This should be a totally calm and reasonable debate

The current system, based on highly unstable income tax revenue that fluctuates with the economy, "doesn't work," Schwarzenegger said.

Advocates of a flat tax, which applies a single tax rate to all income, say it increases compliance with the tax codes because it is so simple and easy to understand.

So are supporters claiming that incomes don't fluctuate during a recession? If people are being laid off, or are having their pay cut either through wage/salary or hour reductions, then that would still reduce the state's revenue from the tax, even if it's a flat tax.

I think they need to just come out and say it:

"We want to screw poor people to the benefit of wealthy people."

KaponoFor3: This should be a totally calm and reasonable debate

Go to hell you jerk! I am being calm! Why don't you go DIAF?! I'll show you reasonable when I find a reasonable method of placing this knife in your kidney!

This is in addition to eliminating cal grants, most of the state parks, welfare, lunches for poor school kids, and a bunch of other stuff that totals maybe 2 billion in total savings over the course of the next few years.

However, the 6 billion or so that is spent on public services to illegal immigrants each year is a "tiny portion" of the 25 billion deficit the state is experiencing. I didn't know 20-25% is a "tiny portion".

I think Ah-nuld is sick of the job and doing what he can to either get kicked out, or voted out.

Too little, too late, Mr.Governor.

Sid_6.7: So are supporters claiming that incomes don't fluctuate during a recession? If people are being laid off, or are having their pay cut either through wage/salary or hour reductions, then that would still reduce the state's revenue from the tax, even if it's a flat tax.

Pretty much. Plus, with the housing bubble, property tax was increasing at a phenomenal rate. Part of the state's big problem is that it didn't bother anticipating either a housing bubble or the absurd unemployment rates we have now (well over 10%. If you include people who are working part time, but need full time work, it's like 15% unemployment), and now that state tax revenues are down, they're getting kicked in the teeth. It's why I voted no on those propositions.

I'm pretty damn liberal, but I'm not so liberal that I can't understand that when I run out of money to live on, I can't go to my employer and threaten him/her demanding more money or else I stop working entirely. I adjust and live within my means.

I don't know. Maybe a sales tax, bracketed perhaps on item cost and how essential that item is, would be the way to go. You know, food, automobiles under say 30k, and other "essentials" taxed at a low tax rate (5%, just to pick a number). Items that cost more than 100 dollars are taxed at 7%, items that cost more than a thousand, 10%, and items that cost more than 10k clock in around 13%, and 100k items have a 15% tax.

The idea of a progressive tax scale is that, in theory, someone making a million dollars a year has a far less burden paying 10% tax than someone making 20k a year. The millionaire will miss that 100k, quality of life wise, far less than the person making 20k will miss that 2 thousand. The idea is not an equal weight, but an equal burden.

It don't work that way though. My yearly tax percentage is usually higher than someone who makes ten times what I do. And that's what I'm afraid of with a flat tax or a sales tax. Loopholes, or an addendum in the tax code which eliminate the burden entirely for wealthy people.

Hell, I already will shop around different cities and counties for large purchases which will net me the lowest total tax, seeing that there are places in LA county where the sales tax is already 11% or more. Anything I can I buy online from out of state businesses, to once again avoid sales tax. I know I'm contributing to the problem, but at the same time the alternative is painful enough to make looking for shortcuts worth while.

15%? That would ruin California more than it is now. California makes up about 10% of the US economy, primarily because of some high tax rates.

Didn't Homer's flat tax equation also disprove the existence of a christian god?

Anyone want too spell out what this means for those of us not living in the US and who aren't economists? Enquiring but lazy yminds would like to know...

God damn eeepc keyboards...

FTA: But opponents dislike that it taxes the wealthy at the same rates as the poor.

Yeah, that really would suck, wouldn't it. Cry me a river.

I have long been in favor of a flat tax if a great many other taxes are eliminated at the same time. I see two advantages to a flat tax: it would eliminate the disparity in tax burden and (here's the kicker) simplify the tax system, making it more efficient which would make the process of taxation itself cost less. But the cost savings would really only be effective if a significant number of other taxes were eliminated at the same time.

I could go on for ages, but nobody likes a Tolstory ;)

SJKebab: Anyone want too spell out what this means for those of us not living in the US and who aren't economists? Enquiring but lazy yminds would like to know...

