Comments about ‘Coalition seeks to dump flat-tax system’

Why is a flat tax such a bad idea? A flat tax is exactly what governments should be using. Operate inside the tax revenue (under a fixed tax rate) and don't raise taxes when some programs don't get funding. Instead, cut the program out! Cut the fat out! Cut out projects, cut out anything that would require the tax rate to increase.

I have to manage my budget this way. I can't demand a raise just to buy an iPhone, I have to cut something else out in order to afford it.

Why is this so hard for some groups to understand?

Of course when you do something right where there aren't 50,000 hoops you can jump through to avoid paying taxes, and fudging numbers in a liberal minded view, IT'S ALWAYS THE WRONG THING TO DO! 5% is a great thing, just imagine if the Feds went to a 5% flat tax too! That is just 10% total!!! That would be so easy, 5% State, 5% Federal, 10% God, 10% your own savings, and 70% bills and personal spending! How simple would that be!!! Governor Huntsman I am on your side all the way!!!

Dishonest people can never accept the simplicity of this system. It's too easy to do it right, do it honestly, and do it fairly. I mean 5% to a man who makes $100 a month is $5.00, 5% to a man who makes $1,000 a month is $50.00, and to a man who makes $10,000 a month is $500.00. It is fair and everyone pays the SAME according to the amount they make. What is the problem? You will always have whiners I guess???

The government provides services to all citizens, all citizens should pay taxes. Initiating a flat tax is the fairest form of taxation. It does not give discounts to the wealthy, as they pay the same as the poorest tax paying individual. 5% is 5% Progressive Tax brackets are not fair, and is not progressive, it is wealth redistribution. Anything other than a flat tax rate is the governments attempt of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

I agree.

A small trivia question for us.

Question: Who was the first modern economist/philosopher to strongly advocate for a progressive tax system?

Answer: Karl Marx.

A progressive tax system is one in which the more a person makes the larger percentage they pay in taxes. The reason Karl Marx advocated this is his mantra of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

The idea is that ultimately all people would have about the same amount of money to live on. He hated wealth and wealthy people. So if a person made $30k a year, they paid nothing in taxes. If they made $100k a year their tax rate would take enough taxes to leave them roughly $30k to live on.

These initiative supporters are making incremental arguments. We should keep in mind that before Reagan got to it the highest tax rates were well in excess of 70%! If I remember correctly even higher than that!

We do a flat tax for all purchases, it is good enough for income. If people make more, they pay more. Make nothing, they pay nothing.

Huntsman is right!

Those who support and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ are called Christians. Those who suppot and believe in the ideas of Karl Marx are called Marxists. Where does Marxism actually work?? Please show me. Please please I would love to see where in the history of the world and all time, where it has worked?

The progressive tax system taxes based on ability to pay. The poor and middle class are less able to pay than the wealthy, so they are taxed at progressively lower rates.

The flat tax does not consider ability to pay, so the wealthy are taxed at the same rate as the poor and middle class. The result of changing from a progressive system to a flat system is that the wealthy got a huge tax break, and the middle class got no material tax break (if you're a middle class Utahn and dispute this, just check your state tax refund this past year and compare it to previous years when we had a progressive system).

While on the surface, the flat tax appears more fair, it isn't if you calculate taxes as a percentage of gross income. If you are poor or middle class, your taxes as percentage of gross income remained the same, and is a much higher percentage than the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income, which was already lower than poor and middle class percentage under the progressive system and is still lower under the flat system.
while the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income

What Progressives (aka liberals) like to point out is that the rich guy can afford to have more of his income taken away in taxes.

$50.00 is a lot of money to someone making only $1000 per month. However, to a someone making $10,000 per month it's peanuts.

As long as the percentage is the same I don't see a problem. I want my government to treat us all equally when it comes to taxes. Maybe that way it will encourage us all to get out and work our behinds off to get ahead.

After all, if a liberal / socialist government is going take more and more of my hard earned money. Why should I work so hard? I'll just rest on my back side and let the government supply me with what I need.

How is progressive tax any different than an employer (CEOs, oil execs, business owners, etc.) paying his employee wages? An employer never shares his profits evenly; he keeps the lions share for himself. After all the point of getting rich is to avoid drudgery and enjoy the benefits of other laborers. How then is a progressive tax not just? Isnt it fair the wealthy pay proportionately more (in taxes) when they keep proportionately more? Isnt this just?

Progressive or flat tax has nothing to do with budget cuts or over-runs only with who pays what portion; both taxes can be raised or lowered accordingly.

