Would a Flat Tax Be More Fair? | 5 Minute Video

[@Akiraspin]

A nation cannot tax itself into prosperity.

[@counterstrike8840]

@Lisa B the bigger the government, the more responsibility it takes, the more responsibility it has, the more money it requires to pay for all the services...so the only solution is small government and smaller corporation...government should play the role of middle man / referee...big government and big corporation is like Ancient Egypt or Babylon enslaving its own ppl...

[@the430movie]

AMEN!!!!

[@andrewhsu7202]

It can buy itself into prosperity by giving Israel a cool 100 billion in aid each year rofl.

[@RBsRealm]

Not for long anyways.... cough* *China* cough* cough*

[@michellemarie1197]

Nope just look at canada

[@martinharris5017]

This is pure common sense. No wonder it hasn't been implemented. One day maybe.

[@andraslibal]

It has been, in Eastern Europe, worked too well and then the IMF came in and forced these countries to give it up.

[@mjh9438]

Rand paul

[@babamp4]

You think trump can implement a flat tax?

[@Alpha-ro8sc]

Flat tax @ 10% across the board. Welfare is based on prior income, mandatory drug test & time restrictions based on prior work record. No previous work...no welfare. Public housing comes with proof of employment. Representatives must live in district & pay is average of district. Government aid counts as negative earnings calculated into average. Reduce military presence to N. America only, cut-off all foreign aid, enforce immigration laws already on the books. Any state declaring sanctuary immediately forfeits all government funding...colleges who practice sedation...all funding removed & board members sent for due process. Ahhhhh, wouldn't it be nice...

[@jeremyanderson3819]

@@OldMockingbird I wonder what formula they used to decide 52,800 as the amount a "family of four" gets tax free.

[@gyorgynemes7373]

This is NOT an argument for a Flat Tax! My only, and really big problem with the video, that it is not an argument for flat tax. Flat income tax is, when EVERYONE pays an equal percentage of their income. (Like we have in Hungary.(15%)) In this video Steve Forbes argues for a tax system with 2 brackets. One above $52800 annual income (17%), and one below it (0%). That's a progressive income tax system by definition. This video is actually an argument for the simplification of the tax code, and not for the flat tax. As in the last few minutes Steve Forbes admits, that the simplification can be achieved by a progressive income tax system, like one he proposed. Calling this video ''The Case for a Flat Tax'' is wrong, because people might use these arguments to defend the flat tax. Most importantly the video admits to the principle of progressive taxation, that poor people should pay a smaller portion of their income than rich people. If you want to defend the flat tax you have to argue, that EVERYONE (including poor people and the very rich) should pay the same percentage of their income. Util this happens PragerU should rename this video: The Case for simplifying the Tax Code. I know that, it isn't as catchy, but at least i would be accurate.

[@DuranmanX]

I know that, it isn't as catchy, but at least i would be accurate. then you also know why they will never change it

[@gyorgynemes7373]

Yeah, probably. And it pisses me of. I usually don't care about bad arguments (as in most PragerU videos), but when they deliberately mislead their audience, and they know it, that's infuriating.

[@EzraFWelsh]

PregerU might as well be a mouth piece for Neoliberalism and Libertarian thought.

[@GS-cg3yn]

György Nemes Accurate and beautifully written.

[@ericomfg]

It's a flat tax that is incentivizing people to have children, really. There is only 1 rate and 1 deduction based off of how many people depend on you. If you're just one person, I assume the deduction you'd get is around $16k or so.

[@MrDDiRusso]

They make the taxes so complicated so no one realizes how much they're being shafted.

[@Golfnut_2099]

NO... we realize we are being shafted. We just do not have the energy to figure out how NOT to get shafted. 10,000,000 words. That is longer than Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series...

[@henrygustav7948]

@@Golfnut_2099We have been shafted so bad we don't even know it. The federal govt doesn't use taxes to fund anything, HOW can it? Unless there is someone in the economy with a money printer which would be illegal counterfeiting. The truth is the Fed govt spends FIRST then it taxes and borrows and when you realize that, then you realize your taxes do not fund the federal govt, instead it is the Federal govt that funds us with the USD's we need and use to pay our taxes with.

[@artypyrec4186]

They make taxes complicated because dumbing it down makes it open to exploitation.

[@Golfnut_2099]

@@artypyrec4186 Hmmm... Actually, making it complicated makes it harder for the common Joe to exploit the system. Rich people have accountants for that...

[@artypyrec4186]

@@Golfnut_2099 a person who went to school for years to understand how to bend it to their whims. What do you think would happen if they made it simpler, that those accountants would just give up?

[@agentbubbles782]

I say we jump onto ships and throw chests of tea off of ships again. #BostonTeaParty2019

[@justdewit]

And by throw tea off of ships you mean throw politicians right?

[@samueljett7807]

@@justdewit hecc yea let's dew it

[@philipmcgee5202]

Instead of chests of tea, why don't we just throw the politicians into the water?

[@plumcake9000]

AgentBubbles if it’s coffee can I keep it?

[@xientau9028]

Don't take your disatisfaction with your government out on the environment, keep our oceans clean.

[@fcoram72]

We should ALL pay the same flat tax percentage the rich and the poor period. Different amounts but the same percentage. If we all share the same liberties and freedoms of this country we should all bear the same responsibility.

[@JohnDoe-jq4re]

Cisco RamRod we don’t all share the same, rich people are significantly more advantaged because they have best education, healthcare, political influence, etc

[@markgilrosales6366]

@@JohnDoe-jq4re same liberties.

[@CommaGaming]

@@markgilrosales6366 You'll magically see rich leave and jobs disappear

[@faizalqorni3611]

What people don't understand rich people don't magically become rich they are human just like us

[@Rose-xm4og]

I agree with this

[@filipkarwowski6510]

Amend the constitution and establish: -Flat tax -No deficit This makes the whole country united. We all pay the same proportion of our income to keep the government running. We want some new government program? ALL of our taxes are raised. And no deficit. We spend within our limit and we don’t inherit a previous generation’s overspending, nor do we leave future generations with our debt.

[@MichaelJones-gw8sg]

No one should ever have to give more than 10% of their income to the Federal Government, but EVERYONE should have to pay 10%. 17% is too high!

[@anthonywatts2033]

The us was at it most prosperous in the 40s, 50s, and 60,. Highest tax rate; over 70%

[@MichaelJones-gw8sg]

@@anthonywatts2033 50's and 60's, yes. In 1950, the top tax rate was 42%. It grew every year to a high of about 70%. But, the 70% tax rate didn't take full effect until the 70's, and it tanked the economy. I keep hearing liberals and progressives cry and wail that "the rich" need to pay their fair share, yet the top 10% of earners pay 50% of all taxes - and the top 50% of earners pay 95% of all taxes. Sounds to me like the bottom 50% is not paying their fair share!

[@anthonywatts2033]

Disagree that it took " to the 70s" to take effect. The oil crisis tanked the economy then and if the top 10% own 90% of the countries wealth but only pay 50% of taxes, you have confirmed the problem.

[@ForeverShadowBanned]

@@anthonywatts2033 In the 1950s the highest tax rate possible was 91 percent, do you honestly believe anyone in their right mind paid that? Most of the 1 percent back then only paid around 42% of their income, a little less than today. Yet despite that, the 1950s was arguably one of if not the best times to be alive economically in US history.

[@xxdoba1597]

Michael Jones the term fair share doesn’t refer to how much of our countries taxes are paid by which group. It refers to how much of someone’s income goes to paying taxes. The more money you make, the more you can afford. That means you can afford the taxes you pay on income, property, gas, road etc.. The less fortunate have to pay a lot more of their income towards taxes. That’s what the term fair share means.

[@timheslin9185]

2:36 - "It wasn't always this way" oh boy, that's for sure, there was no fed tax prior to 1913, when Congress signed it into law!... Looks like we hatch into England anyway.

[@partyguy101ify]

If you're going to comment, at least get facts straight. It was not just an act of Congress. Congress got the ball rolling, but states had to ratify the amendment proposal, and clearly enough states agreed that the United States needed to start levying an income tax. I agree that we need a flat income tax to clean up the red tape and other messes, but let's not pretend that Congress was "up to no good behind the shadows" when, in reality, everyone knew it had to be done.