It means Arnold is stupid

I predict this thread's gonna get "Tea-bagged."

/i'm outta here

The_Flatline: This is in addition to eliminating cal grants, most of the state parks, welfare, lunches for poor school kids, and a bunch of other stuff that totals maybe 2 billion in total savings over the course of the next few years.

However, the 6 billion or so that is spent on public services to illegal immigrants each year is a "tiny portion" of the 25 billion deficit the state is experiencing. I didn't know 20-25% is a "tiny portion".

I think Ah-nuld is sick of the job and doing what he can to either get kicked out, or voted out.

Arnold's term ends next year. He can't run again.

So, the state's gonna go nova here relatively soon, right?

Richard Saunders: I predict this thread's gonna get "Tea-bagged."

/i'm outta here

Thanks for the warning, moving on..

So he wants to raise taxes and by the comments in the article he has enough stupid republicans confused by calling it a "flat tax" that they want it too.

It's hilarious, it's a tax increase he is asking for and the Republicans in the comments are too dumb to understand this is just a STATE TAX increase.


I guess you can fool some of the people all the time, they are Republicans.

SpinStopper: I have long been in favor of a flat tax if a great many other taxes are eliminated at the same time. I see two advantages to a flat tax: it would eliminate the disparity in tax burden

Yeah, those damn poor people just aren't paying their way. Freedom isn't free, biatches!

Sid_6.7: I think they need to just come out and say it:

"We want to screw poor people to the benefit of wealthy people."

What the hell else do you expect them to do? Voters want both no new taxes AND increased services. Something's got to give.

Wow, I can't believe that Arnold is actually considering doing something right! Flat tax is a fantastic idea. Everyone should be for it due to the obvious perk - simplicity. It's a shame that people have been brainwashed into thinking it's somehow "pro-rich", or that it's right that some people have to pay the lion's share of Government, when generally, the richer you are, the less government services you use. I wish we could get a flat tax going on a national level.

Book it. Done

Flat tax, tax everything with %15

Even the aliens will have to contribute

Came here to see all the high tax loons bash the flat tax concept.

The_Flatline: It don't work that way though. My yearly tax percentage is usually higher than someone who makes ten times what I do.

If by "makes", you include capital gains, then I can believe this. But for "earned income"? There's no way this is true.

Hell, I already will shop around different cities and counties for large purchases which will net me the lowest total tax, seeing that there are places in LA county where the sales tax is already 11% or more. Anything I can I buy online from out of state businesses, to once again avoid sales tax. I know I'm contributing to the problem, but at the same time the alternative is painful enough to make looking for shortcuts worth while.

You do realize you're a tax cheat, right? Why are all libs tax cheats? Isn't paying taxes patriotic? Why do you hate America?

apistat: SpinStopper: I have long been in favor of a flat tax if a great many other taxes are eliminated at the same time. I see two advantages to a flat tax: it would eliminate the disparity in tax burden

Yeah, those damn poor people just aren't paying their way. Freedom isn't free, biatches!

I think you misunderstand. As in, you've got it backwards. After the dust settles, the rich are paying a much smaller percentage in taxes than the poor.

Corvus: So he wants to raise taxes and by the comments in the article he has enough stupid republicans confused by calling it a "flat tax" that they want it too.

It's hilarious, it's a tax increase he is asking for and the Republicans in the comments are too dumb to understand this is just a STATE TAX increase.


I guess you can fool some of the people all the time, they are Republicans.



The top bracket in CA currently pays 10.3%.

God damn, flat-taxtards are stupid.

SpinStopper: apistat: SpinStopper: I have long been in favor of a flat tax if a great many other taxes are eliminated at the same time. I see two advantages to a flat tax: it would eliminate the disparity in tax burden

Yeah, those damn poor people just aren't paying their way. Freedom isn't free, biatches!

I think you misunderstand. As in, you've got it backwards. After the dust settles, the rich are paying a much smaller percentage in taxes than the poor.

Sorry, I mistook you for one of those "OMG the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes!" types.

Still, I don't see how it would even things out (you can be damn sure that if it ever happened it would just coincidentally put the rate at below what the top bracket currently is...), and even if it did that hardly makes up for the extra burden it would likely place on the people who could least afford it.

SpinStopper: apistat: SpinStopper: I have long been in favor of a flat tax if a great many other taxes are eliminated at the same time. I see two advantages to a flat tax: it would eliminate the disparity in tax burden

Yeah, those damn poor people just aren't paying their way. Freedom isn't free, biatches!

