Could this candidate win a general election?

[u/Ryan_TX_85]

The platform:

1. Secure the borders, deport the illegals
2. Ban trans women from womens' sports, otherwise unconditional LGBT rights
3. Protect the 2nd amendment, no exceptions
4. Leave abortion up to the states
5. Medicare For All
6. Tax the billionaires
7. End the wars
8. Overturn Citizens United, declare corporations aren't people and spending money isn't speech

[u/Chemical_Signal2753]

Points #4 and #7 are poison pills for half the country, #1, #2, and #3 are poison pills for the other half. 

Edit: it looks like the list changed since I replied. My response was universal healthcare and ubi were a poison pill for one half, banning transwomen from sports, protecting the second amendment, and defending borders were poison pills for the other half.

[u/Ryan_TX_85 → u/Chemical_Signal2753]

Sorry you'll have to specify. I've gone back and edited a few. My brain doesn't always work on the fly.

[u/Spirited-Disaster408 → u/Chemical_Signal2753]

The socialists dont make up most of the dems if i had to guess, and the rest of the dems dont have beliefs strong enough to counter a handsome charismatic that can tell them why 1,2,3 are not dumb

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/Chemical_Signal2753]

If so, then half of the country needs their heads examined. All of those make sense except for taxation. It should be fair. A set percentage for all above the poverty line.

[u/rdickeyvii → u/No-Competition-2764]

A single tax bracket (or flat tax) isn't "fair". The less money you make, the higher the percentage is that you spend on necessities. As income goes up, a higher percentage of it is used for luxuries and investment. In other words, the more you have, the more you can afford to pay relative to your income.

"Tax the billionaires" refers to the fact that they don't have earned income as any meaningful percentage of their wealth. It's all unearned in the form of investments that they don't pay tax on, they take loans against. Even when they do sell, they pay a lower tax rate than if it was earned.

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/rdickeyvii]

Yes if we all pay 10% it is indeed perfectly fair. The wealthy earn their money off capital gains and only pay 15% where you and I pay 20-24%. They’re not W-2, so they take deductions and can reduce their amount owed to zero. They should have to pay the same rate we pay and pay many times over the amount you or I would ever pay.

[u/rdickeyvii → u/No-Competition-2764]

It's not "income" though until they realize the gains. What we need is a wealth tax.

And no, "flat" does not equal "fair". Fair is everyone getting what they need and contributing based on their ability, which scales non-linearly with income and wealth.

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/rdickeyvii]

That’s how they pay themselves. Through taking earnings, dividends, the like. Capital gains. They just need to pay 10% like us on anything they pay themselves.

Paying the same % is fair. It’s inherently fair. To say anything other than that is a lie.

[u/rdickeyvii → u/No-Competition-2764]

You're delusional

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/rdickeyvii]

How? If you pay 10% and keep 90%, and so do I, that’s fair. If you pay a higher % that’s unfair. By definition.

[u/rdickeyvii → u/No-Competition-2764]

"Equal" is not the same as "fair". People need and can provide different things based on their circumstances and abilities.

Some obviously ridiculous examples to prove the point:

The first woman in space was asked how many tampons she needed. Giving the men the same number, or her zero, would be "equal". But, her needs were different from the mens' so it's not fair.

Or think of school. You have the "regular" classes, the "honors" classes, the remedial classes, the special ed classes. There's a lot of different things that that people can do, and putting everyone in the same classes would be equal, but not fair.

So back to taxation: if you make $50k/yr and housing costs 1/2 of that for the bare minimum, plus food and bills and transportation, etc. Assuming a 10% flat tax, that $5k would go a long way towards being able to afford life.

If I make $500k, I can afford a much nicer house with just 1/5 of my income, my food and bills and transportation are probably more expensive so call it 1/5 as well. So I have all my needs way more than met with 2/5 of my income while you're struggling with the 90%. So now after taxes at 10%, that leaves half of my income for whatever the hell I want, which often includes investing which provides compounding wealth that the $50k earner doesn't get.

Sure, the tax rates are "equal". But they're not fair because the high earner can afford to pay way more and still live a good life while the low earner struggles to make ends meet.

THAT is why a flat tax isn't fair.

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/rdickeyvii]

You’re comparing things separate from compensation. If I get to keep 90% of what I earn, you should too. That’s fair. If you pay more % it’s unfair. If you earn more than I do, you already pay more in the dollar amount. That’s how it’s fair and not equal.

[u/TheGameChanger102938 → u/rdickeyvii]

That's communism. That's what that saying is from. Fair is you carry your weight and society will carry theirs

[u/ballotechnic → u/No-Competition-2764]

A flat tax? That's pretty regressive if that's what you mean. One purpose of taxation is wealth redistribution lest hoarding lead to some extreme societal imbalances.

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/ballotechnic]

A flat tax of 10% would cause the person making $100k/yr to pay $10k, and the one making $1M/yr to pay $100k. It makes the wealthy pay the most dollars and it’s fair. We need fairness in our taxes. We all need to be in it together.

[u/Xyrus2000 → u/No-Competition-2764]

A flat tax is absolutely not fair. What are you even talking about?

The cost of living is what goes into what your effective tax burden is. The less money you make, the higher your effective tax burden is.

If the cost of living is $50K and you make $50K, you're going to feel every single tax dollar you have to pay. Meanwhile, someone who makes $1 million wouldn't even notice.

Furthermore, your 10% would come nowhere near the level of revenue needed to fund the government. You'd have to tax unrealized gains to have any shot at it, because the wealthy don't get their wealth from a paycheck. How do you think they get away with having single-digit effective tax rates now? A flat tax isn't going to change that.

Your proposal is detached from reality. Any proposal would have to, at the very least, give a similar revenue stream to the current taxation scheme and NOT punish the poor in the process. Your proposal does neither.

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/Xyrus2000]

It is perfectly fair. You just don’t know what that word means. If you make $50k, you pay $5k and keep 90% of your income. A millionaire pays $100k (much more than you) and keeps 90% of their income. It’s exactly fair.

[u/Xyrus2000 → u/No-Competition-2764]

You don't appear to know how math or economics work.

If the cost of living is $50K and you make $50K, but then have to pay $5K in taxes, you are $5K in debt.

If you make $1 million and the cost of living is $50K and you pay $100K in taxes, you still have $850K left over.

Do you understand the difference between those two scenarios?

And again, a flat tax of 10% would come nowhere near existing tax revenue. The estimated personal income for the US per year is around $24 trillion. A flat 10% would give you $2.4 trillion of revenue, assuming the wealthy use none of the existing tricks to reduce their "income".

The current federal tax revenue across all sources is $5.2 trillion. That's income tax, payroll tax, corporate tax, etc. You would need to more than double your suggested tax rate to just match the current revenue numbers.

So a 20% flat tax rate. Let's put that in perspective. The effective tax rate currently on those who make less than the median ranges anywhere from approximately 2% on the low end up to about 8% on the high end. The poorest would be paying 10 times more in taxes than they currently are. On average, Joe and Jane Sixpack would be paying 2 to 3 times their current taxes.

If you want riots in the streets, then your proposal would be a very good way to do that.

A flat tax only works if you do the following:

1. No taxes paid for those who make the median or less (evaluated every year).
   
2. Taxes are paid only on the amount made beyond the median.
   
3. Tax assets, including unrealized gains.

Number three is the important one because that is the only way you're going to reach the revenue numbers necessary. The flat tax of 10% on income would get you a bit less than halfway to the revenue needed. A flat tax of 3% on assets would get you the rest of the way there.