[@blairbrown4812]

To be fair, we had our own overseas Empire to rule.

[@TheBrandonHazel]

It all sounds good but even the poorest earners should pay a tax. if they made every single person who earned income pay a tax we can lower the percentage of the tax. We could probably drop it from 17% to 10% and 10% of any amount of wages is fair enough. If everybody has skin in the game they start thinking more logically about how their money is spent.

[@ericcopenhaver]

There's more to it than you may realize. Please consider reading the materials I linked in a previous comment. You might be surprised to find out just what the Founders intended, as far as taxation is concerned...

[@WeAreWafc]

Agree with Brandon. Either way, the current system we have now is awful and punishes success

[@tpstamer]

I believe your estimation to be way off, including the 17% from the lowest earners might allow a 1% overall decrease, but probably less. No way would it drop to 10%.

[@valdius85]

@A E equality of outcome - this is what liberals are preaching. This is also what will eventually make the "American dream" of being payed according to the abilities a past.

[@hray1005]

Dumbest thing I have ever heard. The problem is that if you take 20k from a rich person, he can’t afford luxuries, and if you take 10k from a poor person, he can’t afford necessities. Also poor people don’t save as much meaning if they had more money, they would spend it, increasing the marginal propensity to consume, increasing wages across the economy because the money circulates, rather than sitting in a bank account and not paying wages.

[@rphb5870]

I took tax law in Denmark a few years ago, and I was infuriated at how big our tax code was 750 pages. The book that contains our entire tax code is quite heavy, and my two semesters only managed to get though the basics, not the intricate details of the hundred of paragraphs in the dozens of laws. But it is nice to know that all things considered our tax code is still rather small.

[@FlugelHorn117]

17% is still too high. Cut back on dysfunctional social programs.

[@tobyglenn1869]

I am not disagreeing with you, but can you reference of few of the programs you mean?

[@ab5olut3zero95]

All federal social programs. All federal welfare. If States want those, they can build em. I defy anyone to show me where the Constitution allows FedGov to have those programs.

[@killkard5368]

It makes sense. The government is 17% of gdp so.... it matches. Maybe set the rate to government gdp % so it gradually decreases as govt shrinks

[@comicsans1689]

Cut back the flat tax and raise sales tax. Sales tax would be the most fair tax because those who spend a lot will contribute a lot, i.e. the 1%.

[@deesnutz8406]

@@ab5olut3zero95 so the US shouldn't had bought the lousiana purchase from france because the constitution didn't say to buy land from other country?

[@whygoogle5051]

I've been thinking about this for years... 10% tax across the board.

[@insertname7750]

And 10 for the big guy

[@qwertyuiop9060]

I support this. Everyone has equal responsibility. Noone evades taxes. That's called a fair share

[@iantalente5491]

Yes

[@tomthetitan3697]

Absolutely

[@Pewfus]

Yes and there's no outs. You pay 10% to the feds and 5% to state. No tax deductible donations. No outs of any kind. You make 100p you pay 150 you make 1 million you pay 150k. Period.

[@phillipkokesh6152]

10% flat tax is more than enough...

[@voluntarism335]

and cut a lot of wasteful government spending

[@michaelholderegger645]

Also, it's not a flat tax if you exempt people under a certain limit. It's funny that they complain about how two levels will turn into 7 and then they create two levels. 10% across the board.

[@samdoubleview7628]

Meanwhile in Sweden most succesful people pay 40-50%

[@nsebast]

20%: 10% for local, 10% for national.

[@J-S.P]

@@samdoubleview7628 define successful. For instance in Denmark $60k/yr gets taxed at 40%

[@williamdowden4494]

Have been a fan of this since you first proposed it when you ran for office. I can see why the democrats and even some of the republicans hate this. If you dry up their revenue stream they would lose their power.

[@yardmasterswealtheducation8424]

I am so glad I found PragerU. I have always been a fan of the idea of a flat tax rate. A few years ago, I finally "got" the concept of the standard deduction. Now, your deduction for each adult and child finishes the package! ThankU so much!

[@johnclifford1537]

Here in Australia income tax was introduced in 1916 in the middle of the First World War as a 'temporary wartime measure'. No prizes for guessing it was never repealed and 104 years later it is the most important pillar of the tax system.

[@OdeeOz]

It would make figuring personal taxes out a lot easier. Fair or not, a flat tax would demand the Government *_Keep a balanced budget._* Otherwise it's a futile exercise

[@chris532008]

Odee Dillon oh they would just keepin

[@chris532008]

Odee Dillon oh they would just keep on raising the rate. Even beyond 100 percent. Not like they are short on stupid people

[@chris532008]

Odee Dillon won t happen

[@OdeeOz]

Evoking our family motto of; _Dum Spiro, Spero! _*_With Each Breath, I Have Hope!_* It is good to have _hope._ For without, we have nothing left but _dispair._

[@RafeArcher]

Do you know what would make figuring out personal taxes even easier? -> Not figuring them out in the first place. Hear me out... I haven't read Mr. Steve Forbes' book, and I'm no tax expert. but from what I can tell, going with his plan for a flat 17% could quite possibly increase, not reduce, the amount of taxes the average citizen pays. He says that individuals AND corporations will pay 17% each; well, take 7 minutes out of your day and watch this video "Milton Friedman - The Free Lunch Myth" (kzbin.info/www/bejne/j57UoHZ-h5ZnpJo) and you'll see how it will actually be the individual who ends up paying both of the 17% taxes (and that's not including sales or property taxes [which he didn’t mention in the video]). So, here’s the point of my post: I propose we eliminate every tax there is, and instigate ONLY a flat 10% tax on sales. Just think about that for a moment. Think of all the awesome things you could go and buy or invest in if a large portion of your paycheck wasn't already robbed before you got it in your hands. As far as I can tell, a flat tax on sales is the only way to implement a fair tax, for everyone, of every class, all across the board. People would only contribute to the degree in which they consume, nothing more; a simple, 10% sales tax on the things they buy. But wait, there’s more. Under this structure, those who are currently not contributing to the system (illegal aliens to name a few) would actually end up paying the same amount of taxes as everyone else. I would love to discuss more on this idea, but I think I’ve said all that I’ll be able to say in a youtube comment (assuming anyone is reading this in the first place). God bless.

[@justaman3419]

MERRY CHRISTMAS AMERICA!!!! With love, from Italy

[@michaelgonzales1365]

Just A Man Merry Christmas to you, friend! Hope the best for my European brethren. Stay safe!

[@farmerpete0768]

The last few years I’ve had ambition to start a business and grow it. I’ve always get hung up on contemplating taxes... my thoughts for a solution was a flat tax. That way I would have incentive to grow my business with out being penalized for being productive. After watching this, I realize it was my thoughts being presented through this PragerU video 👏🏽👏🏽

[@christopher9727]

.. Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Romans 6.23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

[@ornerybeefalo8387]

Why would taking home slightly less profit be a disincentivizing factor for you? You’d still be making money.

[@farmerpete0768]

@@ornerybeefalo8387 because, it’s stealing. The person or household who earns the wealth should have the liberty to decide where the spend their earnings, and “taking” a higher percentage from people who work more, earn more, or produce more is straight up theft. Wealth is private property and the government is not entitled to citizens private property. There is no incentive for people to be more industrious if the government is going to steal more of that.

[@ornerybeefalo8387]

@@farmerpete0768 nice soliloquy, that didn’t answer my question. Why would taking home slightly less more money be a disincentive?

[@farmerpete0768]

@@ornerybeefalo8387 If you work longer or harder and take home less, what is the point of working extra? Say You work for a company, they want you to work an extra 10 hrs this week for overtime but they say they will donate the money you earned to another entity. Where is your incentive to work and take home slightly less?

