are you for or against a fair tax?

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
... someone who makes minimum wage...

people that make minimum wage don't pay income taxes. in fact , a good chunk of them get EIC , so they get a "refund" of everyone elses money


this thread proves most people don't understand the entire taxation methods of the USA

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tiamat
sounds great for the people who have tons of money, and shitty for people who have very little money.

15000$ economy car -> 19500$ is a huge deal for someone who makes minimum wage, but not noticeable for someone who reels in 100k$ per year for example.

I'm against a fair tax.

Someone who makes minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. 😉 But even if they did, the fair tax is replacing the income tax. You're already paying $19,500 for that car - the $15,000 you gave the dealer, and the few grand you paid to the government in income tax to earn that $15,000.

Except the income tax paid on that income would be at a lower rate than the tax placed on that $15k car under The Fair Tax plan.

But you don't buy a car every year now do you?

I buy groceries every week...

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Tiamat
... someone who makes minimum wage...

people that make minimum wage don't pay income taxes. in fact , a good chunk of them get EIC , so they get a "refund" of everyone elses money


this thread proves most people don't understand the entire taxation methods of the USA

I edited my comment above to what I was really thinking of, the lower middle and middle classes.

Fair Tax benefits those that save/invest. Lower middle class/ middle class can't afford to save/invest as normal everyday expenditures are a higher percentage of their salary than it is to a upper middle class / wealthy person. So, the lower middle class/ middle class will get hit hard while the upper middle class / wealthy continue to thrive, business as usual.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: mugs
Then they should call it the Magic Tax since it somehow causes a ~20% reduction in the prices of everything (by shifting around the source of tax revenue without reducing it).

There are already plenty of real-world examples where a business tax was removed and the businesses responsible for that tax dropped their prices hours after it went into affect. This specifically happened with the airline industry and a federal tax that expired. All it took was one airline to reduce their prices by the amount of the federal tax and the rest followed suit.

Obviously, this will work faster in highly competitive markets segment than in not-so competitive market segments.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: vi_edit
The idea of buying a $25,000 car and instead of paying $1700 for in sales tax for a total of $26,700 I now have to pay $7000 for a total of $31,000 does not sound appealing in the least bit.

Plus you are screwing people on lower incomes when it comes to basic household goods.

Their $100 a week grocery bill just went up to $130 a week. Clothes to put on your kids went up. Ect.

It sounds like a great way to dick over lower incomes and stifle the economy even more than it is.

It depends too upon which items are taxed. In Pennsylvania, the sales tax is not levied on "necessities," such as food and clothing.

Taxes are going to be either unfair in some way, or else the tax code is going to be exceedingly complex, and would probably require some advanced degree in math just to be able to do the tax return. I think that the best we can do is some sort of progressive tax. Flat taxes just don't work. Say it's a 20% income tax - make $18,000 a year, and that $3600 makes a BIG difference. Make $70,000, and you can easily afford to give up $14,000. With a progressive tax though, the tax rate would increase as income increases. There would come a point where the rate would either level off, or else reach 100%. Maybe the curve should be drawn such that to reach a taxation rate of 100%, the person's income would need to be equal to the net worth of the country's economy, or perhaps the sum total of the government's budget - so if one person would, in theory, earn all the money in the country, they'd pay a 100% income tax, or else pay off the government's whole budget.
But, that's just a theory from an amateur bystander.

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: wyvrn
You are not looking at both sides for your first argument. Sure the items are more expensive, but they aren't being taxed on income the minute they get their paycheck. If the overall tax rate comes to be the same, everything else equal, what difference does it make?

because the overall tax rate isn't going to be the same.
point #1: The government is going to need to raise the same total amount of money through taxes.

point #2: The goal is to increase savings and investment. Since income isn't taxed, people will save more and open their own businesses.

point #3: If you believe the idea of allowances or deductions for necessities to eliminate the affect of tax on low income people, so that they don't pay more in taxes under the new system, then the tax revenues aren't shifted to that demographic.

point #4: People with higher incomes will have more money left over after necessities than people with middle incomes. Who do you think will be more likely to have enough left over for meaningful savings and opening of businesses? Rocket science level of genius not needed here. If the rich are going to have more money to save and invest, then how is "everything else equal"??

Under the old tax system, say, one makes 1 million dollars a year and pays 200,000 in taxes. If "everything else equal", then the fair tax proponents mean that they'll now make 1 million dollars, and pay 200,000 through taxes on consumption. But wait a second; the taxes are higher on goods so they're going to be less likely to splurge on that new yacht. After all, the goal is that they save more and invest more. If that's the case, then they end up paying LESS than 200,000 in taxes (otherwise, the whole goal of the fair tax is pointless.)

Which tax bracket is going to make up the shortfall when the rich have all the extra money to save and invest (and not necessarily invest in our own country)?

Now, a bigger question: if everyone is saving and investing all this new found discretionary income, then how are we stimulating the economy from a production standpoint? Can a city of 100,000 support 1000 pizza shops? Heck, why would anyone go out to dinner?? Now: Crab legs in grocery store: $10 per pound, no tax. At a restaurant: $30, plus whatever state tax applies; maybe 5% = $31.50
New tax rate: 30%. Grocery store: $13.00 Restaurant: $39.00. A bigger gap in price!! Plus, who's going to eat out 5 times a week when the goal is to get people to save more money?

Stimulate the economy? Nonsense. You can't stimulate the economy if *everyone* saves their money.

Part of the issue with monetary policy that I see is that it seems possible to reasonably predict people's first reaction to a new policy - sure, they'll change their spending habits initially. But then comes the creativity problem, when people begin to adapt to the new policies, and use them in ways not originally intended by those manipulating the strings. It's kind of like releasing a new game that was tested reasonably well. Soon after, someone uses it in some way not originally intended, and it crashes. It's an equation with a few hundred million variables.

I suppose one of my questions is "What is really fair?". Is the current system fair? Is it fair to charge the rich for being rich? If I make more money than someone else, why should I have to pay a proportionally higher share in taxes? If I make $100K a year and have to pay 28% and my neighbor makes $50K a year and only pays 23%, then I am being penalized for making more money. How is that fair? I am not a fan of progressive taxes for this reason. As you make more money, you have incrementally less incentive to earn the next dollar.

R

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: mugs
I am for A fair tax, I am not for THE Fair Tax until someone can answer one question to my satisfaction - how does someone like me, who has a lot of money in the bank that has already been taxed, not get screwed by the Fair Tax? I've already paid income tax on that money, and now you want me to pay a huge sales tax on that same money. Fair Tax seems fine for any money made after its implementation, and it's fine for anyone who has no savings or negative savings (actually they make out pretty well). But what about me? 🙁

Under the current tax system, that money is being taxed again anyways. Businesses are passing along the cost of the taxes they pay and the money they spend on keeping up with regulations and mandates to you, the buyer of their goods and/or services. This is 20-26% of the cost of goods.

At least with the Fair Tax, you are being taxed only once. At the point of sale. Not by income taxes, interest taxes, investment taxes, SS taxes, hidden taxes, etc etc.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tiamat
sounds great for the people who have tons of money, and shitty for people who have very little money.

15000$ economy car -> 19500$ is a huge deal for someone who makes minimum wage, but not noticeable for someone who reels in 100k$ per year for example.

I'm against a fair tax.

Someone who makes minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. 😉 But even if they did, the fair tax is replacing the income tax. You're already paying $19,500 for that car - the $15,000 you gave the dealer, and the few grand you paid to the government in income tax to earn that $15,000.

Except the income tax paid on that income would be at a lower rate than the tax placed on that $15k car under The Fair Tax plan.

Which is why I brought up the fact that someone who is making minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. It's unfair to compare the income tax on minimum wage to the "Fair Tax" on a $15,000 car.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tiamat
sounds great for the people who have tons of money, and shitty for people who have very little money.

15000$ economy car -> 19500$ is a huge deal for someone who makes minimum wage, but not noticeable for someone who reels in 100k$ per year for example.

I'm against a fair tax.

Someone who makes minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. 😉 But even if they did, the fair tax is replacing the income tax. You're already paying $19,500 for that car - the $15,000 you gave the dealer, and the few grand you paid to the government in income tax to earn that $15,000.

Except the income tax paid on that income would be at a lower rate than the tax placed on that $15k car under The Fair Tax plan.

Which is why I brought up the fact that someone who is making minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. It's unfair to compare the income tax on minimum wage to the "Fair Tax" on a $15,000 car.

Yeah, I used a very bad example. How about everyday consumables like groceries for lower mid class vs. wealthy?

