Very disappointed with this tax reform panel. They only want to tinker around the edges of the current code.
You have answered the question yourself. Complete reform would cause the Rich to no longer be able to skirt paying their fair share, they certainly don't want to do that.
They feel that is their priviledge and right to smite the very hand they fed from.
Better tax reform would be a 20% natioanl sales tax and drop the payroll taxes.
People would get a check everymonth or so for the tax money they would pay on food and clothing(I beleive this would be a fixed ammount base on a national average of monthly food expense. So Mr Rich guy who can afford $100/pound beef will get the same amount back as Mr Poor college student who can only afford Ramen noodles. While I believe how this part works I need further research on how the rebate works)
And no a 20% national sales tax will not hurt the poor. Why, well cosidering you get back the tax money paid on food and clothing your housing is not taxed like it is now. You will have more money under the new system.
I've played around with my budget under the current system and under a 20% national sales tax. I would have an extra few hunderd bucks each month. This is before taken into account the rebate check(if I were even to get one) and possible price drops because business would no longer have a federal tax burden.
People would get a check everymonth or so for the tax money they would pay on food and clothing(I beleive this would be a fixed ammount base on a national average of monthly food expense. So Mr Rich guy who can afford $100/pound beef will get the same amount back as Mr Poor college student who can only afford Ramen noodles. While I believe how this part works I need further research on how the rebate works)
And no a 20% national sales tax will not hurt the poor. Why, well cosidering you get back the tax money paid on food and clothing your housing is not taxed like it is now. You will have more money under the new system.
I've played around with my budget under the current system and under a 20% national sales tax. I would have an extra few hunderd bucks each month. This is before taken into account the rebate check(if I were even to get one) and possible price drops because business would no longer have a federal tax burden.
It does not matter what taxing scheme is devised the rich are going to pay the largest share and by a large margin. But I guess you are happy with our 60,000 page tax code that requires citizens giving up much personal privacy and about $200B to comply with it.
National sales tax would be a tax increase for most Americans. And unless spending was drastically reduced, it would be a BIG increase.
Anyways, no way politicians will allow income tax to go away. They use that for leveraging those that can do them good. Tax abatements are especially useful to the politicians.
Anyways, no way politicians will allow income tax to go away. They use that for leveraging those that can do them good. Tax abatements are especially useful to the politicians.
No, I am not happy with that code because the sheer size and complexity of it is what allows the Rich to hide behind it and not pay their fair share.
Just you spewing the nonsense that the Rich pay the largest share and by largest margin alone shows how well the 60,000 oage smokescreen works so well.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Define fair share?
Far should mean equal. At present they are taxed at a higher rate. Is that fair?
OR do you want to play Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor. But what happens when the the poor now want from the middle class?
Do the poor need to be spoon fed?
Why do they deserve handouts?
How would it be a tax increase?
If you make $1000 a week. you net that. Money you put in your savings account is not taxed. Your housing money is not taxed.
Remember there would be no federal taxes taken out of your paycheck. No Income, No SSI or Medicare.
Come on, they may be taxed at a higher rate, that doesn't mean they pay it. It gets masked and covered over by the aforementioned 60,000 page Tax code so they can get away with not paying the share they should be paying.
Like it or not the wealthy are paying a larger percent of the income tax than when the top bracket was 70%. The bottom 50% in the country pay very little in federal tax and that continues to shrink as well.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
nd what should the fair share be.
Cleanup up the code - yes.
But what do you feel they should be paying? And why?
A
That number would have to be determined depending on how the reform gets worked out.
Whatever number it comes out to be, everybody has to pay the same percentage.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
It's not a flat tax. It's called the Fair Tax. It eliminates all forms of income tax (corporate, personal, capital gains) and replaces them with a simple inclusive sales tax. You pay tax on what you buy... not what you make. It's revenue neutral, protects privacy, encourages economic growth and virtually forces corporations (from all over the world) to bring manufacturing and jobs to the country.
I would encourage everyone to read the book. Even if on the face of it all you are skeptical. It's a cheap book and a quick read.
We had this discussion a couple months ago. Linky
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Pure lies.
Everyone who spends moeny at retail will be taxed. This includes forigeners, illegals, drug dealers and even fat cat corparate guys who don't pay any income tax now.
There will be more money with 20% sales tax then there is now.
Of course it doesn't included the fat cat corparate guys that take a vaction to say jamacia buy a 20 billion dollar private jet. Buys another billion in goods and then flys home with them.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Consumption tax is unfair.
All that will do is put the taxation burden on the consumers (for the most part lower/middle class), those who need to spend the vast majority of their money on goods and services.
The rich would keep their capital liquid and not spend as there will be incentive to not spend.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Don't tax basic, meanwhile there is still an incentive for the rich to not spend...
Sounds like a fair solution to bring the deficit to new highs. Whatever taxation proposal you bring in, you have to make sure to maintain current cash flow (still not enough to cover current spending), at the same time not increase personal taxation.
I don't know about you, but it'd be a hard sell to say; "this method is more fair", and see my taxation levels increase.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Looks like a tax shift from the top toward the middle/bottom to me (elimination of 10% bracket, mortgage interest deduction(s), etc). The state/local income deduction might actually hurt the rich more as they pay much more in state/local taxes and if they can't deduct them, it would seem to raise their taxes.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
The new 15% bracket will be the floor. Those currently in the 10% may not make the 15% floor though.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Does it state that the current 10% bracket would be eliminated which would eliminate $12,000 income for singles and $14,000 for couples (additional income)? I highly doubt that. The 15% tax bracket would be shifted back down so it would seem. I doubt that the government is going to give a $1200 and $1400 to everyone (with incomes just just over $12,000 or $14,000 adjusted after deductions).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter