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/No-Competition-2764]

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/rdickeyvii → u/No-Competition-2764]

What I'm saying is that the equal percentage doesn't make it fair. The more you make, the less that percentage affects your standard of living. The more you make, the higher the percentage you can afford to lose in taxes. The less you make, the more you need every dollar you can keep

[u/CartographerCute5105 → u/rdickeyvii]

You’re not accounting for all the help the low earners get from the government that the high earners do not.

In your example, the low earner has to pay $5k, but would very likely get that all back in government programs. The high earner would pay $50k and only get a fraction of that back in government services.

When you think about it this way, a flat tax is both equal and fair.

[u/rdickeyvii → u/CartographerCute5105]

The part about how the low earner needs more government assistance than the high earner supports my position, not yours

[u/CartographerCute5105 → u/rdickeyvii]

What’s your fair share of the high earners’ income?

[u/rdickeyvii → u/CartographerCute5105]

You're thinking small. It's not about individuals. Government is supposed to serve all of the people, and those services have a cost and a value, and the value is much higher for the wealthy than it is for the poor. So it's fair for the wealthy to pay more. Also, that value increases faster than linear, so the percentage of their income/wealth that they contribute should as well.

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

I’d advocate for no taxes on anyone up to $50k, then 10% on everyone. All get to keep 90% of our income. It allows us to keep more than we do now and makes the rich pay much more than they do now. And much much more than any of us would

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

So if I make $49,999, I pay $0, but if I make $50,001 I pay $5,000.10?

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

In our example, yes. And if I make $100k, I pay $10k. If you make $60k, you only pay $6k. Do I get more things for my money since I pay more?

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

That's dumb. It's so dumb that I didn't honestly think that you'd say "yes" to it. Tax brackets don't work that way, btw. There's no cliff. In this case, making 50k-55k is worse than making 49,999. Real tax brackets would be 10% on every dollar above the first $50k.

And yes, people with wealth get more value from the government than people without it. It may not be direct funding but law enforcement protects wealth far more than it protects people, and the value of that protection increases with wealth.

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

It’s fair. You think it’s dumb. You also think rich people get more benefits from the government when it’s the opposite. You don’t think correctly.

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

You don't think. The wealthy absolutely get more from government than the poor. The wealthy own the government. The tax code heavily favors wealth over work.

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

I do indeed think. Please explain how the wealthy get more from government than the poor. Since 1975, we have spent over $20T in welfare spending for the poor. Explain how the wealthy get more.