FairTax legislation?

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: gotsmack
a federal flat tax with the first $20-30K tax free would be most fair. That way you could just get rid of deductions except for companies.

The rich would have to pay more in taxes because they don't get any deductions, and there would still be an incetive for investments and such because any losses would reduce your taxable income.

you could also get rid of the death tax and such and just take any money inherited as new income.


yes, SOME rich people would pay less, but you know what, poor people would pay NO federal tax so they can't complain.

You have no idea how and who pays the most tax right now and what a person that makes 30K pays do you?

Flat/Fair tax is just a scam to give a break for the top % while putting the burdon on those that make less and are in the lowwest bracket.

Do you? The bottom 50% of the income earners pay ~3% of the total income tax burden. With the last round of tax cuts, millions have been wiped off the income tax rolls altogether and the income tax burden on the top 50%/top 5%/top 1% has increased (ie they are paying more of the share of the total income taxes collected).

Probably the taxes that are the most regressive on the lowest bracket is Social Security and Medicare taxes. Fair Tax would do away with those altogether.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: gotsmack
a federal flat tax with the first $20-30K tax free would be most fair. That way you could just get rid of deductions except for companies.

The rich would have to pay more in taxes because they don't get any deductions, and there would still be an incetive for investments and such because any losses would reduce your taxable income.

you could also get rid of the death tax and such and just take any money inherited as new income.


yes, SOME rich people would pay less, but you know what, poor people would pay NO federal tax so they can't complain.

You have no idea how and who pays the most tax right now and what a person that makes 30K pays do you?

Flat/Fair tax is just a scam to give a break for the top % while putting the burdon on those that make less and are in the lowwest bracket.

Do you? The bottom 50% of the income earners pay ~3% of the total income tax burden. With the last round of tax cuts, millions have been wiped off the income tax rolls altogether and the income tax burden on the top 50%/top 5%/top 1% has increased (ie they are paying more of the share of the total income taxes collected).

Probably the taxes that are the most regressive on the lowest bracket is Social Security and Medicare taxes. Fair Tax would do away with those altogether.

Don't forget the people in the top .01 percent (which is much different than the top 1%). Those 13000 families make the most money, but pay relatively little money since they make all their money off of capital gains, where the tax has been cut dramatically.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

You have no idea how and who pays the most tax right now and what a person that makes 30K pays do you?

in income taxes? the top 1% pays the most of any single % of payers, and iirc pays more than the bottom half combined.

as for up to 30K, the income taxes are lower than the payroll taxes, iirc. i'm not sure where the crossover point is for the typical taxpayer, though.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: gotsmack
a federal flat tax with the first $20-30K tax free would be most fair. That way you could just get rid of deductions except for companies.

The rich would have to pay more in taxes because they don't get any deductions, and there would still be an incetive for investments and such because any losses would reduce your taxable income.

you could also get rid of the death tax and such and just take any money inherited as new income.


yes, SOME rich people would pay less, but you know what, poor people would pay NO federal tax so they can't complain.

You have no idea how and who pays the most tax right now and what a person that makes 30K pays do you?

Flat/Fair tax is just a scam to give a break for the top % while putting the burdon on those that make less and are in the lowwest bracket.

Do you? The bottom 50% of the income earners pay ~3% of the total income tax burden. With the last round of tax cuts, millions have been wiped off the income tax rolls altogether and the income tax burden on the top 50%/top 5%/top 1% has increased (ie they are paying more of the share of the total income taxes collected).

Probably the taxes that are the most regressive on the lowest bracket is Social Security and Medicare taxes. Fair Tax would do away with those altogether.

Don't forget the people in the top .01 percent (which is much different than the top 1%). Those 13000 families make the most money, but pay relatively little money since they make all their money off of capital gains, where the tax has been cut dramatically.

And?

 

[mugs]

I was just thinking about the FairTax yesterday, and I was wondering how it would handle a few situations (I don't know many details about the FairTax).

1. I have a lot of money in savings. If the income tax was replaced by a consumption tax, I'd be paying that consumption tax (which would be in the range of 20%?) on money that I've already been taxed 25+% on, right? How does the FairTax handle that? It seems that people who have a lot of money saved before it's implemented would be hurt financially, and anyone who has a ton of debt would actually benefit significantly (because they'd essentially be paying NO tax on that money).

2. Would the FairTax apply to houses? Just new houses, or also previously-owned houses?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Queasy

And?

and so the fair tax would capture them, whereas the current income tax structure doesn't

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Aflac
Does anyone know if it is still currently pending in Congress? In other words, is it still being considered?

Fair taxes do not exist. its a fallacy.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: mugs
I was just thinking about the FairTax yesterday, and I was wondering how it would handle a few situations (I don't know many details about the FairTax).