Food is something everyone needs, but the costs are by percentage less to a wealthy person - most likely within the interest of their investments. Investments that a lower-middle class citizen cannot afford because they are still paying for their groceries and other consumables.

It just seems that this fair tax would enhance the living of the wealthy (supporting their huge investments) while not changing or not helping the living of the lower-middle class/ middle class (who are not able to save/invest anymore than they did during normal taxation).

I am no economist or even close to one, but it seems that the best improvement would be to raise the bottom end out of the rut it is in (without harming the upper classes), not increase the crevice between have and have nots...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: mugs
I am for A fair tax, I am not for THE Fair Tax until someone can answer one question to my satisfaction - how does someone like me, who has a lot of money in the bank that has already been taxed, not get screwed by the Fair Tax? I've already paid income tax on that money, and now you want me to pay a huge sales tax on that same money. Fair Tax seems fine for any money made after its implementation, and it's fine for anyone who has no savings or negative savings (actually they make out pretty well). But what about me? 🙁

Under the current tax system, that money is being taxed again anyways. Businesses are passing along the cost of the taxes they pay and the money they spend on keeping up with regulations and mandates to you, the buyer of their goods and/or services. This is 20-26% of the cost of goods.

At least with the Fair Tax, you are being taxed only once. At the point of sale. Not by income taxes, interest taxes, investment taxes, SS taxes, hidden taxes, etc etc.

It might have been nice if we started out with the Fair Tax, but as it is I would get screwed by it, and I don't like that too much.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'd be more in favor of a flat tax, where everyone above the poverty level pays a set percentage of their total income from all sources. Eliminate all deductions: mortgage, charity, etc...all gone.
Obviously, I'm not an economist, so I don't know what percentage would be necessary to accomplish the level of taxation needed, and I'm not sure how this would work out in the end run, (would the rich gain more and the middle-class still get stuck paying the brunt of the taxes?) but IMO, that would be more fair than a consumption tax.
Come to think about it, leave the tax system with increments...the more you make, the higher your percentage...and still eliminate any and all exemptions. Allowing people to deduct their tithes or deductions to charity amounts to government support of churches and charities...let's get rid of that all together.

There's a problem with that though. Let's say the cutoff point is $30,000, and the tax rate is 15%. There's going to be a gray zone where it'll make sense NOT to earn any more.

Earn $29,999.99 - it's tax free. Now earn $30,000, and suddenly you pay taxes. That knocks you down to $25,500. This range goes from $30,000 to $35,294.11. If you're at $29,999.99 already, and want to really make more money, you'd need to get a raise of $5,294.12 a year. Not many places will issue a 17.65% raise at once.

And see my earlier post about why a flat tax would be a greater burder on the lower class. A set percentage makes a much bigger difference on quality of life for lower incomes. Then still, we'd need to redefine what income becomes the cutoff point for implementing the tax.

That's not how that kind of taxing works. You'd pay 15% on the income over $30k

Someone making $20k would pay 0
Someone making $30k would pay 0
Someone making $40k would pay 15% of $40k-30k = 15% of $10k = $1500
Someone making $50k would pay $3000

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

I'm in favor of a Flat Tax. I don't like the idea of the Fair Tax idea partially because of, yeah, double taxation and under the table transactions, but mostly because I don't like that our governments funding would be directly tied to consumer spending. That gives them incentive to have us spend and put the government in a compromising position should consumer confidence faulter for an extended time.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tiamat
sounds great for the people who have tons of money, and shitty for people who have very little money.

15000$ economy car -> 19500$ is a huge deal for someone who makes minimum wage, but not noticeable for someone who reels in 100k$ per year for example.

I'm against a fair tax.

Someone who makes minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. 😉 But even if they did, the fair tax is replacing the income tax. You're already paying $19,500 for that car - the $15,000 you gave the dealer, and the few grand you paid to the government in income tax to earn that $15,000.

Except the income tax paid on that income would be at a lower rate than the tax placed on that $15k car under The Fair Tax plan.

Which is why I brought up the fact that someone who is making minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. It's unfair to compare the income tax on minimum wage to the "Fair Tax" on a $15,000 car.

Yeah, I used a very bad example. How about everyday consumables like groceries for lower mid class vs. wealthy?

