“I appreciate the fact that you got a flat tax,”
By on Nov 28th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
“I appreciate the fact that you got a flat tax,”
President Bush said in a brief stopover in Estonia. Bush managed to tout Estonia’s flat income-tax three times. “I am amazed to be in a country that has been able to effect a flat tax in such a positive way,” he added.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
WTF is with that moron and “appreciating” things. I never want to hear “I appreciate” or “….if you will” again…..ever.
“I am amazed to be in a country that has been able to effect a flat tax in such a positive way,†he added.
I think Bush gets amazed that the sun comes up every day or how his Rice Krispies make that noise. He still doesn’t understand how it happens.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:17 pmdoes he even understand what a “flat tax” is? doubtful.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pmThe Estonian economist and former chairman of his country’s parliamentary budget committee stated in September 2005 that “income disparities are rising and calls for a progressive system of taxation are getting louder – this could put an end to the flat tax after the next election”.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:26 pmThe flat tax was part of the neo-con dream for Iraq. It is a fetish for the these people.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:29 pmRove probably told him it meant he could keep more money and that’s all he needed to know. Rich greedy jerk.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:29 pmOf course the flat tax is fair – it does not punish achievement – and that rankles Progs and Progettes alike. I think the Prog movement should stand up for more egalitarian grocery shopping. Anyone with a net worth of (fill in the blank) or an income of (fill in the blank) would pay a “penalty” price for identical groceries. THAT would sure re-distribute some income – and get EVEN with the “evil” rich……
November 28th, 2006 at 12:29 pmOf course Estonia isn’t launching expensive invasions of non-threatening countries now, are they?
And Estonia doesn’t spend as much on their military as all of the rest of the nations on earth combined now, do they?
Must be nice not to have to support an empire.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:30 pmbush appreciates estonia’s flat tax? They have a great economy to be proud of. Much better than the US economy. The flat tax is going swimmingly over there.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:43 pmma – if there were no other taxes anywhere ever, then the flat tax would be “fair.” But since most other taxes are regressive versus income, a progressive income tax is the only way to balance it out. For instance, low income and high income families both pay the same sales tax. Sales tax is regressive since it taxes consumption. Low income families “consume” more of their income than high income families. High income familes are able to save this money and it will accrue interest in savings or investment accounts, hence skewing the balance even further. This allows high income families to earn proportionally more money faster, without working any extra, simply because they earn more. Your tax on gasoline is based on the efficieny of your car and the amount you have to drive, not income. Generally, again, this is regressive. Generally, the wealthy do not drive proportionally more than the poor. Additionally, if you plan to own a home, you pay property tax, water tax, electricity tax, phone tax, and so on, based on the services conumed, not on the income you earn. Many of these are essential and cost the same for rich and poor alike, hence the tax is regressive and not proportional or progressive.
The only way to make a flat tax “fair” is if all other taxes are removed. There is simply NO way to do that, because the United States has way too complicated of a tax structure, replacing all tax funding from all other tax revenues with a single federal universal flat tax is simply impossible.
Even under the current progressive income tax system, the middle class, not the wealthy and not the poor, pay the largest share of their income in taxes. To say the wealthy are being “punished” under the United States’ tax system is completely false.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:53 pmThe Treasury department under Paul O’Neill studied several versions of the flat tax and concluded in all cases that it would create a huge windfall for the ultra-wealthy, and that it would hurt the middle classes either with immediate tax increases, or with large deficits that would lead to future tax increases.
By the way, MA, I’m not done with you and your vile comments yet, I am just too busy to take it on right now.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:59 pmma making false statements? Can it get any weirder?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pmYeah, Steve Forbes pushed the flat tax when he ran for President.
Worked well for him, eh?
Of course, when you’re a billionaire, it really doesn’t matter much how you’re taxed…you still don’t pay any!
I say go with the fair tax.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pmBTW, I put “fair” in quotes in my above post because I believe a progressive (at least slightly) overall tax system is actually the fair tax system for all. I believe this because (among other reasons) of the ability for the wealthy to purchase necessities easier than the middle class or poor, so they should have the tax burden shifted to them somewhat to ease the middle class and poor’s overall tax burden and provide extra revenue for the government’s operation at the expense of “dynasty wealth” (ie, money that would only be passed to heirs for generations of wealth without work — what I like to call the Paris Hilton effect).