[@OverLordthe1st]

Boy do I hate taxes, I say this as someone who pays it but is also a beneficiary of it as a student on federal student aid. I understand the complexity of the system and know that primary reason why I have to go to government to get help with my tuition is because colleges drove up prices because they know government would help, the very sad irony. Knowing this and get the help I do, I still complain, fairly of course. The summer before my first semester I got a factory job which allowed unlimited number of hours to work at. I had nothing to do and needed to money for college so I said what the heck. I worked 56 hours my first week, when I got my first check I saw that 25% of my hard earned money went to taxes, that's alot. Boy do I hate taxes

[@OmmerSyssel]

OverLordthe 1st What's the problem? You start recognising depending on public money then complain you are expected to pay your share.. Snowflake..? By the way, in my region of the world taxes are around 40-70% + sale taxes 20 - 25%. Free health care & education with subvention no matter age or study.. No ones dreaming of revolution, except some left over communist who no one cares about

[@jmpbus5086]

ArrigAutist lol guy, he addressed that he was a beneficiary, he's saying it would be fine to not have financial aid, if we had a better tax plan.

[@moonsmonsters]

ArrigAutist Donald chump

[@coopsnz1]

Because the government , pushed up your university owners cost

[@brauliofernandesss]

In Brazil the government implemented a program of scholarships (partial or total) to fund students in private colleges/universities. It helped a lot of students but also inflated prices. Tuition skyrocket. Now it's impossible to pay, for example, for a course of medicine (MD) unless you fit the social categories (very poor) or are super rich, middle class is out of the game.

[@yukonjack8103]

17% flat tax rate would be wonderful! The trick would be keeping politicians from ratcheting it up over time.

[@emperoralvis6559]

Aka impossible. Smash the state into a million pieces.

[@davekohler5957]

That's why the fair tax is better.

[@anastasiab9506]

the "fair" tax is better for lazy people who sit on welfare. I pay almost 40% in taxes and am considered "middle class" while my take away income is less than that of a leech that works part time under the table, gets foodstamps and subsidized housing and free healthcare, paid by me.

[@CadetGriffin]

If we assume all Americans' taxable income is $14 trillion, a 17% flat tax rate would give the government $4.147 trillion each year. (when other taxes are added) The government spent $4.147 trillion in 2017, so it fits. But if they wanted to get more in income tax revenue than they spend, then a 30% flat tax rate would give the government $4.2 in income tax revenue alone.

[@chris532008]

Yukon Jack it would quickly approach 100 percent or better

[@hamnchee]

I like the idea of a flat tax, but 17% is TOO DAMN HIGH.

[@hamnchee]

And also, the poor should not be exempt. The cut off point for exemption at the low end should not be the "poverty line" (which is an arbitrary, always changing amount based on individual needs), but on the point of diminishing returns for the government, that is to say, if it costs more to collect the tax than the amount collected, don't bother (which is what they do anyway, they just say it's a break for the poor in order to sound altruistic).

[@vinnycgaz1]

Visda58 i was thinkn more like 10

[@emperoralvis6559]

The rich should pay 0% The upper middle class should pay 0% The middle class should pay 0% The lower middle class should pay 0% The bottom 20% should pay 0% And the poor should pay 0% Sounds fair to me.

[@Liberty7628]

@@emperoralvis6559 based Ron Paul moment

[@companyboss5447]

Is 15% fine?

[@andraslibal]

10%. No exceptions. No loopholes.

[@nsebast]

20%: 10% for local, 10% for national. That way both will prosper.

[@Kriss_L]

10% total. Feds, states, and locals can split it.

[@ab5olut3zero95]

Notorious N I’m actually fairly ok with that. I’d prefer 18% split two ways, but I’d settle for 20%.

[@Golfnut_2099]

@@ab5olut3zero95 Would it get rid of State Sales Taxes... Probably not. Hell, Washington voters have voted for $30 car tabs NUMEROUS times. I think I paid $160 this year!

[@StreetWarrior24]

You are a genius. 🔥

[@goldrushpro]

Taxation is extortion... ex·tor·tion ikˈstôrSH(ə)n/Submit noun the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

[@6B26asyGKDo]

And extortion is THEFT!

[@voluntarism335]

you still need a functional government though, the courts of the government is very important, and public services, have a flat tax of 10% cut a lot of wasteful spending and leave it at that, so the government can still have a military but budget better for it

[@OttoTheSmartass]

"The problem with other people's money is that you eventually run out of socialism." - Margaret Thatcher

[@checkmatearmament2281]

Otto the Smartass , Close Otto, very close!!!

[@matthewbrooks8512]

This is pretty funny

[@orppranator5230]

Its actually true. Eventually people use their money to put on the hockey mask and get rid of socialism.

[@1krani]

Lolz

[@emperoralvis6559]

Yeah but Real® Socialism® hasn't been tried

[@bryanc2262]

No income tax is justifiable, instead the only fair tax is a consumption tax. You pay taxes only when you spend money, and items considered basic (i.e. WIC items) wouldn't be taxed, and items like vices and luxuries (i.e. Alcohol, tobacco, and high-end consumer goods) can be taxed at a higher rate. Money you save isn't taxed, only that which you spend. It would encourage saving and thriftiness in those who have limited means.

[@Usenabt]

Bryan C watch prices skyrocket

[@mr.redneck2715]

Bryan C There goes the auto and housing industry. Or exempt this and that. Back to where we were.

[@jacobmatagi2227]

Bryan C I love the idea, but in application doesn't seem as practical as a flat income tax

[@tannersmith2791]

Bryan C You realize that the rich can keep their wealth forever by investing it and living off the returns and passing it down? Not justifiable for who? It is not justifiable for the middle class or the rich?

[@karozans]

+Tanner Smith Under the Fair Tax, capital gains are taxed as well because they are goods and services that are bought and sold at the end user level. What's wrong with letting the rich keep the money that they rightfully earned? You do realize that when a billionaire invests money in something, that the money is paid to employees who work for the corporation, right?

[@mroverdose14]

I have recently looked more into tax reform as I have jumped into a higher tax bracket. I agree with the flat rate and always wondering (even when I had limited knowledge of this) why do people pay different rates ….. that's highly unfair.

[@oceanwaves83]

I support the Fair Tax (federal sales tax) instead of income tax. Yes, I realize we would have to do away with the 16th amendment, otherwise we'd surely end up with an income AND sales tax, but I think it would be worth it. 1. Conceptually speaking, income tax inherently punishes people trying to better themselves, while the fair tax punishes everyone much more equally. 2. There is an innumerable amount of people who do not pay taxes. Drug dealers, illegal aliens, "under the table" workers, and various other criminals. Under the Fair Tax, these people cannot avoid paying taxes. 3. Who knows how many billionaires and multi-millionaires that don't work, because they don't have to? They have no income, so they pay no taxes. Under the Fair Tax, these super rich people would be paying a lot in taxes. 4. The Fair Tax includes a rebate for families near the poverty line. 5. Basic food items are not taxed anywhere close to luxury items. 6. It would be much harder for people to avoid paying taxes. 7. All the complications of filing income tax would be gone. 8. It's time we gave a little more power to the people. YOU decide how much tax you pay, and only YOU know how much money you make. For those reasons alone, I support the Fair Tax. With the Fair Tax, EVERYONE pays taxes, not just honest people legally employed.

[@chris532008]

eliminate these burdensom social programs which hinder society neither sales tax or income tax are necessary

[@funny1048youtube]

and if you make uneven amounts of income each year such as a small business with progressive tax it can become a nightmare to figure out what percent to set aside but with a flat tax you can just set aside a set percentage of every paycheck minus deductions

[@edp-theeverydayprepper5686]

There's a video on KZbin Somewhere of Vice President Pence supporting the fair tax many years ago. It really is a great plan.

[@jsan6967]

@Notus Notus it's not just rich people who get inheritance.

[@jsan6967]

@Notus Notus just because people can be greedy doesn't mean the government has the right to take money from a family.

[@hedgeknight3194]

But wouldn't eliminating the income tax for the poor motivate people to stay earning less than 52.00 a year?Stimulating then not to grow? while taxing them as well would do the exact opposite?

[@MrLM002]

Mr. Grievous Arcantos12 Maybe it will incentivise Americans to do jobs normally done by illegal immigrants.