"If you are poor or middle class, your taxes as percentage of gross income remained the same, and is a much higher percentage than the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income, which was already lower than poor and middle class percentage under the progressive system and is still lower under the flat system.
while the wealthy's taxes as percentage of gross income "

Is this new math of some kind??? - where I live if everyone is taxed 5% on their income; everyone pays the same percentage.

a no-brainer! There are always folks armed with statistics to "validate" their particular points of view, but doesn't it just make sense to tax us all at the same rate? I've been broke most of my life, have never been able to afford much, but sure didn't feel the need to apply to the government for some of the money they took from rich folks. Now that oil prices are up and I'm making a lot of money, I can't see why I should be expected to pay an ever-increasing percentage of it to an inefficient government. I realize this isn't an educated opinion - there are enough college graduates out there who will regale us with those. This is just one old guy thinking "Hunstman got it right."

"Is this new math of some kind???"

It's called gorilla math, the libs love to use it to confuse their constinuents into voting for things they don't understand as Progressive just pointed out. God Bless America!!!

you typed "Isnt it fair the wealthy pay proportionately more (in taxes) when they keep proportionately more? Isnt this just?"
Yes, if this was a big piece of cake, and my "keeping proportionately more" meant there was less for you - that would be unfair. But our economy doesn't work like that. One person well off is not offest by several others going without in order to balance things out. Your point has no validity.

I totally love this class warfare crud on this subject. We could not have made it more perfect to have a openly Marxist proposal on the ballot than this.

The person who worries about the poor paying more of their income with a flat tax doesn't understand it. These poor people still get their tax write-offs. This means that in general they pay no taxes at all on the first $20-30k they make.

Say they make $40k they would get to write-off mortgage, children, etc. In Utah they also index this against the Federal taxes they pay. So most of what they make is tax exempt. Someone making $40k might pay taxes on $10k or less. This means their total state income tax would be roughly $500.

A person making $1million would get the same $20-30k in tax write-offs, likely more since few salaries pay that much. They are likely a sole-proprietor. Ultimately they will pay 5% on hundres of thousands of dollars of earned income.

Middle class pays $500. Millionaires will pay tens of thousands of dollars.

I'm fine with that. Only Karl Marx and the Democratic party think its unfair.

Obama is bringing out the communist rhetoric. ug!

That Karl Marx idea sounds swell. What a great way to encourage people to succeed and build businesses. I would love to work all my life to build a successful business and have the government take most my money and give it to those that don't even try. Great idea!!

Flat tax is the only fair way.

This Karl Marx guy kind of reminds me of Obama. Of course most democrats will take this as a compliment.

If the parallel calculation used on the 2007 state tax return was actually a comparison of the old progressive tax system and the new flat tax system, Mr. Frandsen's assertion that the flat tax will hurt the middle class is spot-on. I am a middle income person and my calculations for 2007 showed I would have paid $1,741 more under the flat tax than the progressive tax. For me, it's a no-brainer - take Huntsman's flat tax and put it in the trash.

A pure flat tax means the flat rate is based on adjusted gross income. Thus, there is no deduction for mortgage, charitable deductions, etc. You pay on your gross income.

I actually agree with that. There is no reason government should subsidize life choices through tax breaks.

I also think the first so much of income (perhaps 40k) should be exempt from the flat tax as this is a basic living wage. Thus, someone making 50k pays tax on 10k ($500). And, someone making 1M pays tax on 960k ($48k).

How about going to a federal flat tax of 10 percent across all income brackets and a 10 percent corportate and dividend tax. The only exemption is a $5k per person exeption (i.e. a family of 5 making $40k a year pays a 10 percenty take on $15k, so $1.5k a year in federal taxes). And then to compensate for a fair and equal tax, institude a federal sales tax of 10 percent on all non-food items. That way, those who spend more on expensive toys, luxury items and homes, pay more in taxes based off what they use and spend.

Seriously, think about it and give me an intelligent reply as to why it would or wouldn't work.

So why don't we tax rich people at 100%? After all, no one needs more than, say, $250,000 a year. Why not set the tax rate at 100% on everything over that amount?

Answer: Because no one would do any work once they earned the $250,000 limit. Doctors, Lawyers, CEOs, etc. would just close up shop in April or May and take the rest of the year off. (In fact, no one would bother going to medical school in the first place, knowing they could never make more than $250k.) The government would get nothing in taxes at the 100% rate.

No one would bother to invest or build up a business that hires lots of workers either. The economy would be a wreck...but we would not have any rich people to envy though, so it might be heaven.