That’s my opinion which many may disagree with (especially MA!) even within the progressive community. Many believe in an overall proportional system, which they may even provide good logical reasons for. However, the argument for a USA flat income tax is actually arguing for a regressive overall tax system, which I completely disagree with and see absolutely no legitimate argument for, other than the wealthy seeking to make themselves wealthier at the expensive of everybody else.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pmThe “fair tax” is an interesting concept, much like all libertarian thought projects stemming from “fairness for all with as little government as possible to achieve it” but I’m extremely worried about how it will be implemented in practice and exactly how it would affect the economy. I think it needs a lot more study before it deserves serious support from the progressive community. The economy is much more complex than any of the literature I read on the Fair Tax site makes it out to be. Their “answers” sometimes are just way too easy…
November 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pma flat tax is a good thing as long as there are high enough free amounts.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:17 pmas long as you don’t pay taxes up to the poverty line you don’t need explicit progression because it is built-in.
e.g. if you earn 10k above the poverty line, you pay the full tax on that 10k, but your tax on your overall income ( == poverty income + 10 k) is lower.
LINK
The countries that adopted a flat tax system are proof it doesn’t work as the think tankers claim. Bush really does live in a bubble, doesn’t he?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:27 pmStefan – that’s not progressive, it simply moves the proportional tax up the scale in order to “punish” the poor less. It does make it more “fair,” but it is not “built-in progressive.” Progressive would be a graph looking more like Y=X^2. The scale you describe is Y=X-2. There is a huge difference at high income levels.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:27 pm#6: Whenever someone (particularly liberals) suggests that the income tax rate should be higher for rich people than for poor people, some conservatives will always perceive this as punitive (”punish[ing] achievement”). Worse, there is an assumption that liberals think rich people are “evil.” This is a colossally stupid and inaccurate representation. Simply put: the country needs tax revenue to pay for expensive wars, congressional salaries, sweetheart deals for government contractors, and government-funded faith-based initiatives. All citizens pay taxes as part of their responsibilities as citizens. Rich people are in a position to pay a greater share of their income without making substantial compromises in their lifestyles and therefore should pay a greater share of their income in taxes. I don’t see that as punitive, just fair.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:31 pmMA
In South Africa we have massive unemployment, virtually no real social services, and children being raised by their ten year old siblings because their parents died of AIDS and we do not have a real alternative for them. We have real poverty, and the effect? Poor people rob rich people.
Look, you want to see a really eloquent argument for a progressive tax system? For social welfare and public healthcare? For all of the real liberal causes you roll your eyes at?
Come to South Africa and drive around a boomed suburb. Look at the walls, look at the electric fencing, look at the armed security guards. These suburbs are like this, because we have poverty and because the rich do not want to have their stuff stolen and their throats slit.
You like to whine about punishing the successful, it isn’t about punishing the successful, it is about making sure there are more of them, and that they do not end up in a situation where they have to fence off their streets, put in twenty foot walls around their houses, plug in their electric fences, and pray that the guard they are paying a slave wage to doesn’t take bribes.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:32 pmHey did I tell you guys about my favorite tv show Star Trek?
Of course Estonia isn’t being bled to death by a freedom operation, I mean, would a flat tax be able to pay this huge debt the current administration is creating?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:32 pm17, not true. it’s never y=x^2 as you always have an upper limit. and that’s exactly what you get with a (high) flat tax and high free amounts.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:36 pmnote that you only pay tax for the amount above the free amount. so the overall tax is progressive.
I know people that have achieved a great many things that have nothing to do with money. Sure I know people with ‘money’, and they are quite good people. Your ‘achievement’, whatever it might be, gives you an ugly misdemeanor. Remember you are just another speck of dust orbiting a star for a short duration, your ‘achievement’ of being a cranky hater is not noted universally.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:49 pmFLLLLAAATTTT TAAAXXXXXXXXXXX________ DROOL!!!!!!!!!