1. I have a lot of money in savings. If the income tax was replaced by a consumption tax, I'd be paying that consumption tax (which would be in the range of 20%?) on money that I've already been taxed 25+% on, right? How does the FairTax handle that? It seems that people who have a lot of money saved before it's implemented would be hurt financially, and anyone who has a ton of debt would actually benefit significantly (because they'd essentially be paying NO tax on that money).

This is one area that Fair Tax supporters need to work on to gain support. There will be some transitional issues but the long-term benefits would be worth it IMHO.

2. Would the FairTax apply to houses? Just new houses, or also previously-owned houses?

Only on new houses. Only new goods and services are taxed.

 

[gotsmack]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: gotsmack
a federal flat tax with the first $20-30K tax free would be most fair. That way you could just get rid of deductions except for companies.

The rich would have to pay more in taxes because they don't get any deductions, and there would still be an incetive for investments and such because any losses would reduce your taxable income.

you could also get rid of the death tax and such and just take any money inherited as new income.


yes, SOME rich people would pay less, but you know what, poor people would pay NO federal tax so they can't complain.

You have no idea how and who pays the most tax right now and what a person that makes 30K pays do you?

Flat/Fair tax is just a scam to give a break for the top % while putting the burdon on those that make less and are in the lowwest bracket.

the first $7.5 k is taxed at 10% and the next amount up to $30.5k is at 15% a Flat tax would wipe out the first two brackets.

I believe people should be taxed evenly (fairly) on what they earn.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: gotsmack
the first $7.5 k is taxed at 10% and the next amount up to $30.5k is at 15% a Flat tax would wipe out the first two brackets.

I believe people should be taxed evenly (fairly) on what they earn.

between all the credits and deductions very few people in those brackets pay income taxes at all.




'fair' in a tax sense really means that people in similar situations pay similar amounts of tax. so, if people had similar incomes, they should pay similar taxes, regardless of how that income is generated. similarly, if this were passed then people with similar consumption should be taxed, regardless of what is consumed.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Queasy

And?

and so the fair tax would capture them, whereas the current income tax structure doesn't

That wasn't my point (I don't support FairTax), but it just shows that the very, very rich don't pay much at all compared to the rest of the population. My point was that in all these "tax cuts", things like capital gains taxes have been cut back, greatly benefiting those that are very rich. FairTax would also let these individuals get away with paying relatively few taxes since they make tremendously more than they spend.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
To show you how dumb it is and biased (i.e. its a tax break for the rich while rasing it on the lower class...)

Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) use Dale Jorgenson, a professor of economics at Harvard, to prove that 23% would work. Mind you they, AFFT, don;t bring up he went back on that and said the "rate would need to be much higher".

Then their other studies they fund outright, do not make them public, and the economists that conducted those studies never try and publish them or bring them up with their name.

Also these studies assume that there would be absolutely no tax evasion in a retail sales tax. Yea I am sure that will happen. :roll:

and on and on...

Here is a graph that shows how this "fairtax" would make those on the lower part pay more while giving a tax break to the rich.

hence "fair tax"

 

[Queasy]

null

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Queasy

And?

and so the fair tax would capture them, whereas the current income tax structure doesn't

That wasn't my point (I don't support FairTax), but it just shows that the very, very rich don't pay much at all compared to the rest of the population. My point was that in all these "tax cuts", things like capital gains taxes have been cut back, greatly benefiting those that are very rich. FairTax would also let these individuals get away with paying relatively few taxes since they make tremendously more than they spend.

Are you more interested in a tax system that gets rid of loopholes, exemptions, hideaways, hidden taxes, mountains of paperwork, endless amounts of regulation and is open and transparent or one that soaks the rich as much as possible?

BTW, since those capital gains taxes were cut...federal capital gains tax receipts have been increasing as more people have been investing their money. edit: Link

The 2003 Bush tax cut reduced the dividend tax rate and the capital gains tax to 15 percent. And the change in government revenues, with lower tax rates? "The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office," reports Moore, "finds a 70 percent increase in capital gains receipts and a 31 percent hike in dividend payments since 2003."

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: gotsmack
a federal flat tax with the first $20-30K tax free would be most fair. That way you could just get rid of deductions except for companies.

The rich would have to pay more in taxes because they don't get any deductions, and there would still be an incetive for investments and such because any losses would reduce your taxable income.

you could also get rid of the death tax and such and just take any money inherited as new income.


yes, SOME rich people would pay less, but you know what, poor people would pay NO federal tax so they can't complain.

You have no idea how and who pays the most tax right now and what a person that makes 30K pays do you?

Flat/Fair tax is just a scam to give a break for the top % while putting the burdon on those that make less and are in the lowwest bracket.

rich people don't pay jack shvt in taxes with all their tax shelters, etc. it's single middle class people that get fvcked the most. FLAT TAX/FAIR TAX FTW!!!!