Food is something everyone needs, but the costs are by percentage less to a wealthy person - most likely within the interest of their investments. Investments that a lower-middle class citizen cannot afford because they are still paying for their groceries and other consumables.

It just seems that this fair tax would enhance the living of the wealthy (supporting their huge investments) while not changing or not helping the living of the lower-middle class/ middle class (who are not able to save/invest anymore than they did during normal taxation).

That's what the monthly prebate is for. Every month, everyone gets a check calculated by the number of people in the household and the poverty level. This check is supposed to cover the cost of the basic necessities like food.

There's another benefit in that the Fair Tax will attract back businesses that fled the United States because of our punishing tax system (did you know that the USA is the only country that allows companies that do business overseas to get taxed twice? Once in the foreign country and once here?) This will be a boon to the lower/middle class as jobs in the manufacturing sector and elsewhere that those classes typically occupy will return.

 

[vi edit]

This thread is in dire need of a Dullard breakdown.

I'd like to see how well a dual income household with 2 kids, a mortgage, 401k contributions, and income of say $75,000 fairs under the current system and the proposed one.

Maybe when I get home I'll actually slap some numbers down.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm in favor of a Flat Tax. I don't like the idea of the Fair Tax idea partially because of, yeah, double taxation and under the table transactions, but mostly because I don't like that our governments funding would be directly tied to consumer spending. That gives them incentive to have us spend and put the government in a compromising position should consumer confidence faulter for an extended time.

1) You're taxed several times over now already. Many more times over than you would be under the FairTax.

2) Billions in tax revenue are lost already due to tax avoidance. Under the table transactions are already more than common.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'd be more in favor of a flat tax, where everyone above the poverty level pays a set percentage of their total income from all sources. Eliminate all deductions: mortgage, charity, etc...all gone.
Obviously, I'm not an economist, so I don't know what percentage would be necessary to accomplish the level of taxation needed, and I'm not sure how this would work out in the end run, (would the rich gain more and the middle-class still get stuck paying the brunt of the taxes?) but IMO, that would be more fair than a consumption tax.
Come to think about it, leave the tax system with increments...the more you make, the higher your percentage...and still eliminate any and all exemptions. Allowing people to deduct their tithes or deductions to charity amounts to government support of churches and charities...let's get rid of that all together.

There's a problem with that though. Let's say the cutoff point is $30,000, and the tax rate is 15%. There's going to be a gray zone where it'll make sense NOT to earn any more.

Earn $29,999.99 - it's tax free. Now earn $30,000, and suddenly you pay taxes. That knocks you down to $25,500. This range goes from $30,000 to $35,294.11. If you're at $29,999.99 already, and want to really make more money, you'd need to get a raise of $5,294.12 a year. Not many places will issue a 17.65% raise at once.

And see my earlier post about why a flat tax would be a greater burder on the lower class. A set percentage makes a much bigger difference on quality of life for lower incomes. Then still, we'd need to redefine what income becomes the cutoff point for implementing the tax.

That's not how that kind of taxing works. You'd pay 15% on the income over $30k

Someone making $20k would pay 0
Someone making $30k would pay 0
Someone making $40k would pay 15% of $40k-30k = 15% of $10k = $1500
Someone making $50k would pay $3000

read what boomerd wrote. you may be describing what he meant, but it certainly wasn't what he wrote.

Originally posted by: vi_edit
This thread is in dire need of a Dullard breakdown.

I'd like to see how well a dual income household with 2 kids, a mortgage, 401k contributions, and income of say $75,000 fairs under the current system and the proposed one.

Maybe when I get home I'll actually slap some numbers down.

too many assumptions involved to really do a good breakdown. depending on the assumptions made you could make them better or worse off.

first question: will they be paid the same? the 'income' of $75,000 is a big question. after payroll taxes but before benefits, the employer pays $80,737.50. if their net income tax rate is 15%, their take home after FICA is $58,012.5. so where is their pay after implementation of the fair tax?

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm in favor of a Flat Tax. I don't like the idea of the Fair Tax idea partially because of, yeah, double taxation and under the table transactions, but mostly because I don't like that our governments funding would be directly tied to consumer spending. That gives them incentive to have us spend and put the government in a compromising position should consumer confidence faulter for an extended time.

a flat tax on what?




EDIT: the real reason something like the fair tax would never work is that no one could ever explain it to a majority's satisfaction.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Tiamat
sounds great for the people who have tons of money, and shitty for people who have very little money.