I think you misunderstand. As in, you've got it backwards. After the dust settles, the rich are paying a much smaller percentage in taxes than the poor.

*Resetting SpinStopper's Sarcastometer*

As I predicted, my already high 9% state income tax is going up. This is on top of the nearly 10% sales tax and a plethora of other taxes that aren't so obvious.

I don't have a problem with a flat tax. In fact, I'm all for it since it's the fairer systems available. I do not agree with the argument that people who make more should pay more. I do, however, have a problem with my taxes increasing by over 50%.

Of course, the "tax the crap out of the rich" crowd will jump all over me. Ignoring that the people with the biggest incomes don't typically make salaries. For example, the top guys at Google make $1 a year. Go ahead, tax that. Their real income is from stock options. Now if the income tax rate didn't ream them so much, they might actually take a regular salary and get taxed on it.

Oh, tax avoidance is not illegal. You have no duty to pay any tax you do not owe. Tax avoidance is making sure you pay what you owe, but not a penny more. Hell, that's the American way.

apistat: Sorry, I mistook you for one of those "OMG the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes!" types.

Still, I don't see how it would even things out (you can be damn sure that if it ever happened it would just coincidentally put the rate at below what the top bracket currently is...), and even if it did that hardly makes up for the extra burden it would likely place on the people who could least afford it.

Just wading through all of the California tax laws (for the multitude of different taxs!) and their loopholes and sinkholes in their infinite complexity wouldn be a near impossible task.

First, why are there so many loopholes and exemptions? A very few apply to the poor... hmmm...

Anyway, I think it would be interesting to take a snapshot of the current tax data, do a complete reset on the whole works stripping the data down to simple income versus final tax paid, then set that data aside.

Then take the same numbers for income, and apply the flat tax. See what comes out, and see what it does across all income levels.

In the end, I think the people at the higher income levels would not be pleased with the result. I also do not believe that such a high flat tax would be found to be necessary, which would then benefit the people in the lower income brackets.

I'm too freaking tired to run any of the numbers right now, plus I don't have access to all of the number's I'd like to have. But do you get my drift?

I'm in favor of the flat tax if it is beneficial to low income earners in the long run, saves the government - and the people - money in the long run, and does not give the rich the unfair advantage that they currently have.

Is the decline of California basically show the Left that high taxation coupled with overly generous welfare does not work?

Swampthing in Korea: Is the decline of California basically show the Left that high taxation coupled with overly generous welfare does not work?

It shows me that unfunded mandates are anathema to a functional budget.

Horribly regressive tax systems are more fair because everybody gets to use the same number.

RevMercutio: Arnold's term ends next year. He can't run again.

Not unless he pulls a Bloomberg.

Wow. There are a lot of silly, silly people in here when it comes to this issue. Folks, a flat tax is the way to go. Easy, straight forward and no chance that people are going to be able to find loopholes. If you make $1mil per year your bill will be $150,000; if you make $30k your bill will be $4,500. How exactly is that screwing poor people? Sure it will make those sucking off the government tit or those not smart enough to budget for taxes a little uncomfortable, but who really cares.

ole prophet: Wow. There are a lot of silly, silly people in here when it comes to this issue. Folks, a flat tax is the way to go. Easy, straight forward and no chance that people are going to be able to find loopholes. If you make $1mil per year your bill will be $150,000; if you make $30k your bill will be $4,500. How exactly is that screwing poor people? Sure it will make those sucking off the government tit or those not smart enough to budget for taxes a little uncomfortable, but who really cares.

ole prophet: Wow. There are a lot of silly, silly people in here when it comes to this issue. Folks, a flat tax is the way to go. Easy, straight forward and no chance that people are going to be able to find loopholes. If you make $1mil per year your bill will be $150,000; if you make $30k your bill will be $4,500. How exactly is that screwing poor people? Sure it will make those sucking off the government tit or those not smart enough to budget for taxes a little uncomfortable, but who really cares.

It screws poor people because anybody who became rich did so by stealing from the underclass. Since wealth is finite, they must be taxed more to make up for it.

Is he retarded?

Swampthing in Korea: Is the decline of California basically show the Left that high taxation coupled with overly generous welfare does not work?

They'll argue that the failure is because of not enough taxes and not enough handouts.

