent, helps to offset regressive taxes elsewhere.

The rhetoric about ending double taxation ignores the fact that under a flat tax, wages would still be taxed twice, but dividends only once. Wage earners pay both payroll and income taxes. They've paid double taxes since 1935. Why should income from owning financial assets be treated differently—especially since most of that income goes to upper-income households?

A flat tax would shift tax obligations from the rich to the poor, and especially the middle class, and eliminate desirable tax incentives for retirement savings, home ownership, and charitable contributions. Simple? Yes. Efficient and equitable? Not so much.

In other words, it's a classic gambit to get people to vote for something that isn't in their best interest.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Protesting isnt wrong, but its really inefficient at achieving its goals, its almost like an outdated model isnt it? It relies on getting a reaction from those in power, but that only happens if the protest is massive, and even then the reaction might not be the one they wanted (riot police f.e. and mass imprisonment)

If you look at protesting as a direct means of achieving changes, sure. But it's still an important part of the process and perhaps even more relevant as we've become increasingly alienated from the people we live around. Protests help people realize how many people feel the same way, boosts morale, causes ideas to evolve through disagreement, provides a means for news to travel that the major networks willfully ignore or distort, and it enables social networks to strengthen and branch out.

[NewSpag]

And I doubly hate that I am having a hard fucking time to snatch up the hard numbers to explain why they are fucking retarded.

By virtue of making more than you, they should pay more, that's your premise, right? Minimum wage in NY state leads to a yearly salary of $14,872, that's forty hours a week, 52 weeks out of the year. It sucks and it's way below the poverty line. If you're taxed 5% you'll be paying $743.60 in taxes. Now let's talk about our president. He makes $400,000 a year. Let's give him a mere tax of 15%. He's paying $60,000. Even at just 5%, he'd still be paying $20,000. Am I wrong, or does he still pay more in taxes? People with more money spend it on new technology while its still new and expensive, they buy expensive cars that cost more to insure, spend more on high risk investments.

I want to fire back with that this put more financial burden on the poor, but I fucking suck at this shit. I usually just filter out these kinds of retards.

Yes, yes.  Let us lower the taxes of the rich.  Stop forcing them to give up part of their disposable income instead of letting them, you know, dispose of it.  Why waste perfectly good bribery and lobbying money on something as silly as Social Wellfare programs?  After all, everyone knows it's poor peoples' fault they're poor. 

[Reginald Ret]

Just ask them what percentage of their income they are paying in taxes.
Ask if they are in the top 5% of earners in this country.
If no:
Tell them that their taxes will double if a flat task is instated, and that the poor will have to quadruple their taxes.
Don't bother with real figures, they don't either.