November 28th, 2006 at 1:52 pmActually most people pay taxes because they sign a form that says that they will voluntarily pay income taxes until they die. If they don’t pay their voluntary income tax, the IRS, a privately held company can handcuff you and put you in a privately held jail, while the IRS takes all of your possessions.
As Yackov Smirnov would say “What a country.”
November 28th, 2006 at 1:52 pmStefan – What you say is correct about the upper limit in the current US income tax system. I, personally, do not advocate for an upper limit. I do agree with a slowing of the rate, however, after a point, so that the tax never approaches over, say, 75%, after some very large arbitrary amount. I am against, morally, super wealthiness (ie, incomes in the hundreds of millions). However nice it is for the mega-rich, it is just as bad for the rest of the country.
However, despite my personal beliefs, a progressive tax with an upper limit still puts less burden on the middle class (most people), whereas the flat tax, with a built-in deductible, actually puts the highest burden on the middle class, with less of a burden on the wealthy, and no burden on the poor. Also, to get nit-picky, there is no burden on the poor under our current income tax system either, because of the already-existing built-in deductibles. All moving to “flat” would do is increase the burden of the middle class. For those shaking their heads saying “NO BURDEN ON THE POOR?” please keep in mind we are discussing income taxes only, not overall taxation of the population.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:55 pmmighty a**holedite confuses achievement with greed.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:55 pmRemember you are just another speck of dust orbiting a star for a short duration, your ‘achievement’ of being a cranky hater is not noted universally.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Although it can take comfort that it’s “achievement” has been noted locally.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:01 pmYeh kinda like putting Christmas decorations on poison ivy =)
November 28th, 2006 at 2:04 pmheh!
November 28th, 2006 at 2:06 pm@25, so we simply disagree here. the tax system isn’t there to make the world a better place or even fair. it’s there to finance the government without disturbing the incentives of the free market too much and without hurting the poor.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:10 pmso a rule, for every dollar you earn you give away one third to the government, unless you’re poor, is fine with me.
or more, or less.
but the tax system isn’t there to say: you shouldn’t earn more than xy $, because that’s unfair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Estonia
November 28th, 2006 at 2:32 pmmighty a**holedite confuses achievement with greed.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
Yeh kinda like putting Christmas decorations on poison ivy =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
**Ding, ding, ding** We have a winner, folks!
November 28th, 2006 at 2:34 pmPLEASE, repeat this whenever your path crosses that of the “lowly loveless”.
There will never be a flat tax in the U.S. The proposals most Conservatives throw out there and claim to be a flat tax are not. Of course, Conservatives will lie anyway if it means they can put an extra dollar in their pockets.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:39 pmIf Bush likes a flat tax, it must be a bad thing!? Listen to the warning rattle before he “bites”. He has ruined everything he comes near.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pmIf Bush is for it, beware!– no matter what it may be.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:04 pm“I appreciate the fact that the GOP fell flat at the last election”
November 28th, 2006 at 3:05 pmFlat tax in a country with a population comparable to Charlotte, NC, fine. Flat tax in the USA? Keep dreaming.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:13 pmFlat tax! Wooooooo! I’m entirely in favor of setting a percentage, eliminating all loopholes, and putting out a one-page form which says income______________ and tax_____________. Even if Bush praises it, I can’t see anything wrong in theory.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pmWait a minute! The flat tax is a brilliant idea! No more wars cuz wecan’t afford them. What? Oh, medicare and education would be cut before the military? Never mind.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pmDaniel – I have nothing against those that argue for the flat tax, like Stefan who has provided good arguments. However, complexity has nothing to do with the tax being progressive or flat. That is a myth. To decide the tax percentage in a progressive income tax, you simply look at what you made in a table and then see “oh I owe xx%.” It’s one more step from flat where you just automatically know that amount is a pre-set 25% or whatever. The complexity of our tax system comes from DEDUCTIONS and the fact that different types of income are taxed differently (is it from a job, from interest, from capital gains, etc.). I am for a simplified tax system (reducing the complexity of deductions), but am not for a flat tax. Without deductions and our “withholding” system, the 1040EZ would be the standard tax form for everybody, which is pretty much as simple as you are hoping for with the theoretical flat tax.
