Would the left be happy with a 17% flat tax?

Answer 1

i would be, they wouldnt, that would be fair for everyone

Answer 2

No politician would be happy with a flat tax. There are too many special interests. These interests and lobbies would morph the flat tax back into a graduated tax in no time.

Our current income tax structure started off nearly flat, and look what it has become. Anyway, there are no flat tax proposals in the work - there are ones that call themselves flat, but if you take a close look at them they all exempt the first n dollars someone makes. If you run the numbers you'll see that the effective tax rate is graduated, with an upper limit equal to the proposed 'flat tax' rate.

Answer 3

I consider myself left and I will never be happy whit a flat tax.
Taxes should target the rich more and the poor should benefit of the extra money created.
There are way too many hard working people who hold two or more jobs and still don't make a decent living.On the other hand you got fat cats living on the profits of their shares whit out ever working whatsoever.They should pay more.
Taxes should not be seen as an enemy if government spends them correct.Your country could be so much better.

Answer 4

Nope. Low taxes on the rich and low or no estate taxes creates a sense of entitlement among rich people who did not "work hard" to earn the money.
George W. Bush is exhibit 1-A in this one.
I'd like a $100,000 individual exemption with a 49 percent "flat tax" on the remainder.

Answer 5

I'm pretty sure that I would be happy with the Fair Tax proposal. I've really only recently begun reading it and I think it would be the best reform.

I still need to do some more research to make sure.

But, if we remain with an income tax, there would need to be many, many, many additional reforms before a flat tax would work.

Answer 6

They would be happy with it as long as it was an extra 17% flat tax on the "rich".

Answer 7

Believe it or not, it's not the left that opposes the flat tax but the rich.

By eliminating a great many of the loopholes and write-offs many of the wealthy would actually be paying more.

Why do you think so many have paid lobbyist to kill every measure when there was a possibility of a vote?

Answer 8

A person making $12,000 a year would end up paying $2,040 leaving him/her to survive on $9,960 a year.

A person making $1,200,000 a year would pay $204,000 leaving them $996,000 to survive on.

Someone explain to me how the person who has $9,960 to live on can pay rent, buy food, pay for healthcare, pay for transportation and pay for school (since the reich-wing talks about "going to school" to "learn a skill") without getting another job. However, getting a second job will make it impossible for the person to go to school. Remember time is a resource and resources can be used for one purpose only at a time. You cannot allocate a resource for one thing and then ask it to be used for another purpose as well. If you want the resource re-applied, you have to de-allocate it from the first task. So either second job or school, not both.

Also remember $12,000 per year means the person is making more than the minimum wage of $5.75 per hour.
A minimum wage earner has $11,040 to start with before taxes.

Someone draw up a plan and I will believe in the republican argument.

Answer 9

I would be quite happy with a flat tax.

Answer 10

I'm not sure why being left or right matters... if everyone actually paid that percentage without loopholes, and the federal budget was covered, then I'd think everyone would be happy, other than those fat cats paying less than that now.

Answer 11

I agree with some earlier- I don't think they would be, but I would be ecstatic with that. It's about 25% they get right now I think- unless you're talking about sales tax and then they would be reeeeal happy and I wouldn't because it's like 6.5% here now,