Is there such a thing as a democrat who favors a "flat" (regressive) tax?

Is there such a thing as a democrat who favors a "flat" (regressive) tax, rather than the progressive income tax?

To me, such a person could be a libertarian or a republican, but that seems to be a fundamental departure from the democratic notion of "paying according to your means".

The callousness of people who favor this stuff astonishes me. That they could favor a system that would make things worse for people already struggling with poverty, and would result in YET ANOTHER tax cut for the rich, just sickens me.

where everyone is given the benefit of the doubt no matter how scarred their knuckles are from dragging.

My knuckles are all banged up.

The Iowa Republicans proposed a Dividend and Corporate tax cut which would be offset by getting rid of the sales tax exemption for food.

Unbelievable!

Lets cut dividend taxes and start taxing food. That isn't regressive huh?

What he actually did was lower taxes on the RICH, something that caused enough of a shortfall that he had to go begging to the lege for permission to dip into the state emergency fund to pay the teachers!

Now, two years later, we finally did lose that tax on food. Trouble was that Richardson decided to offset it by jacking up taxes and license fees on everything else, giving the poor in NM a net TAX INCREASE. Now he's talking about more "middle class" tax cuts, which as we all know now, means more tax cuts for fat pigs who don't need them.

Oh, and those original tax giveaways to rich movie stars and the like who own property in the resort areas is untouched. It will stand until we manage to dump that asshole and find a real Democrat.

When some DLC asshole proposes Richardson for national office, be afraid. Be very afraid.

I know Iowa looks red on the map, but most my family is from there and I remember Iowans as being patriotic, practical and populist. Don't see this going over.

Democrats to go along and there is no way in hell that will happen.

I can't believe they were stupid enough to actually throw this out as an option.

I thought I read on Wikipedia that Jerry Brown - a liberal in the finest tradition - favored a flat tax?

I'm against it myself, I think it's a truly awful idea.

I believe his plan eliminated income taxes for the first $30,000 or so of income. There were mortgage interest deductions, deductions for rent and charity and that was about it.

The appeal of this plan was that there was no place to hide from the taxman and that you could do your taxes in a few minutes.

Personally I think that something similar in its simplicity with maybe a higher rate for those making over $500,000 a year after the afore mentioned deductions could be fair and rather appealing. At least you'd know that the rich paid something.

I have learned something today! Thanks for the info.

Here is my plan.
Take a persons Income (I)
Subtract a standard deduction (D) lets say that this would be equal to two time the poverty level of a family of four.
Then multiply by a flat per cent rate (P).
This would apply to individuals. If a married couple is working then each person fills out the form and gets the deduction.
Income could be defines as inheritance and capital gains.
Figuring out your takes would be easy. (I-D)*P=tax

A flat-tax means different things to different people.

My thumbnail sketch on how a flat-tax would work:

All deductions are abolished and everyone pays a 15% flat tax on gross income. Anyone earning less than 50K pays nothing.

pay 30 or 40%?

They are doing fine.

Progressive taxation has helped to even out the income disparities in this country in the past. We are now approaching Gilded Age income disparities again - how is that a good thing?

If the deduction is 40,000 and a person is making 80,000 with a 25% tax rate he is actually paying 12.5% on his total income. As income increases the deduction stays the same. A person making a million dollars is paying closer to 23%.

Personal assistants to keep track of every tax-deductible dime, high powered accountants to hide money, tax attorneys to fight audits and politicians to open new loopholes.

A flat tax is a revenue-source that is simple, transparent and straightforward. Under the current system, you could tax the rich at 95% and you wouldn't get an extra dime because of all the deductions and red-tape.

Those reasons aside, there is a deeper reason why I support a flat tax: Taxes are to raise money so that the government can provide for the common good. (i.e. Schools, roads, welfare, health-care, shelter, defense, courts, ect ect ect.)

A progressive tax stems from the belief that taxes should also act as a way to re-distribute wealth within society. While in theory this is a noble idea, the reality is that it does more to create a complex web of tax laws than solve income disparity.

The appropriate tools to ensure that the people who create the wealth get their fair share is via unions, governmental regulation and a living-wage law.

Sure, they will pay taxes on their food and consumer items they buy, but they can always "trade" for the really expensive stuff, and even if they DID pay taxes on everything, they start with so much more, it would make a teensy dent in their assets:(

They alse usually control the access to their wealth. How many rich people do you think would decide to pay themselves 50K a year, and spread the profits among the staff and add improvements to their companies with the rest?

and don;t forget how wealth is a magnet for MORE wealth.People love to give stuff to rich people:eyes:

when asked to give to poor people, they are often the same people who resort to the "bootstrap lecture", but think nothing of giving free corporate jet rides, use of luxury cars, use of corporate apartments, etc to rich friends.:eyes:

But any who favor a flat tax I think I could safely call 'uninformed' democrats.

It is a core liberal principle from those who have much, much will be expected in return.

"God loves a cheerful giver" -Wes Clark

We want quite a few expensive new progressive programs on the European model. We are also honest and responsible, and think that, with the right amount of explanation, America is ready for a bigger portion of its income being transferred from the private to the public sector. If those countries can do it intelligently, so can we.

That's our aim. Liberal and proud of it.

On the other hand, if I were a millionaire...I might see some justice in a flat-tax.

If the first x dollars of earned income was excluded from the flat FIT, then maybe. This on top of a continuance of exemptions for each family member.

