Perry Proposes a Flat Tax

[Barrister]

Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.

That's worked over the past 30 years

Alberta is very good at that game.

Not really.

Alberta's dirty little secret (amongst right-wing circles) is that we have one of the largest public sectors of any province.  It's just that our wealthy private sector masks it so well.

[Martinus]

Wouldn't that be served by the tax-free base amount?

Could do.  It would really depend on the amount and the tax rate.  As I said earlier it does also lead to an arbitrary cut-off point that would hurt people on lower incomes as opposed to just the poor or a pure 'subsistence' amount that I think would be in your idea.

How is that more arbitrary than a progressive tax rate? At least in the flat tax plus free amount, you only have one arbitrary point, not two or three, as is the case with progressive taxes.

[Sheilbh]

Being taxed is forever.  You don't get paid back after a while.

But you can change the policy.

"With certain exceptions??"  Obama tried to prolongue the Bush rates for everyone except those above $200 K.  That's a hell of a lot of exceptions.  And he tried to do that as part of a larger bill that added something like $400 billion to the defict.

He first tried to do it before the mid-terms entirely separately as part of deficit cutting.  In addition to the general spending cuts that have been agreed and are currently going through.

[Sheilbh]

How is that more arbitrary than a progressive tax rate? At least in the flat tax plus free amount, you only have one arbitrary point, not two or three, as is the case with progressive taxes.

Simplicity is one of the arguments for a flat tax, no doubt.

It's all arbitrary in terms of the points for tax free allowances or brackets.

[Admiral Yi]

He first tried to do it before the mid-terms entirely separately as part of deficit cutting.  In addition to the general spending cuts that have been agreed and are currently going through.

???  When was this?

Right after the midterms while the Democrats had a lame-duck majority in the House he proposed extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $200 K, along with extensions of unemployment insurance and I think an extension of reduced payroll taxes.  By no stretch can you call that deficit reduction.  Are you thinking of that or something different?

[Sheilbh]

Right after the midterms while the Democrats had a lame-duck majority in the House he proposed extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $200 K, along with extensions of unemployment insurance and I think an extension of reduced payroll taxes.  By no stretch can you call that deficit reduction.  Are you thinking of that or something different?

No that's it.  I believe that proposal was rated by the CBO as raising revenue, how does that not cut the deficit?

[Admiral Yi]

No that's it.  I believe that proposal was rated by the CBO as raising revenue, how does that not cut the deficit?

I think you have your facts wrong.  The Republicans filibustered for and got an extension of Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.  There's no way that added revenue would have made the entire bill decrease the deficit.

[Neil]

Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.

That's worked over the past 30 years

Alberta is very good at that game.

Not really.

Alberta's dirty little secret (amongst right-wing circles) is that we have one of the largest public sectors of any province.  It's just that our wealthy private sector masks it so well.

I was thinking about the 90s, when we crushed the teachers and nurses unions.  The resource boom has simply eliminated the need to be frugal since then.

[fhdz]

no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.

I think proponents of progressive taxes would do well to make this their central talking point when asked why progressive taxes are "fair". It makes it less about "you have more and so you should pay not just more money but a higher percentage of your money" (which may or may not be valid) and more about "you have more because lots of people of varying classes and backgrounds have helped you - directly or indirectly - along the way. You may never have met some of these people, but they were there, nonetheless. This is one of the ways those people get compensated for what they do for you."

[DGuller]

no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.

I think proponents of progressive taxes would do well to make this their central talking point when asked why progressive taxes are "fair". It makes it less about "you have more and so you should pay not just more money but a higher percentage of your money" (which may or may not be valid) and more about "you have more because lots of people of varying classes and backgrounds have helped you - directly or indirectly - along the way. You may never have met some of these people, but they were there, nonetheless. This is one of the ways those people get compensated for what they do for you."

I agree with this, but that won't help.  Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree with this, but that won't help.  Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.

Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?

[fhdz]

I agree with this, but that won't help.  Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.

I realize that, but if she didn't look like such a lone voice on the subject they'd have had a harder time targeting her.

[DGuller]

I agree with this, but that won't help.  Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.

Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?

Case in point. 

[fhdz]

Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?

She helped create it - by Presidential request - but is a special advisor, not in charge. Why is she a nutbag (as opposed to simply someone with whose politics you disagree)?

[grumbler]

I agree with this, but that won't help.  Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.

Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?

Case in point.