[@hedgeknight3194]

Asher Raza tax in 17% the poor as well, like everyone, taxing the same flat levels as everyone should encorage them to increase thei gains, so they would keep more money, or reduce this amount to 15%, this shiuld still be low enough and reasonably flat so they would have a reason to increase their livings

[@user-km6uo3gi7u]

Some will but those are the so desperate not to pay the tax that they won't strive to earn money so they won't get the luxuries you could have later however there would be a limbo where it is better to stay down but if you hold a good job ( which there will be some more soon) then once you pass that limbo and make more money you won't have more taken from you except for a % so you will always earn more and thus have the capability to buy luxuries people would want

[@aaronbecker8788]

Yes, that IS how it works now, and I assume would continue in the flat tax plan

[@hedgeknight3194]

***** Ohhh, now it makes sense, really this makes much more sense actually, i thought you would get taxes 17% on 55k, my bad, so this proposal is much better now

[@Fullyautomagic]

0% seems pretty flat

[@williamjewell6247]

But it also doesn't work. How will we get national defence? That is a legitimate government function. Police force? How will the government do anything with no money. We'll start with a percentage and work from there.

[@cydra-evolution5623]

He is obviously kidding. Although there are private police forces and private militias, we still need to pay for courts and elected officials.

[@damiancajero2243]

William brought up a great point. Taxes have been demonized as horrible atrocities by the far right, but taxes are not inherently bad. One thing you need to think of is that when you cut taxes is this: What were those taxes paying for, and what will we lose as a result?

[@IL_Bgentyl]

Privatize it all. Our country is strong due to a war behind every door not our military.

[@IL_Bgentyl]

@@damiancajero2243 lining politicians pockets and checking the boxes of bureaucracy. The government is not efficient at allocating funds.

[@mslnie]

Income tax is THEFT! The Constitution affords government the right to tax in two ways: 1) Direct and 2) Indirect. Income tax falls under NEITHER. The Federal government is FAR too big and needs to be cut. If they could maintain a small government - as described in the Constitution (You know.... the law of this Republic?) then they would have no need to ROB citizens of their hard owned money. The IRS was created to pay for the Civil War. It - and the Federal Reserve (another topic) - needs to GO!!!!!

[@deaconblooze1]

And when you advocate for this as a presidential candidate, you end up getting smeared by both sides of the aisle.

[@youme2407]

NamelessHere Forevermore because its real change. you can only run on wanting real change, and once elected keeping the system standing.

[@DG-xh8fz]

The problem with a flat tax is the government can't be trusted to keep it flat. I'm for a national sales tax, and a complete elimination of Income taxes. You're income should be private information.

[@John-zh6ld]

Excellent Steve. For 150 years the tax was 7% and it came from import/export. It served as a safety net, covered schools, etc... everything.

[@WeAreWafc]

Stupid Storm - And the US was the richest country per capita back then alongside gun-loving libertarian Switzerland

[@SamClemens-d5n]

Every income tax system, no matter how it is structured, is antithetical to liberty. Why? Every income tax system, no matter how it is structured, assumes that the government has the right to know your personal financial information. It REQUIRES the government to know your personal financial information. That is the BASIS of any income tax. Yes, this is even true of Mr. Forbes flat tax proposal. Worse, his system informs the government of your family details, as well. Only the retail sales tax, the only truly ANONYMOUS tax, preserves liberty.

[@0MikematicOnUTube0]

Wasn't the Boston Tea Party a revolt of several taxes, not just the one on sugar and tea?

[@maddizzle1744]

0MikematicOnUTube0 Well, the prime reason for dumping British tea was because of the tax, but it was caused by pent up anger from all the other taxes too

[@neegotet5832]

Yeah, that was just the "last straw".

[@maddizzle1744]

RAND ST.GERMAINE Basically

[@CatholicTraditional]

Tea.

[@chiopix2]

The prime reason was that the people in the colonies had to pay taxes to the government in London, but weren't represented in the parliament.

[@dontwannahaverealnamexddd6778]

this isnt a flat tax.. this is a tax bracket proposal. having 0% under 52k is a bracket and 17% over 52k is bracket 2. jesus.

[@pohenixwielki3178]

You can look at it that way, but not even the best lawyer tells me that Google, or Amazon earns less that 50k year

[@ssruiimxwaeeayezbbttirvorg9372]

52k is only for 2+2 family. Its flat with only deductions for adult/child.

[@andrewblocher9110]

It’s not a bracket, that implies there are multiples over 2 options. Google it. This proposal is simply “above $$ pay taxes, below $$ no taxes.” Beyond that your argument is over semantics. You don’t like that the new system would replace “brackets”… just find a more suitable word.

[@anondabomb]

What about the deductions? He said four people, thus there are theoretically four deductions handling 25% of the rate each if split equally. That means as soon as they earn a dollar more they get taxed due to no longer having a net zero tax rate, it is mathematics.

[@AltKuyperian]

Post this again, this was done 4 years ago and not enough people have heard of it, it’s time to push harder

[@jgesselberty]

A flat tax would take away the ability of politicians to vilify segments of society. And, that is why we will never see it.

[@utubesurfer1102]

look into N.E.S.A.R.A

[@smicksmookety]

Aren't "no tax" and 17% two rates...?

[@andy4an]

definitely.

[@emperoralvis6559]

Should be 0% and 0%

[@metaphor239]

Lol

[@GameFuMaster]

+Emperor Alvis then enjoy mafia style ruling. No courts to help you out buddy. Society won't be able to function either since everyone's probably constantly at war.

[@Jamac007]

@@emperoralvis6559 so who are you going to call when your family gets kidnapped or when your house is on fire or when your country is being invaded by terrorism or when your roads and bridges are damaged because of no upkeep?

[@GaryRicker78]

I agree, but why 17%? Why not 10%?

[@mattajoh]

Gary Ricker yeeez stop it i get 40k in a year after tax i have 30k

[@WeAreWafc]

The lower the better, but baby steps have to be made first. 👍 Eventually I’d like to get to a stage where personal income isn’t taxed at all and we just have a consumption tax (Libertarian Party policy) instead.

[@dylanmonnier3559]

@@WeAreWafc the only problem without taxes is we need it for roads and schools.

[@WeAreWafc]

Dylan Monnier - I’d be willing to pay a voluntary donation in order for specific things like roads to be built. Wouldn’t you? As for schools, we should move to a voucher system of education where everyone gets a voucher worth X amount to spend on school fees. This will especially help middle class parents who currently struggle to afford private school fees.

[@dylanmonnier3559]

@@WeAreWafc I personally would, but there's plenty of people who don't. And because they don't have to, they won't.

[@mike398100]

Make America rich again

[@WeAreWafc]

Xftbllplyr - Don’t be jealous

[@ZeusAndKiller]

Wtf? No! Why would anyone be inclined to work harder than $52.8k/ year? If 10% is good enough for the Lord, the government can work with way less. But EVERYONE would pay it

[@TIB1973]

LOL, 10% is not what the lord is asking, he doesn't need the money....its his greedy salesmen who figured to use his name to get rich. Go home with your pastor, the lamb of god, and see what house he lives in.

[@ZeusAndKiller]

@@TIB1973 10% is in the Bible so...

[@TIB1973]

@@ZeusAndKiller which is man made, translated several times, each generation adding their own version, we have 22 different versions of this man made book because when enough people believe something should be different they create a new one to peddle their brainwashing on to their children...... The original teachings that Jesus followed and taught were 33 pages long....the rest is each generation adding their control.

[@TIB1973]

@@ZeusAndKiller also,tithing was added to the Bible in 567.....567 years after the death of Jesus....

[@lorenamares1427]

Same thought I had; God works miracles even at 10%. Ah, dang that Caesar!

[@brodyhagemeier9356]

"It's time for another Tax Revolution."

[@NateTheLawyer]

This is the first PragerU video I will share. Nice work. #FlatTax

[@WyattHD]

Why the 1st!? They have tons of great informative factual videos that help open the eyes of the lemmings...

[@fastandbulbous9697]

@@WyattHD They don't. Most of their videos are poorly informed and researched shyte.

