Fair tax anyone?
- Thread starter Cowman
- Start date
invention_45
New member
Personally, I think it's all flim-flam. There will always be ways to cheat.
I'd like a system so that, whatever the amount, I could check off boxes indicating where my tax money was to be spent. Perhaps a 5% flat floor the gov't could spend however they wanted, but any over that, I choose where mine goes.
I'd also like to see eliminated ALL tax-exempt status for any organization.
I'd like a system so that, whatever the amount, I could check off boxes indicating where my tax money was to be spent. Perhaps a 5% flat floor the gov't could spend however they wanted, but any over that, I choose where mine goes.
I'd also like to see eliminated ALL tax-exempt status for any organization.
Reforming taxation doesn't do anything unless spending is also curbed. The huge credit card bill of defict spending has to be paid for one way or the other. So control spending and then look at reforming the tax system.
Taxation - what would then be "fair." I would say either a flat ten percent tax on income or a ten percent sales tax - with the strict guideline that the ten percent income or sales tax is the absolute limit of all government taxation inclusive of all local, state, and federal taxes. No more specific taxes on special items, no more property tax, no more estate tax, ect...
Also no more Soc Sec tax or Soc Sec system except for those already in the system - with inducements for individuals in the current system to opt out.
I'm sure this will happen right after the second invasion of little green men from Mars.
Taxation - what would then be "fair." I would say either a flat ten percent tax on income or a ten percent sales tax - with the strict guideline that the ten percent income or sales tax is the absolute limit of all government taxation inclusive of all local, state, and federal taxes. No more specific taxes on special items, no more property tax, no more estate tax, ect...
Also no more Soc Sec tax or Soc Sec system except for those already in the system - with inducements for individuals in the current system to opt out.
I'm sure this will happen right after the second invasion of little green men from Mars.
invention_45
New member
Well, I think that given the number of "baby boomers" who've paid into SS for all these years, if you were to eliminate it you would find out what RKBA is for.
I would not fight a VERY voluntary opt-out program. Some sort of special benefit, like a few million frequent flyer miles and not paying the tax in return for opting out, OK. But a disincentive like declining benefit amounts for those remaining in, nope.
I would not fight a VERY voluntary opt-out program. Some sort of special benefit, like a few million frequent flyer miles and not paying the tax in return for opting out, OK. But a disincentive like declining benefit amounts for those remaining in, nope.
I like the idea of a federal sales tax. A bunch of the European countries have been doing it for quite a while. It works. No disasters.
If we're saddled with an income tax, I'd like to see them get rid of mandatory withholding. Most people come tax time cannot tell you what they paid for the year in taxes--only what their refund or tax due is. I guarantee if everyone was more aware of how much they actually pay during a year in income taxes, the system wouldn't be as out of control as it is now. With automatic withholding, Congress basically has a blank check with your name on it. Get rid of automatic withholding and Congress would have to justify what it does with our money.
If we're saddled with an income tax, I'd like to see them get rid of mandatory withholding. Most people come tax time cannot tell you what they paid for the year in taxes--only what their refund or tax due is. I guarantee if everyone was more aware of how much they actually pay during a year in income taxes, the system wouldn't be as out of control as it is now. With automatic withholding, Congress basically has a blank check with your name on it. Get rid of automatic withholding and Congress would have to justify what it does with our money.
Europes economy is very slow growing and they have high unemployment rates combined heavy taxation.
We spent 1.3 Trillion $$$ last year on social programs that go nowhere. Retired Americans make up a smal portion of that tab. We need to stop financing the poor and get them to work. Stop paying to imprison Illegal Aliens and giving them free health care. Stop funding the dems from making up new gun laws and so on.
All the way down to taxes paying for such silly things like Art, NPR, or college study grants to find out what kinds of picinic foods ants prefer the most.
We spent 1.3 Trillion $$$ last year on social programs that go nowhere. Retired Americans make up a smal portion of that tab. We need to stop financing the poor and get them to work. Stop paying to imprison Illegal Aliens and giving them free health care. Stop funding the dems from making up new gun laws and so on.
All the way down to taxes paying for such silly things like Art, NPR, or college study grants to find out what kinds of picinic foods ants prefer the most.
OneInTheChamber
New member
Flat tax. It's the fairest. Why should the rich pay for the poor? It's funny when poor people complain about how unfair a flat tax would be and how much taxes they would have to pay. They don't realize that the gov't is already collecting the same amount; it's just coming from the top 10-20% of the country.
Sure it'll be a tax hike for the poor, but it will be a hike back up to what they should be paying. It'll be a tax cut for the rich; back down to what they should be paying. I love the simplest idea:
I also find it funny that the people who put the least $ into the system draw the most $ out of it.
This will probably PO some retired folks on here; but a lot of people are drawing more social security than they put in before they retired. From what I've heard, the average is 3 times the amount. That's great for them; but when my generation (teenagers now) finally retire; all that money we paid into the system will have already been handed out to the baby boomers. It really screws us. I see my social security taxes as basically gone. I'll be suprised if I ever see that money again.