15000$ economy car -> 19500$ is a huge deal for someone who makes minimum wage, but not noticeable for someone who reels in 100k$ per year for example.

I'm against a fair tax.

Someone who makes minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. 😉 But even if they did, the fair tax is replacing the income tax. You're already paying $19,500 for that car - the $15,000 you gave the dealer, and the few grand you paid to the government in income tax to earn that $15,000.

Except the income tax paid on that income would be at a lower rate than the tax placed on that $15k car under The Fair Tax plan.

Which is why I brought up the fact that someone who is making minimum wage can't afford a $15,000 car. It's unfair to compare the income tax on minimum wage to the "Fair Tax" on a $15,000 car.

Yeah, I used a very bad example. How about everyday consumables like groceries for lower mid class vs. wealthy?

Food is something everyone needs, but the costs are by percentage less to a wealthy person - most likely within the interest of their investments. Investments that a lower-middle class citizen cannot afford because they are still paying for their groceries and other consumables.

It just seems that this fair tax would enhance the living of the wealthy (supporting their huge investments) while not changing or not helping the living of the lower-middle class/ middle class (who are not able to save/invest anymore than they did during normal taxation).

That's what the monthly prebate is for. Every month, everyone gets a check calculated by the number of people in the household and the poverty level. This check is supposed to cover the cost of the basic necessities like food.

There's another benefit in that the Fair Tax will attract back businesses that fled the United States because of our punishing tax system (did you know that the USA is the only country that allows companies that do business overseas to get taxed twice? Once in the foreign country and once here?) This will be a boon to the lower/middle class as jobs in the manufacturing sector and elsewhere that those classes typically occupy will return.

Thanks. I didn't know about that prebate. I only was basing off info in the OP which is not much. I'm still learning, and it seems I still have quite a bit to learn! Which is fine by me 🙂

My naive opinion is still that the fair tax system as proposed works for people who live within their means. Unfortunately, this country has so many people who cannot (I've seen so many foreclosures and heard about other loan defaults). So, do they just get kicked out and shot so that they don't ruin it for others economically (interest rates) because of their crappy spending habits? 🙂

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Thanks. I didn't know about that prebate. I only was basing off info in the OP which is not much. I'm still learning, and it seems I still have quite a bit to learn! Which is fine by me 🙂

My naive opinion is still that the fair tax system as proposed works for people who live within their means. Unfortunately, this country has so many people who cannot (I've seen so many foreclosures and heard about other loan defaults). So, do they just get kicked out and shot so that they don't ruin it for others economically (interest rates) because of their crappy spending habits? 🙂

Go to FairTax.org to learn more about it. There is a ton of disinformation/misinformation/wrong-information out there about what the Fair Tax does and how it replaces the current tax system. It makes it very difficult to get people to understand.

 

[lokiju]

How about tax reform?

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Thanks. I didn't know about that prebate. I only was basing off info in the OP which is not much. I'm still learning, and it seems I still have quite a bit to learn! Which is fine by me 🙂

My naive opinion is still that the fair tax system as proposed works for people who live within their means. Unfortunately, this country has so many people who cannot (I've seen so many foreclosures and heard about other loan defaults). So, do they just get kicked out and shot so that they don't ruin it for others economically (interest rates) because of their crappy spending habits? 🙂

Go to FairTax.org to learn more about it. There is a ton of disinformation/misinformation/wrong-information out there about what the Fair Tax does and how it replaces the current tax system. It makes it very difficult to get people to understand.

Thanks, ill check it out. Most people don't have the attention span. When it comes to something as deep as taxation, they are gonna read the first 2 lines and form an opinion.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: rgwalt
I suppose one of my questions is "What is really fair?". Is the current system fair? Is it fair to charge the rich for being rich? If I make more money than someone else, why should I have to pay a proportionally higher share in taxes? If I make $100K a year and have to pay 28% and my neighbor makes $50K a year and only pays 23%, then I am being penalized for making more money. How is that fair? I am not a fan of progressive taxes for this reason. As you make more money, you have incrementally less incentive to earn the next dollar.
R