[@danceballetacro]

this is one of the best prager u vids yet!!!!!!!

[@wwrite]

@fast and bulbous can you back up your statement with facts, please?

[@fastandbulbous9697]

@@wwrite Well, you could show me a single well made political video on this channel and I could tell you how it sucks.

[@SolidSnake59]

How about my plan, it's called "No Income Tax whatsoever"? It creates more pathology than you can imagine.

[@NN-sj9fg]

The FairTax has been proposed in congress year after year. Image no tax filings - April 15th would be another lovely spring day - - and totally eliminate the IRS.

[@henry5807]

There should be a flat sales tax. Income and property taxes should be abolished.

[@idnotapplicable]

Rand Paul had the closest tax plan to this video's. Too bad he isn't the president elect.

[@idnotapplicable]

***** only decent candidate out of the lot imo

[@Sdawkminn]

I liked Ted Cruz, too. And the Fair Tax Act is my tax of choice.

[@idnotapplicable]

Horror Versions I personally did not like Ted Cruz. especially after his campaign sent voting grades to Iowans. he also says he is a liberty candidate but he votes with the party and is a warmonger. rand votes for the Constitution and is non interventionist. Cruz's was a 10℅ flat tax while Rands was a 14.5℅ which is closer to the one in the video. Rand was a much better choice than Cruz.

[@Sdawkminn]

literalcringe Yeah, I just meant when it was down to the 4 Republicans left. I didn't get too involved until that point.

[@danieltimothygarcia999]

Cruz would have been way, way better than what we got.

[@michaelholderegger645]

"we should create a flat tax because when you have two different brackets, they multiply and turn into the 7 we have today" ---Creates two brackets by exempting certain income levels...

[@alexanderkilburg7415]

Good point. A flat tax rate incentivizes making more money. I also think we should abolish tariffs so we would have to be the most economically free country in order to be competitive. Businesses should not pay taxes; just tax the people in the business. We should stop taxing property, and only tax income.

[@edwardduering5776]

That's the moment I stopped watching the video!

[@SovereignStatesman]

A sales-tax IS a flat tax, but Prager U doesn't want that.

[@brookeking8559]

I inferred not a 0% bracket but that family would be pay no tax because of their personal exemptions for the couple and two children. That said, I haven’t read Forbes’ book so you could be right.

[@totallylegit7796]

Not only fair, but necessary. Everyone needs to know just how much they pay in taxes. If they have to cut the government a check every year, people would be a lot more careful with how they vote.

[@isaaccox737]

Or....we could abolish federal income taxes...

[@brettwillis1252]

The unfortunate reality is that not one red scent of the personal income tax goes to the operational costs of the government. It simply pays the interest to the federal reserve for the money they print for us. This explains why someone who is not married & has 6 children receives over $11000 back on an income tax return after paying no income tax at all. Most Americans pay very little if any income tax when the refund is factored in. So what is the point exactly? Other than controlling the populous, there isn't much of one. That & keeping the citizens at odds with each other. It's a very sinister & corrupt system in my opinion, but by all means please keep fighting amongst yourselves so that nothing actually gets resolved.

[@WDWDad]

Wow the stupidity in these comments hurts my head.

[@jaypatel7426]

Also if we have to pay taxes everyone should. Because if we don't then the guy who makes one dollar more than $52500 has to pay taxes while the guy who make one dollar less doesn't.

[@a.maus.2615]

Jay Patel sounds like the greatest reason to spend a dollar towards charity but I see what you mean.

[@romainbriot86]

Jay Patel No the guy would pay a tax on the 1 dollar not the whole amout.

[@askiny6576]

The first 52500$ would of course be tax free for everyone. Every other dollar that goes beyond that level will be taxed.

[@jim7771]

Yes, and that guy making $1 more would pay 17 cents in tax.

[@Arthur-fz5dw]

"Yes, and that guy making $1 more would pay 17 cents in tax." 17% of 1$ I guess.

[@leeuniverse]

Actually, a "Consumption Tax" is the best tax solution..... Flat/Fair Tax is the right direction, but the only true solution is a Consumption Tax. You consume more, aka the rich, you're taxed more. You consume less, aka the poor, you're taxed less. However, that's what we should have had this entire time, but we haven't.... In the coming future with increased Technology and the changing work force, we are going to have to change to a "Star Trek" type of economy, one that still works like the current one, but "Credits" are the cash.... and this will also solve the homeless, people not living in proper housing etc. problems. The catch is, it also solves the welfare state problem, because EVERYONE is required to work according to their ability, even the disabled, and per skills, businesses are required to allow people to work. This will also allow people to work less at certain jobs where they are overworked, so they can be home more for family, thus helping to create a better society. Trade is still done, but instead of money it's goods. And the more other countries follow, credits can start to be part of that Trade, not simply goods. This is ultimately the only workable solution to the problems both sides have with each other, and makes a truly prosperous and fair society.... for all.

[@andrewternet8370]

But wouldn't that discourage people from buying things? As the more they buy, the more they're taxed, less people want to buy stuff. And thus, as less stuff is bought, businesses dependent on trade start crashing. I know this comment is a year late, but could you elaborate? Thanks.

[@andrewternet8370]

Who, me?

[@leeuniverse]

Not at all.... I'm not talking about "extreme" taxes here. Let's say your taxed 3% for a food item. Then, you have a "Yacht", you would be taxed say 25%. Now, that may seem like alot, but be aware that the people who can afford a Yacht pay like 50% or more of their income in taxes right now. Nevertheless, 25% in taxes would simply be nothing to a rich person if they actually want a Yacht, it's a big purchase item, so at that income level it's nothing. Also, I think they are already taxed really high for such items, so no big deal there. I hope that makes sense. As to whether I'm a "radical right-wing extremist", I don't know how at all you get that from my post, I'm a true blue Conservative. I simply think on how problems can actually be solved because only thinking "traditional" isn't solving some problems and it allows the Left to fill the void with their absolutely terrible tyrannical and burdening solutions. Further, what is a "radical right-wing extremist". To me that's an Anarchist, they are the extreme of the Right, love freedom so much they want Anarchy. Forget your leftist schooling in which you were told Nazi'ism was on the "Right", absolutely nothing about Nazi'ism was on the Right, they were National Socialists, which is 100% on the Left. Anyway, as to my solution, it's just being realistic. With the debt and the federal reserve, we are already living in the "beginnings" of a type of economy that I'm talking about, but of course, it's not good to sustain the current system, the artificial propping up of the currency. We need to fully switch to what I'm talking about changing the monetary system to a "virtual" one, or the consequences will likely be bad. The system will still be capitalist, but filling the the gaps with the virtual, since money isn't "backed" by anything other than barter, labor, and production, i.e. the capitalist system still being in place, nothing bad will happen when switching to my system.

[@leeuniverse]

I would like to further add that my consumption tax idea for the average person would only fund State/Local. The Federal government would be funded by the rich with either part of all of their consumption taxes, (in the past only the rich funded Federal). (note, I'm not 100% sure on this, I would need #'s people to go over this with me to see if it's doable, may or may not need a portion of consumption taxes to go to Feds for all, have to flesh this out more). This would allow the government to be reduced. Further, the government under my system wouldn't need to be very large anyway, though my solutions for the government is another discussion. I would also like to mention that taxes would only occur on Mortgages, which is a form of consumption, once you have no mortgage on a home, you don't pay taxes anymore on it, thus there's no longer this permanent slavery to the state and being burdened by the state for owning a home/property.

[@Bladeslap1]

I like a consumption tax instead. Buy a lot, pay more tax. Spend less pay less. No taxes to file for the public.

[@usnationalist]

I am happy with flat taxes. Way better than consumption taxes. The brackets we have now aren't really the problem ... 4 [or however many] brackets of tiered taxes isn't that hard. It's all the deductions and credits that complicate the system.

[@andy4an]

exactly! 7 brackets is very simple.