Sure it'll be a tax hike for the poor, but it will be a hike back up to what they should be paying. It'll be a tax cut for the rich; back down to what they should be paying. I love the simplest idea:
I also find it funny that the people who put the least $ into the system draw the most $ out of it.
This will probably PO some retired folks on here; but a lot of people are drawing more social security than they put in before they retired. From what I've heard, the average is 3 times the amount. That's great for them; but when my generation (teenagers now) finally retire; all that money we paid into the system will have already been handed out to the baby boomers. It really screws us. I see my social security taxes as basically gone. I'll be suprised if I ever see that money again.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Yeah, being poor must be awesome. They get so many benefits from being poor; lots of exotic vacations, luxury jobs, so many free services all of the time.... There are waiting lists of rich being just begging to become poor because it's such a lavish lifestyle! Bottom line, rich people have benefited from the underpaid hard working poor since the dawn of time and always find ways of not paying fair wages to the working class and poor. It's only right for them to pay more in taxes. Why should the rich pay for the poor? Because it's the rich that underpay the poor their wages, screw them over regularly, have all the power, and its the poor that buy the products of the rich thus allowing the rich to be rich. Without the poor, the rich wouldn't be rich.
One of the main arguments against our current system is that rich people really don't pay their fair share for the lavish lifestyle a free economy has allowed them. Sure they provide jobs, but many of those rich people became rich because somewhere down the line they have exploited the poor, exploited the environment, exploited the tax system, made profits on unhealthy or worthless products (ie big tobacco, professional sports, movies and entertainment, cola, candy, etc.) etc. Another argument against the current system is that it is completely inefficient. The manhours spent for each person around tax season is a wasteful number indeed.
I work for one of the richest individuals in the country. You want to talk about how people SCREW the system... look at the legal loopholes of how rich people avoid taxation, hide their money, put it off shore, you name it and he does it. He was such a penny pinching cheapskate and screwed people over left and right. Schrewd businessman. Sure. And sure, it was all legal, just disgusting to me how rich people find ways to not pay. Should have have to pay millions in taxes. I think he absolutely should.
A federal taxation system would not work because used good would replace new goods. When consumption goes down it would doubly hurt the economy because we need consumption to keep businesses open and keep employment high and people productive. Then it would hurt the amount collected in taxes too, so that federal programs would suffer. Finally, people with means could purchase things from other countries and bring them here to avoid the tax. And if you extend the federal sales tax to exports, then exports would decline. Adding 25% to the cost of something would mean consumption of new good would decline rapidly. Idealistically, this might not be a bad thing because we're too wasteful. But practically this could collapse the economy.
I'd be in favor of some sort of graduated-flat tax based on net worth or income with no deductions and no hiding wealth. No tax for a certain threshold and below, say $25,000. Then an incrementally graduated tax based on your worth/income brackets. I don't feel sorry for the multimillionairs who have to pay more in taxes. Boo Hoo for them. Life isn't fair and paying more taxes is a good reminder for them between their European vacations, private jets and 5 star nightly dinners in the several cities where they own homes.
One of the main arguments against our current system is that rich people really don't pay their fair share for the lavish lifestyle a free economy has allowed them. Sure they provide jobs, but many of those rich people became rich because somewhere down the line they have exploited the poor, exploited the environment, exploited the tax system, made profits on unhealthy or worthless products (ie big tobacco, professional sports, movies and entertainment, cola, candy, etc.) etc. Another argument against the current system is that it is completely inefficient. The manhours spent for each person around tax season is a wasteful number indeed.
I work for one of the richest individuals in the country. You want to talk about how people SCREW the system... look at the legal loopholes of how rich people avoid taxation, hide their money, put it off shore, you name it and he does it. He was such a penny pinching cheapskate and screwed people over left and right. Schrewd businessman. Sure. And sure, it was all legal, just disgusting to me how rich people find ways to not pay. Should have have to pay millions in taxes. I think he absolutely should.
A federal taxation system would not work because used good would replace new goods. When consumption goes down it would doubly hurt the economy because we need consumption to keep businesses open and keep employment high and people productive. Then it would hurt the amount collected in taxes too, so that federal programs would suffer. Finally, people with means could purchase things from other countries and bring them here to avoid the tax. And if you extend the federal sales tax to exports, then exports would decline. Adding 25% to the cost of something would mean consumption of new good would decline rapidly. Idealistically, this might not be a bad thing because we're too wasteful. But practically this could collapse the economy.
I'd be in favor of some sort of graduated-flat tax based on net worth or income with no deductions and no hiding wealth. No tax for a certain threshold and below, say $25,000. Then an incrementally graduated tax based on your worth/income brackets. I don't feel sorry for the multimillionairs who have to pay more in taxes. Boo Hoo for them. Life isn't fair and paying more taxes is a good reminder for them between their European vacations, private jets and 5 star nightly dinners in the several cities where they own homes.