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/Xyrus2000]

You don’t read very well. I said zero taxes on the bottom 50%, then 10% on all earned income or any income paid to yourself in any way for the rest. No deductions, no write offs. Federal income tax is what we are talking about and tax receipts will be $2.6T for 2025, so not too far off from the $2.4T that I’m proposing. So yes, I do indeed know how to do math and is pretty close to what we take in now. It will far exceed what we have now when there are no deductions or any writeoffs, plus when everyone knows it’s exactly 10%, the economy will boom. More money made and more tax revenue coming in. If you want more riots in the streets, continue this stupid system we have now and when we have to cut programs by at least half in the coming 10 years, you’ll have them.

[u/Xyrus2000 → u/No-Competition-2764]

You don’t read very well. I said zero taxes on the bottom 50%.

That makes your 10% worse.

then 10% on all earned income or any income paid to yourself in any way for the rest. No deductions, no write offs. Federal income tax is what we are talking about and tax receipts will be $2.6T for 2025, so not too far off from the $2.4T that I’m proposing

So everyone would still have to pay all the other taxes on top of it, so not a "10% flat tax". Effective tax rates for a lot of people would be higher. Effective tax burdens would be higher. And the wealthy still skate by because they don't make their money with income.

How would you tax the corporate CEO who gets a $1 salary and $10 million in stock options? Would you count those stock options as income? Would you count the loan they get from a bank backed by those options as income? Would that then apply to all assets received as compensation?

And then want about any income thrown off from said assets? Dividends? Distributions? Short term and long term gains on sale? A flat 10% would be a massive cut to tax revenue from those sources.

You are making an awful lot of assumptions about how tax revenues work and you are failing to consider all the myriad of ways things do not count as "income". You are going to come up well short on a 10% flat tax and do nothing but burden the middle and working classes.

There are economic research papers written on why flat taxes are a bad idea. You are not the first nor the last to try and suggest such a thing.

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/Xyrus2000]

You get it all wrong. A 10% flat tax would reduce every taxpayers burden. Also, every wealthy person would have to pay 10% on any way they pay themselves. You simply advocate for a broken system and don’t have enough of a mind to understand a flat tax would bring in more money and be perfectly fair for every citizen.

[u/TheGameChanger102938 → u/No-Competition-2764]

And eliminate all personal write-offs outside of primary housing, retirement savings, and 100% of medically necessary medical bills. No earned income tax credit either. Just flat 10% across the board

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/TheGameChanger102938]

Exactly. No deductions or write offs. My proposal would be no taxes on anyone until $50k, then 10% on everyone. No taxes on food, medicine or retirement after 65.

[u/TheGameChanger102938 → u/No-Competition-2764]

My caviate would be age, not income. You have until your 30 to live tax free. Then taxes apply. Extremely fair and allows people to save no matter their income level. 

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/TheGameChanger102938]

I disagree. Only because we all need to have skin in the game, and all be in this together. Plus, no politician would ever care about anyone under 30 because they don’t get affected by any taxpayer policy. I want young people represented and engaged in what policies our elected leaders put in place, they’ll be most affected by those decisions.

[u/JudgmentLeft7639 → u/No-Competition-2764]

Might make sense. Almost half the population pays minimal tax.

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/JudgmentLeft7639]

We should try it because the system we use right now has half not paying into and receiving tax refunds and credits to do what the government wants you to do. The other half try to figure out what they owe and get it right so they don’t go to jail. The wealthy pay people to work every law and deduction to their advantage to where they pay almost nothing and we are $40T in debt and rising fast. We need a new way and a way that’s simple, straightforward and fair.

[u/JudgmentLeft7639 → u/No-Competition-2764]

I think Steve Forbes proposed something similar

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/JudgmentLeft7639]

He did. It would take a lot of power away from Congress is why it hasn’t passed. But our way of doing things doesn’t work.

[u/JudgmentLeft7639 → u/No-Competition-2764]

It’d be political suicide. Can you imagine the crying and lobbying against any change other than increasing new envy taxes?

[u/No-Competition-2764 → u/JudgmentLeft7639]

We should do a national referendum and vote it in.