[@chris532008]

Erik Back maybe sales tax on used property to curb selling stolen pe

[@chris532008]

Stolen property snd obsoleting property already owned

[@chris532008]

if any consumption tax is considered it should be only on the basis of used property being secondarily sold such tax would benefite the environment by curtailing the disposible society possibly curb theft as the following the paper work may expose some criminals

[@ledopmi]

I'd like to see a comparison of the Flat tax to the Fair tax. I see pros and cons for each.

[@tomfig6424]

The problem with the fair tax is the definition of fair is to subjective

[@v2joecr]

We said no taxation without representation. it wasn't until King George tried to seize our firearms that we finally declared independence.

[@josephpostma1787]

And they know what would happen if they tried the big steal again.

[@benjaminrodriguez2918]

The American Revolution was not started solely over a tax issue. The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances... taxation without consent is #17 on the list. Even so, flat tax is the way to go.

[@woodsie5474]

Another type of "taxation without representation" is all the added taxes when you take off and land at an airport hub on the way to a final destination, or the excessive taxes on motel rooms, or restaurants that they impose on visitors that spend a couple days in a tourist area. They could not vote on it, so why tax them? Because they have no choice but to pay up. Most of the time you don't even know how much the taxes are until you get there.

[@rutger5000]

If some people pay 0% tax, and others pay 17% it isn't a flat tax. Other then that I lack the economical know how to know wetter this is a good idea. I mean of course the tax code should be simplified, and loopholes need to be cut. But I don't know if going to a flat tax would be best.

[@chi8514]

Will-I- Am no argument just insult

[@CharlieJindra]

rutger5000 I'm pretty sure they mean that anything above the $52,800 would be taxed, making it still the same for everyone.

[@rutger5000]

Charlie Jindra Owh that actually does make sense. Thanks for pointing it out. Though I wonder if this will bring enough revenue into the USA government for it to run. You'd probably have to cut back massively on defense (I'm a big supporter of that)

[@carlosivandegodoy]

rutger5000 Wetter? please explain... what is "wetter"?

[@rutger5000]

Degodoy Carlos You've got me I made a spelling error. Congrats, I hope you feel smart.

[@antonio4114]

Everyone tweet this video at Donald Trump!

[@firehawk8521]

Antonio C Steve Forbes wealthy as billionaire. wants a flat tax to pay way less. we will pay the same

[@LifeLifemoreAbundantly]

This video is good but the flat tax needs to be 10% for ALL with no loopholes.

[@LifeLifemoreAbundantly]

If Forbes pays 17% and he makes 1 billion a year, Forbes would then pay 117,000,000 dollars in taxes. What median income person is paying 117 million dollars in taxes?

[@SMCwasTaken]

He needs to abolish tariffs too

[@fliegeroh]

I think any discussion of taxes must include a discussion on the "problem of spending." It seems that the Federal Government keeps taxing and spending and borrowing. How about putting some "budget controls" on the people in Congress who seem to have forgot how to "create a budget" and stick to it. It's one of Congress' main functions. But does anyone remember when we last had a real budget instead of a "continuing resolution?" Also, a line item veto by the President, would be a great check on "pork barrel" spending. But who am I trying to kid? These ideas have been proposed over and over again. Now, they aren't even talked about anymore. A "flat tax" is still only a "band aid on a gunshot wound". It won't "solve" much for very long.

[@TheRosa63]

17 percent would be 13000 dollars for us. that is hardly cheaper, or fair. why not just eliminate the income tax on average americans since income taxes is a direct tax, unconstitutional. also income taxes only applied to profits off corporate activity not livlihood wages working to put food on the table. many people are being forced to declare themsleves a corporation (person, individual etc). why not allow people to take exemption as they aer not a corporation and have not contracted with the governement willingly to be so?

[@CatholicTraditional]

Income taxes are constitutional per the 16 amendment.

[@TheRosa63]

income taxes are constitutonal for profit oreinted activity. not for making a living. are you a person? I am not a person i am a folk, living soul but never a person, aperson is defined even in regular dictionaries I hae checked as an actor, someone who wears a mask, I dont ware one only corporations wear them. they are persons that is why courts have ruled it as such. corporations are persons. you and I are living souls, or commom man whatever terms they want to use. they have taken common words and changed defintions without telling us. by the way you cannot have add amendment that violates the rest of the constitution, they must harmonize. there is even some question that the 16 amendment was never really ratified, be it as it may, it only applies to corporations.

[@edikitt]

yeah, 17% seems a bit high, that's nearly one fifth of a person's earnings!

[@BlasphemyWerks0]

It is 1/6 rounded up to a whole number for simplicity.

[@michaelgonzales1365]

I think 10% flat tax for all and get the heck outta my life government. Wasn't this supposed to be a tiny limited government anyways?!

[@MrTableturns]

I don't understand, in the US does the government take the tax directly from your income? In NZ when I get my pay check each week it's already had the taxes, so I never have to sit down and "do my taxes". Is this not the same in the US?

[@dugyfresh92]

I'm no expert but I interned as a tax prep in college. Your explanation is pretty spot on

[@johnwaugh5372]

They take significantly more of it than than they should and then make you sit down and full out ridiculous amounts of paperwork before they give you any of the difference back, and they don't even pay interest on it

[@christopherbullock1209]

John Waugh I personally don't have ridiculous amounts of paperwork at the moment, but everything you said is spot on.

[@liamcollins9183]

The NZ tax code is pretty simple compared to the US. Plus we only pay tax to the Government in Wellington, but in the US you usually have to pay Federal, state, and local taxes, so its multi layered, which makes it more complex

[@jamiemalokas3693]

Liam Collins The USA tax code is 10,000 pages and is revised every year. The IRS has 100,000 employees. The Fair Tax would in fact be much fairer. With the wealthy paying a large percentage of all taxes. Unfortunately the USA Congress doesn't work on common sense. It is driven and controlled by the lobbyists and the special interests they represent. Like government workers (IRS), the tax preparation industry, and the people who benefit the most from the many deductions written into the 10,000 pages of tax code.

[@brycelooney7287]

5% not 17% is more than enough. Less government the better.

[@WeAreWafc]

Baby steps 😁

[@williamjewell6247]

The only problem is there are a couple of things that government actually does need to provide, like national defense. We'll see how it plays out with 17%, and move from there.

[@SMCwasTaken]

​@@williamjewell6247 for what? Invading foreign countries for no reason?

[@NinjaFlibble]

I wonder if it would be better to have no income tax, but a high sales tax. This way, as my dad puts it, you're not penalized for saving your money

[@AndrewVaughanOfficial]

To decrease taxes we need to reduce debt. To reduce debt we need to cut spending. To cut spending we need to stop fighting unnecessary wars.

[@AndrewVaughanOfficial]

Brutus Tan You are a master of extrapolation.

[@AndrewVaughanOfficial]

Well, if you look at what the Republicans have done about the economy, then you look at the results, I'd say that it's best that we learn from our mistakes rather than push for an agenda that has a history of failing. I'd be more skeptical of self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives for the time being, the economy under politicians such as Reagan and Bush has suffered years later. To push for an immediate flat tax in a rapidly changing global economy isn't a wise choice of action. What we should do is actually focus on what we're spending our money on, like the F-35 program, which is wasting a lot of money, or the Zumwalt-class destroyer, which we're spending billions of dollars on when they haven't even been proven to be practical in combat. We spend a lot on the military and warfare for a reason, but there are places we can cut back.

[@Poglavnit_Pferdefuhrer]

the VA and military account for almost 40%, based on their single-payer vid. That's hardly 'socialist,' unless you're a Soviet, lol.

[@daltonbarrett6404]

I was all in til he said people making under $52 grand don't have to pay. Thats called welfare/socialism

[@v205]

No, it is called looking after the lower income families. Similar concept to looking after people with disabilities. It is taking some good from the socialistic spectrum to apply to the unequal blessing of the capitalistic spectrum needed to have the ability to apply selective socialistic ideals to those in real needs.

[@SingPrayPaint]

The only rebuttal I would offer to this is: when you implement a flat tax you eliminate incentive for charitable contributions. Then wouldn't that result in an enormous burden on the welfare system and cause many charity organizations to fold? Wouldn't it better benefit charities if the income tax process included a portion earmarked for charity, then give the taxpayer an option to choose the charity that it benefits (i.e. local church, Samaritan's purse, etc., or split it between orgs)?