With no other distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income (the latter being capital gains, dividends, and interest), no other deduction.

I'd also roll FICA and Medicare taxes into this "flat rate", eliminating the distinction of earned vs. unearned and the artificiality of the maximum income subject to FICA taxation ($90k this year).

If such an x dollar exemption was allowed, then it would not be a flat tax nor would it be regressive. The progressivity of the "flat rate" would depend on what level x was set at. Regardless of x, the effective tax rate would approach the marginal "flat rate" the more distant one's income was from x.

My understanding is a flat rate of 23% or thereabouts would be required if applied to all income if it's to be revenue neutral.

Personally, I like the idea of setting x at the median income level. Let's say the median household income is $50,000 (I'm not sure). Let's also say that we continue with the family member exemptions of $3,500. That means the first $64,000 in salary and wage income of a family of 4 would not be taxed a cent.

Given x, and given that I roll FICA and Medicare taxes into a new flat FIT, then perhaps the FIT rate would have to climb to 35%, 50%, or even higher. Note that this is the marginal rate, not the actual effective rate. On a salary income of $128,000, and assuming a flat rate of 50%, a family of 4 would pay an effective rate of 25%. Someone earning $1,000,000 per year in salary would pay an effective FIT rate of 46%.

What I like about this is if a Gee Dubya at the country club earns nothing except $128,000 in capital gains, dividends, and interest, Mr. Easy Life gets to pay the full 50% while he putts away on the greens, but Mr. and Mrs. Work-for-a-living pay 25%. I think it sets the right priorities for our society. Work is rewarded; leisure pays for the priviledge.

(Further, while exploring these things, I think it would be grand if we discussed a negative income tax, too -- income falls below the poverty threshold then one's income is augmented by tax credits paid out to the poor family. Yes, I'm just dreamin', on all of this.)

I don't know what the numbers have to be, but I would be open to discussions if I was assured that changes would break down the artificial distinction between earned and unearned income and take away the FICA tax cap.

However, I have no faith that any such discussion would benefit anyone except the top 2% club, Gee Dubya's Base, and therefore resist any move to do anything by this "worst President, ever!" (kudos to H.T.). Therefore I say don't do it! Get the-worst-president-ever's hands off of the American wallet! In fact, get him out of the presidency -- impeach the village idiot now!!

(On edit: changed some numbers, fixed some words...)

(Further, while exploring these things, I think it would be grand if we discussed a negative income tax, too -- income falls below the poverty threshold then one's income is augmented by tax credits paid out to the poor family. Yes, I'm just dreamin', on all of this.) We already have that !!!!! Earned Income tax credit.

The more I read threads like this, the more I realize I may be in the wrong party. I have always been a democrat because of civil rights and union issues, not money issues. I have never felt the need to "eat the rich" -- I have never wanted to do them in because I realize the place they have in the economy -- investment capital, charitable giving, etc. Yes, some of them make me want to puke with their "better than thou" attitude, but that is more of a character flaw than an economic issue. Taking away the distinction between earned and unearned income, hits all those seniors who provided for their own retirements -- factor that in, and I'm listening.

What a grand idea! ;) I do not share your empathy for the pampered beneficiaries of dead labor; mostly because the vast majority of them do not have empathy for those struggling at the bottom.

I thought about the impact of erasing the differentiation between earned and unearned income after my post and its impact on the retiree of meager means. To this I say allow the deductions I mentioned earlier -- i.e., a "family standard deduction" equal to the median income, guessed at $50k, and continuance of family member exemptions (maybe even continue doubling it for over 65, as we do today). In this instance, a retired couple would not pay a cent in FIT taxes until their income exceeds $64,000; and they would pay an effective rate of 25% when income reaches $128,000.

Now, note, setting the standard deduction at the median household income may be way to generous, but you get the idea. I would trade-off progressive rates for a single flat rate if it (1) preserved progressivity in the fashion I outlined; (2) eliminated the distinction (the priviledge provided) between earned and unearned income; (3) rolled into the solution Medicare and FICA taxes, eliminating the artificiality of the FICA cap.

I fogot to say in my previous post. Yes, the meager Earned Income Tax Credits exist. I may be wrong, but you can only get them if you have some income in the first place.

In any case I mean something much more dramatic, along the lines of what Moynihan was studying during the Nixon administration (when we still had something called a "war on poverty", although eventhen fast withering on the Republican vine). The EITC is not enough to live on, it merely supplements the income of those receiving it. In the Moynihan plan, the aim was to provide a firm above-poverty existence for those who cannot or chose not to work. It was dropped partly because of the difficulty of transitioning from the negative tax to actual income -- at the lower levels of income the net effect was 75% to 100% taxation.

Kerry, Kennedy and a whole bunch of other rich democrats, huh?

...were between WWII and 1973. Blue collar middle class thrived; social roles were viewed as somewhat fair as disparity between the highest and lowest was nowhere as extreme as today. And marginal tax rates varied between 70% and 90%. I betcha' Kerry, Kennedy, and maybe Soros wouldn't mind paying net more taxes if the result was social justice, equality, and fairness.

Cornel West and another guy (last name Unger forgot the first) came out with a book not too long ago advocating a heavy flat consumption tax, the trick is though that they advocate a very progressive redistribution of revenue. The authors logic is that a heavy consumption tax will encourage poorer people to save, and the government will take care of the necessities. I don't happen to agree with it, but its certainly a left wing flat tax...