Gotcha. First google reference is for National Education Association and that is who I thought of first as well. I figured you wouldn't like them either, but at least not government funded.

If the flat tax would been enough money for the government to work , yes it would be a great solution.
But the problem is that it's not enough .

Reality is , 1$ bill has not the same value for everyone !
You take into account the utility fonction and it show itself clearly ( 20$ steak for a millionaire is not the same cost personally as someone winning 40k a year ).

So if people who's got loads of money for w.e reason ( family fortune, was born in Beverly Hills, e.) pays more but still are 100 richer than the most common citizen at the end of the year , I see no problem for it .

School, roads,army etc are for the common good first .

Anyway I rather would pay 35% of taxes on a million than 20% of tax with a salary of 50k on a year basis !

Ps: no idea how people normally deal with their wife but if you make more then her, usually you pick up the tab .
Wether it is house payment,car,etc.

Everyone's different, but I never understood why people split their finances in a marriage. If you feel like some money is "your money" and some "her money", then I feel like you're missing the whole point of marriage or have some deeper issues that need to be resolved.

That said, my wife makes about the same as me, and we have a comfortable life, so I'm sure I'm missing something obvious that is going on in other marriages. We just pool our money and spend it in a reasonable and responsible manner. Our definition of "reasonable and responsible" is fairly similar, so I guess that's why it works.

If you live in a "no fault" state, such as I do, there is no such thing as your possessions or money. When you marry it's all considered the same by the courts anyway.

Of course it could be enough, you just need to find the right rate.

Yes, that is true, but when considering tax rates, I think you should use percentages. Is $100k worth less to someone making $1M than $10k is to someone making $100k? Maybe, but it's closer.

Also, some of the flat tax arguments are not just coming from very rich people. There's probably more people that support it because half of the households in the U.S. don't pay any income taxes. Since you seem to be a big fan of paying taxes, I'd think you would be in favor of changing this so that everyone pays a fair amount.

Comon...
The 2017 budget was 4 trillion?

Let's say you have 100 millions workers who paid taxes ( which you sure don't have as many in the states).

Flat tax would mean those millions of worker need to pay 40k each in taxes ....
How many you think don't even make 40k, let alone psying 40k in taxes .

True the budget got 500 billions deficit but it's still pay 3,5 trillions .

Nvm the flat tax .
Some might "hate" the rich but if they would do their fair share ( not putting fortune in offshore account for example), and those who does already , should have are utmost respect.
They do help a lot.

Consumption Tax > Flat Tax > Current Tax > Socialism

Venezuela has a huge government. Just FYI

I was referring to the eyes of the voters. I've met very conservative people that always vote republican yet some of them believe in taking care of the entire population. I've also met some that vote democratic yet they think the poor should starve because they think that because they're able to work and pay taxes they deserve the government services that they paid for.

Takes all kinds I suppose.

Huh? I think you misunderstand the flat tax idea. Everyone wouldn't pay the same in dollars they would pay the same in % of their income. Instead of differing tax brackets as it is now.

I am not really a fan however.

No country is well when the government is corrupted, whether being big or small government.
Bad example.
Why not take Canada fore example ?
Or even Euro country in some places.

Yeah i know but it just showed it would be impossible because some workers ( and when i say some i should be saying a lot) simply do not win enough money anyhow.
The difference of income is too great .

Good post (albeit based on anecdotal type evidence, I agree w the general sentiment).

There's bad politicians on both sides of the aisle - just like there are bad doctors, police, masseuses, etc - but nothing worse than the Maxine Waters types who grab the bullhorn to tell how badly the gop will treat her poor, mostly minority constituents if they are elected. Meanwhile, she's as corrupt as can be, lives outside of her district, and has not changed her district for the better. She's the Al Sharpton of elected officials.

I used to date a Democratic congressman's daughter (2nd district CT years ago for many terms). She was a cool, great looking chick. But her father, who started as a labor organizer for some poor fruit pickers in Guatemala, eventually became super rich, partly through his second marriage to the heir of a big Manhattan construction firm and mostly through his own shady business dealings, using his Dem power and connections. If you're going to be a "champion for the poor" don't come around for their votes every 2-4 years and ignore them the rest of their lives. All these inner cities (like Chiraq) are in shambles because these corrupt dems just took their constituents for a ride, using fear mongering and race-baiting. He's far from perfect and makes some terrible moves sometimes imo, as man and POTUS, but Trump got it right when he said, "What have you got to lose? All your worst cities have been run by lib-tards and you keep giving them votes like fools."

It's like a corrupt cop who come looking for their payoffs to leave your gambling spots alone. You can't be a gangster and a cop. Be a cop or a gangster. There should be a special place reserved in hell for all those poseurs who conned people while they reaped the ill-gotten gains from those same peoples' votes.

So yeah, live lhe win rates . . .

certainly you would agree that its problematic that in like 35 states a basic welfare package (single mother 2 kids baseline) will pay more than a full time minimum wage job and several entry level job positions.

In some states, welfare will actually pay more than entry level teaching position (yes that ignores pension, health insurance but thats gonna be basically free anyways, etc).

why would you work? And yes I realize this doesn't apply to everyone and some people actually cant work; but it ceritainly does apply to a very large population base.

Since we are talking about winrates, most welfare packages would basically equate to being a 1bb/hour winner at 8/16

Yes Jon that's certainly problematic. I think minimum wage should be higher and that teachers should get paid much more than the average welfare recipient. I've heard the argument that if wages go up the result would be higher prices and that it would hurt small businesses. Are those things true? We don't know because minimum wage keeps those making that much down by the poverty level.

It's true that some people just don't want to work and they're content living in poverty. Perhaps better measures need to be in place to keep people from abusing the system. Much like the problem of corruption in politics, poverty isn't going to disappear. Instead it's something that society will have to deal with. However, I don't think that demonizing the poor does any good. I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that, but it is what millions of people think and do.

A flat tax is basically or accompanies by a consumption tax. Rich people spend more and ensnared up paying more in taxes.

The flat tax system also gets rid of capital gain taxes

Personally, I think gambling INCOME should be non-taxable, and the federal government should instead excise tax the POOLS at whatever level would collect the same amount of revenue as an income tax that was actually complied with. This would probably end up only having to be a percentage point or two.

That way poker players would pay their fair shares, the reporting requirements would go away, the government would not have to spend tons of money going after scofflaws, and a whole bunch of casino regulations that have to do with people paying their taxes could be lifted.

What do you mean by the "POOLS"?

I remember Waters trying to push back on a Bill Maher point about Parenting and discipline. "Actually Bill some of these kids don't even have parents" [/cheap Hollywood applause]. Good point Maxine; we all know Child Services only gets involved randomly when the birth parents are doing a great job. Standard grandstanding asshat indeed.

In gambling, the "pools" refer to the total money bet.

In the context of poker, it takes the form of taxing the pot.

The problem is not taxes. It just human are design flawed. A lot of know how to get rich people get away with exploiting the system and then there are people in power that just have too much incentive to cheat which create an unfair environment. Taxes in a way help minimize those edge however the money is use by the same flaw humans which is very inefficient. I say get rid of human and have robot take control then there will be no biases/emotion and everything can be GTO . also everyone should check out this book https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...f_rd_i=desktop