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: gotsmack
FairTax NO

Flat Tax YES!

doing FairTax is just going to open up a huge black market.

Why? They are both tools by republiacans and the rich to try and lower the tax on the upper class and raise it on the lower class.

Only the rich and those to dumb to understand support it.

If that were true, it would be able to get out of committee (the GOP controls the committees since they hold a majority in the house).

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: gotsmack
a federal flat tax with the first $20-30K tax free would be most fair. That way you could just get rid of deductions except for companies.

The rich would have to pay more in taxes because they don't get any deductions, and there would still be an incetive for investments and such because any losses would reduce your taxable income.

you could also get rid of the death tax and such and just take any money inherited as new income.


yes, SOME rich people would pay less, but you know what, poor people would pay NO federal tax so they can't complain.

You have no idea how and who pays the most tax right now and what a person that makes 30K pays do you?

Flat/Fair tax is just a scam to give a break for the top % while putting the burdon on those that make less and are in the lowwest bracket.

rich people don't pay jack shvt in taxes with all their tax shelters, etc. it's single middle class people that get fvcked the most. FLAT TAX/FAIR TAX FTW!!!!

Please stop reading single line items and actually do some fact finding. You would see that is very rare and the top pay most of the tax.

Like I said before the only people that are for fair/flat tax are either rich or to dumb to know WTF they are talking about. Let me guess, your not rich are you.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

That wasn't my point (I don't support FairTax), but it just shows that the very, very rich don't pay much at all compared to the rest of the population. My point was that in all these "tax cuts", things like capital gains taxes have been cut back, greatly benefiting those that are very rich. FairTax would also let these individuals get away with paying relatively few taxes since they make tremendously more than they spend.

the theory, of course, being that it also benefits those who aren't rich because those rich people are the people who make investments that provide the rest of us with jobs.

a much higher percentage of their consumption would be taxed than a poor person's living hand to mouth (who is buying things that aren't taxed and getting a prebate so is possibly netting money). but you're stuck in a world where all taxes should be measured as against income to determine the proportion of taxes. psst, this isn't an income tax.


edit: oh hey look the capital gains tax receipts have been increasing despite (or maybe because of, if we were truly on the wrong side of the laffer curve) the decrease in capital gains rates

 

[BoomerD]

I don't think there's anyway to make taxation "fair" too all brackets. I would be in favor of doing away with ALL forms of tax deductions, like mortgage, charitable etc, so that more people would pay an accurate tax on their earnings.
I MIGHT support a flat tax with a bottom point that allows those who earn below $20K annually to pay ZERO taxes. I'd also be willing to support a terraced tax scheme (aren't they all schemes in one way or another?) that eliminates taxes on the poor, then has incremental steps in which you pay a bit more as you earn more, (still with NO deductions) so that those who are in the top 5 or 10% brackets pay more. Yes, I know this is similar to what we have today, but under the current laws, many people have so many "write-off's that they pay little to no tax, or at least by percentage of income, pay less than those in the middle-class. THAT needs to be fixed. I also support doing away with the "earned income credit" where people who often earn little get extra money back, over & above what they may have paid in...that means we who actually pay taxes end up funding their refunds...
Things like investments get taxed just like income. Not sure how best to deal with things like real estate profits...I suppose a homeowner who sells his/her house and has lived in it for X years should be exempt from being taxed on the "profit" on that house, but real estate investors (flippers) should have any profit taxed on the full amount of profit, just like income.

 

[gotsmack]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'd also be willing to support a terraced tax scheme (aren't they all schemes in one way or another?) that eliminates taxes on the poor, then has incremental steps in which you pay a bit more as you earn more, (still with NO deductions) so that those who are in the top 5 or 10% brackets pay more. Yes, I know this is similar to what we have today, but under the current laws, many people have so many "write-off's that they pay little to no tax, or at least by percentage of income, pay less than those in the middle-class. THAT needs to be fixed. I also support doing away with the "earned income credit" where people who often earn little get extra money back, over & above what they may have paid in...that means we who actually pay taxes end up funding their refunds...
Things like investments get taxed just like income. Not sure how best to deal with things like real estate profits...I suppose a homeowner who sells his/her house and has lived in it for X years should be exempt from being taxed on the "profit" on that house, but real estate investors (flippers) should have any profit taxed on the full amount of profit, just like income.

No, I don't like that. I don't believe that just because someone earns more money they have to be taxed at a higher RATE. They should pay the same percentage everyone else pays.

