Tax Reform: Why not have all income logged with IRS at point of inception?

[Craig234]

now who's lying about whose post?


an example for your typical 'take someone's post to the illogical extreme': lets set the wayback machine to mid 2008. as you'll recall in 2008, obamarama was running against mcsame for president. the olympics was just about to get underway, or maybe had. there was a thread, i think you started it, that covered a very narrow topic that was closely related to another couple of threads. i asked if we really needed another thread for this, saying that it wasn't the olympics. you took it to mean that i thought the presidential election was less important than the olympics.


of course, lately you've changed from that tactic to just calling people names.

That would be you. You lie more in this post.

You respond to your lies being pointed out in a post today with an allegation of a comment from 2008. OK, link the post in 2008. You were challenged to back up your false statements about what you claimed I said that I did't say with the posts to prove you right - you ignored the request. You were asked to again - you ignored it again, responding with more dishonest attacks each time instead of any evidence for your attacks.

The 2008 thing - I don't remember if it's true or not, it sounds unlikely. Let's see the link.

This is not the same as the other post I called a lie, but you should still provide the evidence.

No one is 'just called names'. You are lying about that also. Very conservatively applied responses with specific criticisms are made when justified, instead of letting those lies and such go unanswered.

You know what you can do if what you say is true? Mae a good argument one of those is unjustified. You can't. You haven't. You just post dishonest attacks calling them 'name-calling'. Can't rebut one.

 

[woolfe9999]

The Fair Tax is an awesome idea in principle. You charge a national sales tax which cannot be evaded. There are no loopholes to get out of it. Along with this, everyone gets a "prebate" on their paychecks which represents the sales tax for spending up to the poverty line.

For example, the national poverty line for 1 person is $10,830. Let's say the national sales tax is 25%. If one was paid once every 2 weeks, each paycheck would have a prebate of $104.13 on it which is an up front rebate of the taxes they will spend up to the poverty line for that pay period ($10,830 x 25% = $2,707.50 / 26 paychecks).

You get your entire paycheck with no government deductions at all. When you go to the store to buy a box of cereal that costs $3 today, it might be $3.75 with a national sales tax. However, since companies no longer need to worry about payroll taxes and hiring tax accountants and lawyers, it could be lower than $3.75 as the company's costs will have gone down.

However, there are two critical flaws with the national sales tax:

1. Studies have shown that which rich people buy more things, the tax burden would still shift substantially to the middle class.

2. In times like a recession, as consumer confidence wanes and spending decreases, government revenue also decreases significantly. Increasing the national sales tax would cause spending to drop further and hurt consumer confidence even more. The sales tax would have to be high enough so that government income, when averaged over a 20 year period, for example, would see a net surplus and not a deficit. Unfortunately, this means the national sales tax might need to be 35% or more, which could be crippling to consumers even with no income tax.

If all tax was a large sales tax, people would find ways of buying and selling goods and services outside the system, including especially buying things from overseas. That in particular would kill the economy, and you can bet that rich people would do it more than anyone. You'd have to spend tons of money on bureaucracy and enforcement to prevent this from happening on a mass scale. It's right back to the IRS, auditors and prosecuting tax evaders, and all the expense that entails.

- wolf

- wolf

 

[Dissipate]

Has anyone considered taking my concept to the next level? The government prints the same money that it taxes. So why not instead of being paid by your employer who then does paycheck withholding, have the IRS pay you directly? Your employer sends the IRS your gross wages and then the IRS sends a check to you for your net wages, and the Treasury department a check for the amount from your employer for payroll taxes. That way all payroll systems would be consistent, and everyone would get paid from the same source, allowing the IRS to tax each dollar of income precisely in step with your earnings.

 

[Patranus]

So why not instead of being paid by your employer who then does paycheck withholding, have the IRS pay you directly?

Why not have all industry run by government and have everyone employed by the government

 

[Craig234]

Fair tax:

(Making up the figures to illustrate the point):

Bottom half: 100% income spent
Upper middle: 70% income spent
Top 1%: 10% income spent
Top 0.01%: 1% income spent

Hey, here's an idea: let's base all the taxes on spending!

ANd let's call this extremely unfair tax the "Fair Tax", that's good marketing - Fox showed us how the big lie works, fair and balanced.

In response to the objections, throw them a tiny bone of not taxing the first few dollars spent and claim that addresses the unfairness. Who is going to do the math?

 

[ElFenix]

timestamp 9/26/2008, 4:58 pm central (2:58 out in california if you've got your timezone set)
thread got merged into another. for some reason my original post in the thread got lost. i blame fusetalk. which i sometimes miss (it kept the spammers away).

lousy poster isn't calling someone a name?

look, this is the internets, and arguing hyperbole is standard issue around here. obviously, your whole argument technique is not stating that others lie, calling them the 'right' every time they disagree with you, or arguing against hyperbole. but when you're one of the main offenders over the past few years of using hyperbole and arguing against illogical extremes of others' positions, you can't complain when others do the same.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Why do you assume that a "regressive" tax is a bad thing?
After all, if the tax is based on consumption, those who consume more (or more pricy products) will pay more taxes.

If you can't see the unfairness of a consumption based tax, you have a very different definition of "fair" than I do.

A simple example

taxpayer 1 has income of $30k per year and lives paycheck to paycheck and spends most all his money on consumable taxable items, therefore he pays tax on almost 100% of his earnings

taxpayer 2 has income of $1.5mil and spends $150k on consumable taxable items and banks or invests the rest. He pays taxes on only 1/10 of his income

And your argument that the rich guy is going to go out and spend tons on "high end" taxable items is just bullshit. Most of his high end purchases will be in real estate or other items not subject to retail sales taxes or written off as investments, and his highend luxury auto(s) will be owned and maintained by his business or company again avoiding retail sales tax.