Republican proponents of the flat tax have been using the “complexity” argument incorrectly for YEARS. Real proponents of the flat tax support it on the principal that they do not like the progressive nature of our current system, not because they think it will greatly reduce the complexity of our current system.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:28 pmBTW, if there were no Federal Reserve System, there would be no IRS, and no income tax. The income tax is there simply to pay interest to the (private) Federal Reserve for the money it lends the Federal Government. The Fed prints money, lends it to the government at interest, and the income tax pays the interest. That’s why we have income tax, to pay the richie rich private owners of the Federal Reserve.
If the Congress would be so bold (and risk their lives) to take the power of the dollar away from the Fed, they could do away with the income tax, and start to pay off the National Debt.
Yup, I’m one of those people that thinks that the source of all our nation’s financial woes is the Fed.
Read this it’s interesting.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pmCorrection to my last post… Proponents of the flat tax may argue it is simpler than our current system by virtue of their proposed system NOT HAVING deductions at all. However, a progressive tax without deductions is trivially more complicated than a flat tax, so they cannot argue that a flat tax is substantially less complicated than a similarly set up progressive tax.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pmWith the fair tax plan, people NOT paying any taxes ould lose out. This means both legal, and illegal means. No cap on SS tax either. people with higher incomes tend to spend more of it, on more expensive items. Additionallt, because companies are no longer having to pay matching taxed, and accounting costs lessen, the amount of the tax will not increase the price of goods we are buying, while the result of being able to keep our entire check, will immediately benefit everyone in the lower to middle calss levels.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pmI could really care less what the GOP did or didn’t do, since I am not a member of the “Grand Old Party”.
Something That you still believe. Tell me, do YOU think the world is flat?
ROTF
November 28th, 2006 at 4:10 pmROTF
RTOF
Hey man I was just at the Ocean over the weekend, and I’ll be damned, the earth looked pretty f*ckin’ flat. Maybe those flat earth people have a point.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pm“I appreciate the fact that you got a fat fax,â€
“I appreciate the fact that you got a flat axe,â€
“I appreciate the fact that you got a flat of flax,â€
“I appreciate the fact that you got a fat ass,â€
whatever………..
November 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pmwhatever………..
Comment by ForTruth
Was that GWB practicing in the mirror before his speech?
November 28th, 2006 at 4:53 pmYes Zooey, excellent………..
November 28th, 2006 at 4:55 pmThere’s no such thing as a flat tax.
They’re regressive by definition. Poor people pay more of their income than rich people under a “flat” tax. So it isn’t flat after all.
It figures Chimpy would love a flat tax, another way for him to screw working people.
If you work for a living and you voted for Chimpy, you are an idiot.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:11 pmIf you work for a living and you voted for Chimpy, you are an idiot.
Comment by Tom3
Awe heck Tom, but I jist caint stand it when sum fagget in sum uther place wants ta git hitched.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:15 pmMighty Aphrodite — SHUT UP BITCH.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:03 pmOne more thing to add to the list that MA is NOT. It is not an economist.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:03 pmYes, please, let’s adopt the Estonian model. Err, well…no.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:45 pmAre we supposed to believe that Bush understands economics and tax plans?
November 28th, 2006 at 10:07 pm#57 If only we could get Elmo to teach domestic policy.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:08 pmAre we supposed to believe that Bush understands economics and tax plans?
Comment by Marie
He appreciates appreciation?
November 28th, 2006 at 10:10 pm#59 He sure appreciates when Condi “appreciates” him!!
November 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pmI think Bush just found a country to spend his EXILE year in.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:29 pmFlat tax is great if everybody collects a flat income.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:18 amTaxation is not “punishment.” It is every citizen’s duty and privilege to contribute his or her share to the furtherance of our nation’s future.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:12 am#9 excellent post. That’s the perfect way to deal with trolls. You give them a well informed answer and stick to the point, off they go. I guess MA is off, trying to highjack another thread.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:01 amIt’s a flat tax because 99.99% of the people of Estonia is dirt poor. So they pay almost the same everybody.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:27 amDouglas
Rich people spend less of a percentage of their earnings then poor or middle class people. This means ultimately they would end up paying comparatively less taxes under your system.
Your country has certain expenses it has to pay, and it has a massive big debt. You have to collect that money somehow, so what do you think government has to do to make up the difference if it has your ideal tax system? Yep, raise taxes for everybody else.