I totally agree with all no deductions, but losses should count against gross income.

and home owners and anyone who owns anything more then a year and then sells it off should get an original price adjustment to match inflation.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: gotsmack

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'd also be willing to support a terraced tax scheme (aren't they all schemes in one way or another?) that eliminates taxes on the poor, then has incremental steps in which you pay a bit more as you earn more, (still with NO deductions) so that those who are in the top 5 or 10% brackets pay more. Yes, I know this is similar to what we have today, but under the current laws, many people have so many "write-off's that they pay little to no tax, or at least by percentage of income, pay less than those in the middle-class. THAT needs to be fixed. I also support doing away with the "earned income credit" where people who often earn little get extra money back, over & above what they may have paid in...that means we who actually pay taxes end up funding their refunds...
Things like investments get taxed just like income. Not sure how best to deal with things like real estate profits...I suppose a homeowner who sells his/her house and has lived in it for X years should be exempt from being taxed on the "profit" on that house, but real estate investors (flippers) should have any profit taxed on the full amount of profit, just like income.

No, I don't like that. I don't believe that just because someone earns more money they have to be taxed at a higher RATE. They should pay the same percentage everyone else pays.

I totally agree with all no deductions, but losses should count against gross income.

and home owners and anyone who owns anything more then a year and then sells it off should get an original price adjustment to match inflation.

From how I see it, flat percentage doesn't make sense. For lower income individuals, $100 of their money is worth a whole lot more than $100 of someone at the top of the spectrum.

I think you're better off closing up loopholes in the current tax code, raise the amount of income needed to have to pay the AMT (which has been hitting more and more middle class families), and maybe streamline the process a little.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: gotsmack

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'd also be willing to support a terraced tax scheme (aren't they all schemes in one way or another?) that eliminates taxes on the poor, then has incremental steps in which you pay a bit more as you earn more, (still with NO deductions) so that those who are in the top 5 or 10% brackets pay more. Yes, I know this is similar to what we have today, but under the current laws, many people have so many "write-off's that they pay little to no tax, or at least by percentage of income, pay less than those in the middle-class. THAT needs to be fixed. I also support doing away with the "earned income credit" where people who often earn little get extra money back, over & above what they may have paid in...that means we who actually pay taxes end up funding their refunds...
Things like investments get taxed just like income. Not sure how best to deal with things like real estate profits...I suppose a homeowner who sells his/her house and has lived in it for X years should be exempt from being taxed on the "profit" on that house, but real estate investors (flippers) should have any profit taxed on the full amount of profit, just like income.

No, I don't like that. I don't believe that just because someone earns more money they have to be taxed at a higher RATE. They should pay the same percentage everyone else pays.

I totally agree with all no deductions, but losses should count against gross income.

and home owners and anyone who owns anything more then a year and then sells it off should get an original price adjustment to match inflation.

From how I see it, flat percentage doesn't make sense. For lower income individuals, $100 of their money is worth a whole lot more than $100 of someone at the top of the spectrum.

I think you're better off closing up loopholes in the current tax code, raise the amount of income needed to have to pay the AMT (which has been hitting more and more middle class families), and maybe streamline the process a little.

They did that in the 80s with the Reagan tax cuts. Over the years, it ballooned into the byzantine behemoth that we have now.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Things like investments get taxed just like income. Not sure how best to deal with things like real estate profits...I suppose a homeowner who sells his/her house and has lived in it for X years should be exempt from being taxed on the "profit" on that house, but real estate investors (flippers) should have any profit taxed on the full amount of profit, just like income.

you've just differentiated between short and long term capital gains.



short term gains are taxed just like labor income.


long term gains have their own bracket because long term investment is considered 'good' for the economy.



and about deductions: sometimes deductions or credits are necessary to arrive at 'income' (though commonly deductions and credits are used for tax spending). for example: you have to purchase airline tickets yourself for your business, and you're later reimbursed on an expense. that expense is obviously not income. but, it is money received. so, you create a credit offsetting that expense.

another common deduction is foreign income taxes. obviously if you're paying foreign income taxes that isn't available for you.

 

[gotsmack]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
From how I see it, flat percentage doesn't make sense. For lower income individuals, $100 of their money is worth a whole lot more than $100 of someone at the top of the spectrum.

I think you're better off closing up loopholes in the current tax code, raise the amount of income needed to have to pay the AMT (which has been hitting more and more middle class families), and maybe streamline the process a little.

You're right, $100 may only be an nice bottle of wine to go with dinner for someone who makes $150k+ a year but for the $30k-$150k people it might be money they can put away for a house or a child's tuition.

But you know what? it's not about money, it's about principal. All other things being equal, it is just not fair to tax someone at a higher rate just because they are better at making money.

 

[AgentJean]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
its chances are similar to an ice cube in the desert

Antarctica is a desert

 

[gotsmack]

Originally posted by: AgentJean

Originally posted by: FoBoT
its chances are similar to an ice cube in the desert

Antarctica is a desert

Wasn't Ice Cube in the desert when he filmed that movie 3 kings?