The flat tax, fair tax, consumption tax what ever you want to call it is just another in a long line of strawman arguments presented by the rich to serve their purpose

 

[Dissipate]

Why not have all industry run by government and have everyone employed by the government

What does this have to do with running industry?? I'm talking about making the tax system more efficient. The current system doesn't make sense. The Treasury & Fed print the money, then send the money to the banks, where people then acquire the money for general circulation. After that the IRS taxes the money, bringing about 40% of it back into government coffers. Seems like a whole lot of hops in between. If the IRS got together with the banks and the Treasury, the money could be taxed directly as it circulates, in real time. Why do they let the money out in the wild where it could be hidden and laundered away from the government's purview?

For instance, they could set up automatically taxing bank accounts, where whenever you make a deposit a percentage is sent from your bank account directly back to the IRS. Any money withdrawn from an ATM would be automatically taxed as well.

 

[Craig234]

timestamp 9/26/2008, 4:58 pm central (2:58 out in california if you've got your timezone set)
thread got merged into another. for some reason my original post in the thread got lost. i blame fusetalk. which i sometimes miss (it kept the spammers away).

You should be embarrased for anyone to read you in that thread. Your post may have been lost, but it's preserved in my quoting it.

We differ on the importance of Palin in the eleciton. I felt her terrible comments deserved another thread to discuss, you did not.

You picked the choice for something that DOES deserve a number of threads as the olympics. I pointed out that the danger Palin posed to our country was far more important than the olympics.

Another moderator merged the two threads and said to you, 'now you can quit complaining'.

Apparently he was wrong.

lousy poster isn't calling someone a name?

Not when it's well supported as accurate as that was. That wasn't just 'calling a name' without justification.

There's a difference between a response that consists entirely of 'you're a jerk' and a post that makes a speciofic criticism, justifying the criticism or conclusion of 'liar' or other negative comment.

look, this is the internets, and arguing hyperbole is standard issue around here. obviously, your whole argument technique is not stating that others lie, calling them the 'right' every time they disagree with you, or arguing against hyperbole. but when you're one of the main offenders over the past few years of using hyperbole and arguing against illogical extremes of others' positions, you can't complain when others do the same.

You lie about my posts offensively. You don't even serve a response to the lies.

As usual, you don't use any fact, examples, quotes to back up your attacks - just the attacks.

You have a hysterical reaction to my posts - that's your problem. You cannot back up your attacks.

There is something right in your post - I often refer to those who disagree with me as 'right'. Guess why? Because most argument I'm disagreeing with are 'right'. Whether 'conservative' or 'libertarian' etc.

 

[ElFenix]

you asked for an example, i provided it, and now a) apparently i'm complaining in providing you with your example, and b) you're still arguing the illogical extreme.

i don't use personal attacks, and yet i'm the hysterical one.

 

[drebo]

If all tax was a large sales tax, people would find ways of buying and selling goods and services outside the system, including especially buying things from overseas. That in particular would kill the economy, and you can bet that rich people would do it more than anyone. You'd have to spend tons of money on bureaucracy and enforcement to prevent this from happening on a mass scale. It's right back to the IRS, auditors and prosecuting tax evaders, and all the expense that entails.

- wolf

- wolf

Not even close. Imports are already taxed. In fact, imports were the primary way that the Federal government was supposed to get their funding. Of course, imports don't tax the buyer, they tax the seller. Either way, though, the government DOES get their tax money.

Why is it that you believe that the federal government is supposed to be funded by the citizens? That's not the way the federation was envisioned when it was conceived. Citizens are supposed to be beholden to their sovereign states, not the federal government. The federal government was designed to get its money for foreign trade, and it was only supposed to protect from foreign threat.

The move to a totalitarian federal government is what is killing this country and the economy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Why not have all industry run by government and have everyone employed by the government

Yep. I'm sure craigmcowned234 and his ilk would love to see this happen(not that they'll admit it though). Just have your employer pay your wages to the gov't and the gov't will give you what they think you deserve out of it.... or the holy grail - as you said, just have the gov't run everything so everyone is a ward of the state and completely beholden to it.

 

[Dissipate]

Yep. I'm sure craigmcowned234 and his ilk would love to see this happen(not that they'll admit it though). Just have your employer pay your wages to the gov't and the gov't will give you what they think you deserve out of it.... or the holy grail - as you said, just have the gov't run everything so everyone is a ward of the state and completely beholden to it.

Did the government create the money in your wallet, yes or no? If yes, why is it beyond the pale for it to take some of it back in any way deemed necessary in the form of taxes?

As long as your employer is paying you in government money, not you or your employer should have any reservations about the government taking back what it created in any way it deems necessary.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Did the government create the money in your wallet, yes or no? If yes, why is it beyond the pale for it to take some of it back in any way deemed necessary in the form of taxes?

As long as your employer is paying you in government money, not you or your employer should have any reservations about the government taking back what it created in any way it deems necessary.

No. The gov't created the system - They did not create my money. However, I know full well what you are saying and the position you hold.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe government spies can figure out how much allowance my dad gave me when I was 5. Dont forget all the times people donate to their church. Maybe we need to do away with the Income tax. The government is like a giant leech sucking our lifeblood.

 

[jhu]

A better option is to have pre-filled forms that can be modified. For most people they won't even need to modify things.

 

[DrPizza]

Someone pointed out that the rich could buy their items overseas, and someone else pointed out that imports are taxed.

What's overlooked is this:
"Well, we've got our penthouse in NYC. Let's spend $2 million on a vacation property near the shore & perhaps a small yacht. Errrr, on second thought, let's get a vacation property on the Mediterranean & purchase a yacht there. We can fly back and forth a lot of times for less than the tax we'd pay. Or, how about the Caribbean?"