Suppose it were seriously proposed that <insert name of your country> replace their income tax system with a flat tax, wherein:

All income earned up to a certain level (Say $30,000 just to pick a number) was tax free.
All income earned over that amount was taxed at a fixed rate (Say 30%, again just to pick a number)

Would you be in favour of such a system?
If so, where would you set the cut off point and what would be the tax rate?

In many countries this might require a substantial decrease in expenditure and/or an increase in other forms of tax revenue e.g., GST/sales-tax/VAT.
Would this influence your decision?
What programs would you axe/cut the budget of, or, where would you make up the lost revenue?

no I am in favor of a progressive tax system.

Suppose it were seriously proposed that <insert name of your country> replace their income tax system with a flat tax, wherein:

All income earned up to a certain level (Say $30,000 just to pick a number) was tax free.
All income earned over that amount was taxed at a fixed rate (Say 30%, again just to pick a number)

Would you be in favour of such a system? Not really; I'm in favor of an even flatter tax. As in, 0%
If so, where would you set the cut off point and what would be the tax rate?
OK, I'll play along

<$45,000 - 0%
$45,000-$120,000 - 8%
$120,000-$350,000 - 12%
>$350,000 - 20%
In many countries this might require a substantial decrease in expenditure and/or an increase in other forms of tax revenue e.g., GST/sales-tax/VAT.
Would this influence your decision? Of course; we need to cut spending.
What programs would you axe/cut the budget of, or, where would you make up the lost revenue?

Cut military spending, close down overseas bases: first and foremost. Stop corporate protectionism and corporate welfare.

Stop spending on pork-barrel projects
Cut spending on public education; we can have vouchers for the poorest students
Cut public healthcare, again, with aid only to the poorest/parents with children (that can't afford it)/the elderly

And everything else that is unnecessary and not the place of government.

No matter. The government should increase its spending on science, technology, education, transit, and promising business start-ups. It should also consider cutting out the military budget altogether: we are far too grown-up to need this ridiculous security blanket, I think. The increased revenue resulting from responsible, progressive spending should ultimately result in a tax-cut.

No matter. The government should increase its spending on science, technology, education, transit, and promising business start-ups.
No. That ought to be left to the market.

Agreed, No tax to poverty line(whatever that is, wherever), on individuals. People need to eat and a place to take a shit, Corporations don't. Then same tax to EVERYONE. Individuals, Corporations, Foreign investors, etc ,etc.

Fairness...and easy to implement and calculate. There is no fucking way that will happen without millions having to be killed.

No. That ought to be left to the market.Fine. You pay higher taxes, and I'll have a tax cut. I'll even throw a party on behalf of it. A "tax cut party." Groovy.

Fine. You pay higher taxes, and I'll have a tax cut. I'll even throw a party on behalf of it. A "tax cut party." Groovy.

Why should I pay higher taxes? Nobody should pay "higher taxes". :bugeye:

Why should I pay higher taxes? Nobody should pay "higher taxes". :bugeye:Precisely, so let's have the government spend money on things that build revenue. Voila! Like magic, the government has more money to spend, and it doesn't have to increase taxes one jot. It conjured money out of the manifold of time. That's it.

Precisely, so let's have the government spend money on things that build revenue. Voila! Like magic, the government has more money to spend, and it doesn't have to increase taxes one jot. It conjured money out of the manifold of time. That's it.

Let's not spend government money, period. Voila! No need to even tax.

Let's not spend government money, period. Voila! No need to even tax.Ah, but let's say the government is taking two dollars from you every year. It is the minimum the government needs to sustain its functions. Now, what I am saying is that the government should borrow one dollar from a bank, and it should spend that extra one dollar on a project that will put five dollars in your pocket next year. After giving the government your two dollars, you would be up by a dollar! Now, let's say that the government invests its money very wisely, on your behalf, for ten years. By then, you are making fifty dollars per year after giving the government the two dollars. So let's multiply all of those numbers by ten thousand. Do you really have a problem with being rich? I don't.

Now, I am very picky about what the government spends its money. I think that the government should spend its money on things that are 1) morally necessary, and 2) likely to put more money in the pockets and more luxuries in the lives of working Americans.

In theory, these are the only things that I think that the government should spend its money on. This is what I mean when I say that I am a progressive: progressively wealthier.

Two dollars out of what? Income tax rates above 10% are too much. That's a tenth of everything you earn!

If you literally mean two dollars, then OK.

In fact, if you take the working population of America, about 150-180 million, and multiply it by two, then that's more than $300 million!

One major problem with flat tax proposals is the determination of income. That is where most of the loopholes are in the current income tax system, and that matter remains unreformed by "flattening" the income tax rates.

In practice, since the wealthy have far more control over what their "income" is and the lower classes cannot afford the rates necessary to make up for that, all flat tax proposals are essentially tax dodges for the rich.