[@brookeking8559]

You have a point, but plenty of people today donate without taking deductions and did before there was a federal income tax.

[@akaabir5002]

when someone does charity while keeping tax deduction on back of their mind is that even charity? if someone wants to give they will give no matter what.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

The government, having inserted itself into the charity business for votes, has already managed to do this. There were more charitable donations during the age of the so-called robber barons than there are now.

[@chadhunts6202]

My problem is that taxes hurt the middle class in unfair ways, I usually pay in 15-20,000 a year in taxes and get back maybe 1500(last year I had to pay in), I have a friend who on average pays in 7-10,000 and because of multiple children has gotten back 14-16,000 the last few years, so here is my problem with this, he makes under certain amounts and with the kids, he gets food assistance, rent assistance, heat assistance, and other help every month, so when he gets his tax return he can afford to buy extravagant toy's (Boat, Camper, and new Harley last 3 years) So not only does he spend the taxes I pay in, he gets to blow it on things I can't afford (Well maybe I could if I don't save for retirement) and be saved the rest of the year by more taxpayer dollars! The current welfare/tax system hurts the middle class and helps the poor too much and what's the incentive to try and do better? Then even he says he won't be able to afford the toys... I don't believe you should be able to get back thousands more than you pay in, at least for years and years... I have no problem helping the needy, but not all these others who are doing just fine! I would be all for a flat tax where everyone pays their share, but NOONE gets back more than they paid in for more than 1 year!

[@ny1t]

Didn't Forbes' flat tax have loopholes? Everyone has their idea of fair. But each of these usually involve some form of identity politics. The problem with Forbes idea is it assumes a "fair" tax is on income. Others assume a "fair" tax is on spending such as Fairtax. I guess those are fine if you want to assume the government SHOULD have a list of all law abiding humans in the country and what their relationship is to the filer. I don't. Given the choice of income tax or sales tax, I might prefer a sales tax that doesn't keep lists, such as without a prebate. I don't think it could be more simple though it gives the government a steady income to waste and misappropriate. Then Forbes takes the stance of the Marxist that the "rich" should pay more. Why? It IS the reason for the problems we face. Because the "poor" do not pay their share of the federal bill, they will vote for anything a politician like Forbes manages to sell them on, such as the "rich" paying their "fair" share. Forbes is "rich" so he assumes the authority to speak for other "rich" people. This idea is counter to the principles in the Declaration that all men are created equal. It is counter to the principle that people shall be treated equal. It is counter to the principle of unalienable right to property. Let them violate property rights and you might get a president that thinks bribing public officials so they will steal another citizens land through CRONY eminent domain is good for the country. My thought is that the federal government should come up with a spending budget and bill equally across the population. I think originally the states were billed according to population, apportioned. Federal government is not tracking individual citizens this way. It would be up to the states to tax the lower governments or the people. If such a system were enacted and a family of four got their share of the federal spending, current at $12,300 per man, woman and child annually, so a bill of $49,200, they would be all over politicians to reduce spending and return to Constitutional government. What Obama referred to having skin in the game. Of course he meant when it favored what he wants, big government. Use their words against them. We can't use their internment camps or their weaponized government agencies, because unlike them we know right from wrong. This form of taxation would solve the true problem of unconstitutional SPENDING. In our current system this family of four might not have to pay any federal taxes, might actually get back more than they paid, so they have no incentive to vote against things not delegated by the Constitution. Of course selfishness rules in tyranny. Some would complain that there should be a family loop hole. Some would complain because it would cost them more, others would complain that they pay their "fair" share of other taxes, and others would complain something else. Everyone wants their private loophole at the expense of others including their grand children. Look how many accepted the so called tax cut that pushed the burden on other and allowed them to increase spending assuring the need for more taxes and pushing more of the burden. "Can we simultaneously love our children and betray their generation and generations unborn?" - Mark Levin We are that stupid.

[@WeAreWafc]

The less tax revenue the government gets, the better.

[@wow1022]

i love giving a nice car to the fed every year, don't you?

[@williamjewell6247]

Rip

[@Kubqo95]

In 2003 there was a flat tax reform in Slovakia, it boosted our economy so much, it even exceeded predictions. But then social democrats took power for 10 years

[@yeahwhateveridc6062]

Are the social-dems still in power & hows the economy now?

[@Kubqo95]

@@yeahwhateveridc6062 they are not finally after 12 years. Obviously flat tax is not a thing anymore, bureaucracy went up, we cannot even effectivelly use available eurofonds because of that bureaucracy. We went down in every economic list by like 20 - 30 places. Elections were in february, from 4 parties in coalition, the biggest is mostly populist but other 3 will hopefully do some economic reforms because its abysmal, we slept for too long

[@sailormandave1]

A flat tax does not abolish the IRS nor the 16th amendment. It’s still you under the thumb of the government. Your income shouldn’t be any of the governments business. The FAIRTAX does away with the IRS. You keep ALL of your income and you pay tax only when you buy something new. EVERYONE PAYS. But the poor get a tax refund up to the amount of poverty level spending. The rich pay more because they spend more. MUCH FAIRER. AND SIMPLER.

[@LucasLima-lc7yb]

I completely understand how annoying declare incomes and another fiscal obligations (I'm accountant in my country, Brazil) the time that we could use doing something really useful for our client like financial planning, tax planning etc, we are expending paying tax to a government that doesn't knows how to apply the taxes

[@hashbrownison]

Taxing income is an abomination to personal liberty and property rights. The 16th amendment needs repealed and thrown into the dustbin of history. The only proper flat tax rate is 0%.

[@CadetGriffin]

How can the government get money without taxes at all?

[@chicks_before_dicks]

The roads you drive on, the lifesaving emergency services, and more, Hash Brown, are built and maintained by taxes. Think a little more in your tiny friggin brain.

[@davekohler5957]

Tizushi Sanxian, my roads argument. How did we have roads before 1913?

[@SeraphsWitness]

This is interesting. I also wonder about Milton Friedman's idea of eliminating all welfare programs in favor of a negative income tax for those under the poverty line. It would eliminate the negative incentive for misbehavior while also providing the basic needs for those people.

[@luisfilipe2023]

A proportional tax ignores that everything else in our economy is regressive. The rich should pay a higher percentage of their income then the middle class because they can afford that

[@memewhomevsminecraft7664]

I remain whole heartily unconvinced by this flimsy argument.

[@whiteyquartz3409]

So if I pay no income tax if I make 52,800 a year, what happens when I make 55,000 a year? I get taxed back down to 46,000 a year...

[@dandundun]

This is the problem with brackets, not flat tax.

[@aaronbecker8788]

Not true. You only get taxed on the amount over $52,800. In your example that would be $2200. 17% of $2200 is only $374 in tax

[@whiteyquartz3409]

Aaron Becker Aha. Thanks man.

[@gitarzzan1]

Even if you make $200,000 per year, the first 52,800 would be tax free under this system.

[@epicurious73]

Dallas Criddle for a family of four. And why should society shoulder the burden for someone else's life choices. You get undeserved rewards for getting married and having children, while the rest of society gets the unrewarded duty of having to pay for your consumption of more public services than a single person that barely uses any. Kill all taxes for everyone and make everyone accountable for their own damn lives through insurance and the free market. Want police and fire protection, buy insurance and let the insurer provide it. Want your kids to be educated, pay for it or home school them. But don't in any way infer to me that having children gives you a claim on mine or anyone else's labor and resources unless they get to claim the same from you and your children in return.

[@tanker9987]

But won't this have a negative effect on employment? What will all the accountants do for jobs?

[@UltimateWaifuXD]

The wealthy would need someone to count their money for them.

[@majorburke9735]

I’m all for a flat tax-after all other taxes, hidden taxes and fees have been eliminated. Otherwise it’s a shell game.

[@DonaldJackassTrump]

EXCTLY! This is why I recommend any so-called liberal/socialist to learn some basic economics before opening their big mouths and spout 'higher taxes', economic regulations', 'living wage' and other bs. btw, check out my Donald Trump remixes.