That's both (1) high and (2) moronic.

well, if i lived there, and i was paying income taxes, this would be the only way i would accept a tax increase without feeling groped. So not only do people have to stop filing, they spread it out over time, they start paying down a colossal state debt, and EVERYONE in the state helps.
"But opponents dislike that it taxes the wealthy at the same rates as the poor."
So make a modification or two. Make it like the fair tax. The most researched, documented taxation method currently being talked about. If it works there, expand it.

OgreMagi: As I predicted, my already high 9% state income tax is going up. This is on top of the nearly 10% sales tax and a plethora of other taxes that aren't so obvious.

I don't have a problem with a flat tax. In fact, I'm all for it since it's the fairer systems available. I do not agree with the argument that people who make more should pay more. I do, however, have a problem with my taxes increasing by over 50%.

Of course, the "tax the crap out of the rich" crowd will jump all over me. Ignoring that the people with the biggest incomes don't typically make salaries. For example, the top guys at Google make $1 a year. Go ahead, tax that. Their real income is from stock options. Now if the income tax rate didn't ream them so much, they might actually take a regular salary and get taxed on it.

Oh, tax avoidance is not illegal. You have no duty to pay any tax you do not owe. Tax avoidance is making sure you pay what you owe, but not a penny more. Hell, that's the American way.

The proper course would be to tax the stock options as income and tax it under the income tax, because it is income.

1) Legalize and tax weed.
2) Lay off half of all California State Troopers.
3) Stop paying retired government workers 90% of their salaries until they die.
4) Deport all illegal immigrants.
5) See (4) regarding illegal immigrants in prison.
6) Raise the state's minimum wage.
7) Profit.

OgreMagi

You are overlooking a few things. Stocks from options still must be purchased, usually, and if you are making $1 a year you arguably can't afford them. Regardless, you still have to pay capital gains on those profits, which are easily higher than 15%. I fail to see how the Google execs benefit from this avoidance.

Flat taxes favor the rich. 15% to a poor person can mean the difference between rent and/or food...15% to a person making $40M means the difference between the 100 ft yacht and the 115 ft yacht.

Those who benefit the most from the system that rewarded them should be asked to contribute more to keep it afloat. This is not an unfair concept in the least. It means that the highest reward goes to the person who's willing to sacrifice the most, percentage-wise, and there's nothing unfair about that.

The problem with a flat tax rate is that the wealthy can easily afford it, but those of lower income may have a harder time with it. For example.

Someone's income is $100k. $100k X 0.15 = $15k. $100k - $15k leaves $75k, an income that most in this country would envy.

Now consider this. Someone's income is $15k. $15k X 0.15 = $2.25k. $15K - $2.25 leaves only 12.75k to live on. Most with that income would still need public assistance just to survive.

OgreMagi: I don't have a problem with a flat tax. In fact, I'm all for it since it's the fairer systems available. I do not agree with the argument that people who make more should pay more.

To quote from a headline a while ago:

The difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to tax policy is simple: liberals understand the concept of "marginal value" and conservatives don't.

Remember what happened to Gray Davis for trying to balance the budget?

You also have to consider that someone making $40,000/year is likely spending every penny of that on their basic food/shelter/clothes/insurance, while the person making $500,000 isn't. Taking 15% of the $40,000 is "felt" more by that person than taking 15% of the $500,000.

This is also the issue with the "fair tax", which taxes consumption over income. The lower income people are spending 100% of their incomes on "consumption", while the richer people are saving a good portion of their income, thus the burden (as a %) is disproportionately on the lower income people

Macinfarker:

Those who benefit the most from the system that rewarded them should be asked to contribute more to keep it afloat. This is not an unfair concept in the least. It means that the highest reward goes to the person who's willing to sacrifice the most, percentage-wise, and there's nothing unfair about that.

I get what you are saying, however the poor tend to benefit pretty well from the system too and yet contribute very very little. The rich and well to do aren't being asked to contribute more to support some "get rich system", nor did that "system" ALLOW them to get rich. They are being asked support those who are not rich.

Zenmhunter :

Wrong. The system in fact encourages inherited wealth, and stymies upward social mobility to a great degree. Please take a basic social anthropology / sociology class regarding distribution of wealth in contemporary societies.

Boortz laughs an evil chuckle as he signs a copy of his book for Arnold.