>a 90% tax on $1 billion is $100 million which is still enough to buy a couple of mansions, private jet, fast cars and all the pussy money can buy for several generations
>a 90% tax on $20,000 is $2000, which covers 2 months of rent, food and bills, and after that he's homeless
>free market ideologues unironically believe the latter is preferrable because the rich would trickle down their gains creating economic growth
Flat tax people are retards who don't understand living expenses.
>$1 billion generates a greater economic stimulus than $20,000
really milks my mammaries
I'd rather see no tax at all since taxation is theft.
>90% of 1 billion is 100 million
You mean 10% tax and that is their take-home income, unless this is some dumb anglo linguistic construct.
Many flat tax advocates are not for it because "hurr fair", many state it is to get rid of loopholes so the ultra rich pay as little as possible via having means above the average citizen.
Also, why are you charting off of a 90% income tax? Why not 10%? Why not a flat tax and wage caps for CEO to worker? 90% tax would kill an economy faster than a mayfly.
>implying an esl (like you) didn't write this abomination of a phrase
>free market ideologues unironically believe the latter is preferrable because the rich would trickle down their gains creating economic growth
No they don't. Name me one free market ideologue that supports regressive taxation.
Funny how equal lump sum contribution makes complete sense to people when there is a dinner bill to split but when we get to state level expenses then people suddenly start having complicated and contrived ideas how to pay for that.
I advocate a flat tax because the workers arguably pay a higher tax rate than the super rich.
The payroll tax rate is higher than any income tax bracket, not to mention that poor people are hit harder by the VAT.
the main purpose of the flat tax is to simplify the tax code to prevent the rich from getting tax lawyers
>living in a cunt
>make a billion dollars/year
>previously paying 20% of that amount in tax, whatever, not like I care
>government legislates a new tax bracket obliging me to pay 90% of my earnings last year in tax
>country b across the border has a max tax rate of 30%
>country c has an impenetrable banking policy
>hide all possible earnings in country c
>spend $2m and get an investor visa with fast track citizenship for country b
>mfw I fuck off to country b and never pay another dime into the original cunt's coffers, whereas if I just had to pay a lower tax rate in the first place I wouldn't give a shit
protip: the theoretical amount of tax you collect at both 0% taxation and 100% taxation is zero.
then a's government just takes the shit you were squatting on and uses it itself
>the workers arguably pay a higher tax rate than the super rich.
This is objectively not true. The entire argument that we can't raise taxes on rich people because they'll just magically avoid all the additional taxes is a pyramid of lies as far as I can tell. I have many times seen people claim that there is no hope of actually raising income tax on the rich because somehow, through some unexplainable mechanism, they'll just completely dodge all those taxes. How? Where is this magic loophole in the tax code that apparently only rich people can read?
Which is why nobody ever seriously advocates for a 100% tax bracket. If it were up to me, income tax would scale between 7% and 70% depending on income.
>implying you couldn't reduce tax codes without fully transforming the system into something retarded
That's just what they tell pawns, you dolt.
what about a flat tax on private jets, mansions and other luxury items available only to the very rich?
This is why we need to install a flat tax all across the board so rich people won't be able to skirt it and just diversify the wealth into separate brackets and exploit tax exemptions.
Who gets paid to build those things, user?
How does flat tax fix any of that?
>Where is this magic loophole in the tax code that apparently only rich people can read?
It's the part where you only pay income tax on your salary and comparable benefits, whereas the majority of the income rich people get comes under stock options, dividends and the like.
I think you completely missed the point of my post. I don't believe that these magic "exemptions" actually exist, otherwise everybody would use them regardless of income.
Dividends are taxed as income, user.
Bad example, then. The point is that the current system works just fine for people whose major source of income can be summed up as "my salary is x". It breaks down when you get to "Oh, my salary is x, but I also got some stock options as a bonus, my existing stocks have gone up in value, I also have some money tied up in real estate where I expect good returns this year..." and so on. And you can't fix that by instating a flat tax, you'll just break the existing system.
>a 90% tax on $1 billion is $0 because businesses and rich people flee the country or keep their money overseas
Please.
You have no idea how retarded anglos can be, monolingual or otherwise. Or I guess you do.
>implying the government wouldn't just devalue their currency making all those trillions of $ laundered in offshore accounts, nothing more than worthless bits of paper
They would amass Swiss franks or bitcoins before that happens.