With a progressive tax the rich do pay more, but they also get certain advantages inherent in living in a country with a stable economy and lots of welfare – less crime and less risk of the poor rising up and throwing them out on their ears.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#9
“Low income families “consume†more of their income than high income families.”
That depends. Most of the time the reason people strive for a higher income is so they can buy a $500k house vs. a $80k one. So the can drive a $50k automobile vs. a $12k one. It’s all relative.
“High income familes are able to save this money and it will accrue interest in savings or investment accounts, hence skewing the balance even further.”
Yes those evil rich people put their money right back into society by investing it, not to mention the loads of money that they give to charities. This is in addtion to the money they spend on the house, car, and other luxuries. No reward like accrued interest should be given.
“This allows high income families to earn proportionally more money faster, without working any extra”
Working extra? In my profession, architecture, the principals (the big money earners) at my firm work at least 60 hours a week. On the contrary most of the hourly employees leave skid marks at 5 p.m.
“Generally, the wealthy do not drive proportionally more than the poor.”
Now that is total BS. Most of the wealthy commute much farther to work, travel on business or pleasure than the poor do. In fact alot of the poor don’t have cars…they use mass transit which is alot cheaper than driving a car.
“Additionally, if you plan to own a home, you pay property tax, water tax, electricity tax, phone tax, and so on, based on the services conumed, not on the income you earn.”
And all of those taxes and services you mentioned are all higher in amount for the wealthy than for the poor. Again it’s realtive to what you own and the amount you use.
“There is simply NO way to do that, because the United States has way too complicated of a tax structure, replacing all tax funding from all other tax revenues with a single federal universal flat tax is simply impossible.”
Abolish the income tax and raise sales taxes to compensate. Say 10% across the board for argument’s sake. If you are poor and buy a $10K car you will pay $1000 and if you are rich and buy a 50k car then you will pay $5000 in tax. You could go thru just about every item with the exception of food and it would be realtive.
“To say the wealthy are being “punished†under the United States’ tax system is completely false.”
Then what is the point in trying to earn a higher salary if the progressive tax system takes a greater percentage of your income away? Yes they are being punished…for earning more.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:28 pm(lower side) Multimillionaire’s Tax Opionion
I’m not rich from no-bid government contracts, but from the market system, and I strongly advocate tax that costs/benefits people as equally as possible (i.e., a tight progressive tax, not the regressive ‘flat tax’): I’m a “fair tax” enthusiast not because I’m a bleeding heart liberal, I’m just an average liberal – but rather because I CAN’T GET/STAY RICH if consumers are too broke to buy my stuff!
Several bloggers were correct that we wealthy folks have MANY loopholes around taxes – though I only have a few million unlike billionaires who pay almost nothing or even get subsidized.
We and corporations take up the bulk of the court system, get preferential police and fire protection, and pay less general cost for most services and infrastructure relative to benefits reaped, not to mention locating to better school districts and neighborhoods.
But the SELFISH reason I want to pay my “fair” share is that if I cheat, it incentivizes lawyers and accountants to perpetuate an ever-more-dishonest system and they then co-create more rich people who pay less: A RACE TO THE BOTTOM, where taxation becomes very inefficient as more administrative costs go to collection from more lower earners.
WE RICH BENEFIT by a strong middle class: (1) they have more disposable income for our products, (2) our employees suffer less turnover and friction, (3) with easier access to the wealth-class, it becomes more realistic, praised, and self-reinforcing, helping us KEEP more wealth, (4) there is less “hate the rich” class war attitude, and we then pay less social cost to legitimize our existence and do damage control during conflicts, and (5) psychologically, we feel more “in-group” with members of lower classes and notice less hostility to us from those classes.
These are just a few ways simply paying a few more bucks in an arguable VERY good deal for all of us – progressive tax – leads to more happy people for less money and social cost. And this is all just off the top of my head, IMAGINE what we could come up with if we undertook a serious study. Feedback welcome – you people are smart and pleasant!
November 29th, 2006 at 11:29 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:03 pmtable decorations
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pmPantyhose Fur Fetish Men In Pantyhose
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 10:53 pm