You're ignoring one thing: after you make so much money by being productive, your money makes money. i.e. Bill Gates could retire right now, invest all of his money in a savings account, and never be able to spend the interest as fast as he earns it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: rgwalt
I suppose one of my questions is "What is really fair?". Is the current system fair? Is it fair to charge the rich for being rich? If I make more money than someone else, why should I have to pay a proportionally higher share in taxes? If I make $100K a year and have to pay 28% and my neighbor makes $50K a year and only pays 23%, then I am being penalized for making more money. How is that fair? I am not a fan of progressive taxes for this reason. As you make more money, you have incrementally less incentive to earn the next dollar.
R

You're ignoring one thing: after you make so much money by being productive, your money makes money. i.e. Bill Gates could retire right now, invest all of his money in a savings account, and never be able to spend the interest as fast as he earns it.

ok, but how does that factor into whether progressive taxation is 'fair'?

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: techs
The "fair tax" is a plan to shif the tax burden away from the rich

Actually, it would be a better way to get more tax from the rich. Most people with money have at least one company to get favorable tax treatment, and this system would do away with this. And it is likely that the poor would receive similar exemptions, in the forms of rebates, in this system as they do in the current system. At least I would hope so, because it does take a certain amount of cash to live a basic lifestyle.

Completely wrong. How much tax would Bill Gates pay under the fair tax and under the current tax?
Well, since he has amassed 60 billion, that 60 billion would not be taxed.
So I guess Bill Gates just saved about 60 billion in taxes, at a 50 percent rate.

Here's what the pro fair tax morons don't understand.
The rich accumulate hundreds of billions of dollars more than they can spend. And that amount is NOT taxed under the fair tax.
Leaving you and me to pay for their billions.
Which, by the way, they made using roads, schools, etc that they take advantage of, without paying their fare share for.

Ahhh, 'fair share'. Such a simple term that nobody bothers to define exactly how much is 'fair'.

The rich are still going to be purchasing goods just like everybody else. In fact, they'll be purchasing goods that cost more than the average person. So, they'll be paying way more in taxes.

And you are crazy if you think Bill Gates pays a 50 percent tax rate on $60 billion every year. That's insane and shows that you have no clue how the current tax system works.

Agree with Queasy

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Come to think about it, leave the tax system with increments...the more you make, the higher your percentage...and still eliminate any and all exemptions. Allowing people to deduct their tithes or deductions to charity amounts to government support of churches and charities...let's get rid of that all together.

If you did that, the majority of charities and churches would go under, and I doubt anyone thinks that is a good thing. In an ideal world, people would still contribute because it was the right thing to do, but in reality we all know that would not happen.

KT

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: vi_edit
The idea of buying a $25,000 car and instead of paying $1700 for in sales tax for a total of $26,700 I now have to pay $7000 for a total of $31,000 does not sound appealing in the least bit.

Plus you are screwing people on lower incomes when it comes to basic household goods.

Their $100 a week grocery bill just went up to $130 a week. Clothes to put on your kids went up. Ect.

It sounds like a great way to dick over lower incomes and stifle the economy even more than it is.

Of course the flip side of that is that when Mr. CEO buys his 200million dollar yaght...60 million of that goes into taxes rather than being a 200 million dollar write-off for his company.

isnt this a VAT (value added tax)?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm in favor of a Flat Tax. I don't like the idea of the Fair Tax idea partially because of, yeah, double taxation and under the table transactions, but mostly because I don't like that our governments funding would be directly tied to consumer spending. That gives them incentive to have us spend and put the government in a compromising position should consumer confidence faulter for an extended time.

1) You're taxed several times over now already. Many more times over than you would be under the FairTax.

2) Billions in tax revenue are lost already due to tax avoidance. Under the table transactions are already more than common.

Well, first of all, I stand to benefit least from a Flat Tax plan. As it is, as a single income family of four with a mortgage, even with my very decent salary, we pay essentially no taxes. Under a Fair Use, our frugal spending would mean I still barely get taxed.

Under a Flat Tax I probably pay a little more, but I also won't see diminishing returns as my salary increases and my wife goes back to work in a few years, etc. That's the point of the Flat Tax....eliminate the loopholes for the rich and give the poor something to work towards without punishing them for working hard and earning more.

As far as what to tax, I'd be happy with a modification of what we have now with income and employer taxes. Throw in a credit for low income earners to shut up the libbies and, boom, tax reform. The only problem I'd have with it is all the out of work accountants, so I still think there should be some deductions (healthcare, mortgage interest) just to keep everything complicated enough to justify their line of work. 🙂