[@DonaldJackassTrump]

BazBattles lol, tru

[@unknownnwonknu666]

Donald Jackass Trump I don't think that's how legitimate Democrats think but I acknowledge the point

[@botchamaniajeezus]

"everyone I disagree with is a Marxist! an emotional child's guide to economics"

[@philiplarsson2569]

Donald Jackass Trump yet trump is for taxes aka tariffs

[@DonaldJackassTrump]

philip larsson I don't agree with trump, he also lost close to a billion dollar in year!

[@IanConnel]

Awesome but I say No to the arbitrary $52,000 cutoff. Everybody pays their share, and then nobody can complain.

[@knottheory79220]

The thing about it is, if the impetus behind the proposal is to reduce compliance costs, why spend money going after people we do not collect money from? At a certain point the person pays less tax than it costs to collect those taxes if their income is sufficiently low. It does not make sense to tax the lowest incomes if it costs $200 to collect $100 just for example.

[@scarletstark2201]

Well isn't this a fault of the tax collection system? It seems like another loophole that needs to be fixed.

[@adamdavenport8009]

knottheory79220 That's when the IRS would sit on their asses and let tax debt accumulate over the years until it becomes profitable for them to come collect it.

[@tannersmith2791]

Ian Connel When people can't afford to eat they rob and steal. When people are resentful of the massive wealth gap, ...

[@crashandburnbirner]

Tanner Smith no adult in this country goes hungry.

[@geennaam555]

This is exactly how I see it: everyone pays the same percentage, the poorest pay nothing

[@nicolasabbe4668]

A flat tax would be harmfull for the poor and create more of a gap between the rich and the poor. And no it won't be more fair.

[@ikesteroma]

I like the idea of a flat tax, but I like the idea of a consumption tax slightly more.

[@thisnotjesus]

Ike Evans so sales tax. okay except we are talking about income and our current system is the best minus loopholes.

[@binbashbuddy]

You know what a tax loophole is? When you take an available tax deduction it's a legitimate tax avoidance that you deserve, when your wealthier neighbor takes the same deduction it's an insidious loophole that must be closed. See how that works? If a solar company gets an actual check from the government that's a legitimate use of taxes, when an oil company gets the same tax deduction every other industry gets that's an evil subsidy loophole that must be shut down.

[@thisnotjesus]

Thomas Mobley actually there are tax deduction and welfare checks that are exclusive to oil companies. So your argument is invalid.

[@binbashbuddy]

thisnotjesus -- No, oil companies don't get government checks. There are tax deductions available concerning oil that are not available to solar, but the same is true in the other direction and solar companies actually get checks as well (and most who did went bankrupt and the owners made millions). More, if you purchase solar equipment you can use that to get both federal and state tax credits, so the taxpayers are paying for your solar system. Try asking for a tax credit when you buy gas.

[@thisnotjesus]

Thomas Mobley priceofoil.org Yeap, and oil companies get subsidizies just to move Thier oil. I don't think oil companies should get a dime, but solar companies should get subsidizies because we are facing global warming crisis and this is the bare minimum that can be done to curb it.

[@D8W2P4]

Flat rate sales tax only, no other taxes of any kind.

[@jakebramhall3479]

D8W2P4 maybe then you’ll be able to buy a pack of gum for a dollar in every state!

[@WeAreWafc]

Agreed. Tax consumption at 10%, don’t tax income.

[@tammyauletto5216]

That's the exact taxes the iberals say illegal immigrants pay.

[@jackieann5494]

Yes

[@joshualocicero6799]

No taxes period

[@TickedOffPriest]

A flat sales tax with no exemptions would be better.

[@tannersmith2791]

TickedOff Priest better for the rich or better for the middle class?

[@Cjeska]

Would disproportionately hit the poor, since more of their income goes into consumption. You would need another tax rate for necessities like groceries, housing, clothes, books etc, creating more complexity and deviating from the 1-tax-fits-all mantra. Your proposal would basically defeat itself if the government were to implement it.

[@CatholicTraditional]

Then no one would shop for things other than food, clothing, and shelter.

[@Cjeska]

CatholicTraditional Exactly, why would anyone ever buy a car or tv set when the tax is 5% higher? /sarcarsm

[@RonShank]

Check out the FairTax. You'll see that makes even better sense. Everyone pays. The rich, the illegal alien, the drug dealer, the doctor. And you control how much tax you pay by controlling your spending.

[@yardmasterswealtheducation8424]

I would prefer we go back to the U.S. Constitution that does not allow individuals to be federally taxed at all.

[@TheIrishny]

Forbes would have been a great president

[@lorenamares1427]

Another thing I hate are credit scores since these size up every individual against each other based on what we manage to borrow and pay rather than solely looking at the individual’s financial history of paying up alone.

[@rico_1617]

Credit scores are made entirely by private orgs, they are not a consequence of government. The only way to get rid of them is too add more regulation. Which I do support, but I think it highlights the inconsistency and economic illiteracy common in conservative arguments.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

@@rico_1617 Wrong. Credit scores are the result of the fiat currency system and monetary policy. We are forced to invest or our money loses value due to inflation caused by the federal reserve and the fact that money is unmoored from reality. No inconsistency, you're just looking at too small of a window.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

@@rico_1617 Regulations made by big government always favor the lobbyists. Have you never heard of regulatory capture? People are self-interested. Government is not a noble enterprise, especially when power is centralized over a large jurisdiction, which makes it very hard to rein in in any meaningful way.

[@insertname7750]

K everyone throw things into the harbor to protest for this

[@elevatorman5468]

When you look at your paystub, especially if you are middle class or blue collar and working 40 hours or more, it can be depressing seeing how much money in taxes is taken out.

[@ZekeMagnum]

When the US complains about taxes. lol. Here is some EU tax: Your employer pay about 30% tax on you before you are getting payed You pay 30-33% tax on your salary 25% VAT on everything Ish 65% tax per liter gas Road tax for your car. All depends on what type of car you have. 200-400 euros I'd say is average / year (I am not talking about insurance) TV licence. Yes. The Government forces you to pay about 20 euros a month for 2-3 channels that is run by the state. Doesn't matter if you never watch it. You have a TV? PAY UP Then you have extra tax per 100 euros when you make over 5000 something like that And last but not least, the other taxes they force upon different business

[@CrowPlaysHD]

Yep, it's not unusual to see only 40% of your monthly income (if you add insurances)

[@steinadler4193]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate First European Country is Ukraine, a former Soviet State, rank 80. The first bigger European and non former communist state is Belgium at rank 149. If you have cancer and you are poor, you get full treatment in most European states. In a bigger European city you don't need a car, there is public transport everywhere. The people in Europe know, why the pay taxes.

[@WeAreWafc]

Ouch. The EU is a dump to be fair lol

[@TrianglePants]

equality of opportunity>equality of outcome any day same tax for everyone regardless of income (except of course for those on fixed incomes or who otherwise can't afford taxes)

[@caliph20]

lol, in what world is there an actual equality of opportunity?

[@TrianglePants]

caliph20 only an ideal one, unfortunately

[@joshuakohrell7696]

America

[@caliph20]

Joshua Kohrell sarcasm?

[@DuranmanX]

The revolution was started because of unfair representation Being taxed is fine, as long as you have representation

[@ssgpentland8241]

was far more than that actually, but the tax on tea was what most call the last straw. Being forced to quarter British soldiers in YOUR home and feed them YOUR food was also a big issue. Tax without representation was a big one, but unfare taxes by a non caring ruler was too much........but this is also a good time to bring up the fact this will be met with stiff resistance because there are a great number of people who want "the rich" to pay for EVERYTHING and for the so-called "poor" to pay nothing.

[@nohbuddy1]

SSG Pentland The poor pay consumption taxes. Their income is still taxed as well

[@hopoffz]

AmericanNohbuddy ™ except it’s really not, they get a lot of breaks

[@jacobmaziarz3392]

Unfortunately, it may take another Revolution to actually get that flat tax. Right now, there are too many people getting rich off our tax system, and there are few lows they won't stoop to in order to defend it.