<long draw on a bong> In my world dudes I'd have a flat rate tax, period, full stop. The rate would be set for two years. The rate would be voted on by recorded vote in congress as the last item of business before the August break before the elections in November. Tie tax rates around the necks of candidates and let them explain to the electorate during an election why the rate is what it is.
<'nuther hit on the bong> Current tax system and the federal reserve banking system are two wings on the same plane. Gotta get rid of 'em both.
<hit the bong again> Since my other ideas are too far out, I'd settle for doing away with withholding. Make every taxpayer write a check to the goverment every pay period.
<good stuff>
<'nuther hit on the bong> Current tax system and the federal reserve banking system are two wings on the same plane. Gotta get rid of 'em both.
<hit the bong again> Since my other ideas are too far out, I'd settle for doing away with withholding. Make every taxpayer write a check to the goverment every pay period.
<good stuff>
MeekAndMild
New member
Maybe we can tax that bong?
Reading my other post I should clarify. I really have no objection to the flat tax or any other tax scheme as long as the people who vote on it are the ones payng it and the politicos and other lice are cut off from the decisionmaking process. So the need would be for a taxpayer referendum procedure to ratify all taxation before it could even approach being called "fair".
Reading my other post I should clarify. I really have no objection to the flat tax or any other tax scheme as long as the people who vote on it are the ones payng it and the politicos and other lice are cut off from the decisionmaking process. So the need would be for a taxpayer referendum procedure to ratify all taxation before it could even approach being called "fair".
Point in fact, the taxes are pretty flat the way they are. The reason the laws are so convoluted is because congress tries to give tax breaks for the poor and the rich try to take advantage of them, leaving the middle class holding the bag.
We go to a flat tax, we slash the IRS' budget and the tax preparers have to go find honest work.
I like waitone's proposals. I'd add one more: Any legislation affecting taxes must be approved by roll call vote.
We go to a flat tax, we slash the IRS' budget and the tax preparers have to go find honest work.
I like waitone's proposals. I'd add one more: Any legislation affecting taxes must be approved by roll call vote.
invention_45
New member
What leadcounsel said.
If people think their ENTITLED to a free check, housing, food, Doctors,then they should be out earning it.
Tax payers are working hard, so should the entitlement crowd. Cut grass, street cleaning, if they can lift their butts to go buy cigs at $5-7 per pack, they can do community work. Lots of good work!
In MN we had a small victory last year and got the gov to elminate junk food from MN FS programs.
Fair tax is a good concept, but we have to keep the libs under control with their social spending problems.
Remember! Don't let liberals play with tax money!
Tax payers are working hard, so should the entitlement crowd. Cut grass, street cleaning, if they can lift their butts to go buy cigs at $5-7 per pack, they can do community work. Lots of good work!
In MN we had a small victory last year and got the gov to elminate junk food from MN FS programs.
Fair tax is a good concept, but we have to keep the libs under control with their social spending problems.
Remember! Don't let liberals play with tax money!
Scott Conklin
New member
Fair tax?
You mean, eliminate the 80% of FedGov that is extra-constitutional thus ending welfare and pork and cash giveaways like the NO bailout and land-grabs and abominations like NAIS and such? THEN eliminate federal taxing authority and limit it to the states and localities?
THAT's "fair tax". Anything less is just make-work to delay the inevitable.
You mean, eliminate the 80% of FedGov that is extra-constitutional thus ending welfare and pork and cash giveaways like the NO bailout and land-grabs and abominations like NAIS and such? THEN eliminate federal taxing authority and limit it to the states and localities?
THAT's "fair tax". Anything less is just make-work to delay the inevitable.
Reforming taxation does a lot, all by itself. It eliminates a many, many billion-dollar industry that revolves around tax preparation and tax law and taxlaw-related lobbying. The amount of effort companies have to put into tax accounting is obscene.mack59 said:
Pass the bong this way.Goslash27 said:
Yeah, taxes are flat... except for the 6 non-zero tax brackets for income tax, and except for the payroll tax, and except for the various special tax rates on some investments/trusts, and except for the estate tax, and except for the myriad tax deductions available...
tyme,
All those exemptions and penalties serve to level the playing field. The exemptions are there to reduce the tax burden for the poor. The rich hire tax attorneys to help them take advantage of the loopholes, thus avoiding paying their share. The extra penalties are there to insure that they do.
And what I'm sayin' is that it would be much fairer and simpler to go from this convoluted mess to a simple percentage.
All those exemptions and penalties serve to level the playing field. The exemptions are there to reduce the tax burden for the poor. The rich hire tax attorneys to help them take advantage of the loopholes, thus avoiding paying their share. The extra penalties are there to insure that they do.
And what I'm sayin' is that it would be much fairer and simpler to go from this convoluted mess to a simple percentage.
One provision which MUST be in any reform of taxation is one that requires everyone, I repeat, everyone to pay something in taxes. Taxes are the price of living in the US.
With current policy are are just a few percentage points short of more than one-half of all earners not paying federal taxes. Once greater than half of those who are elegible to vote no longer have to pay taxes, our tax system will go unstable and the taxes paid by the remaining taxpayers will quickly increase to the point of economic insanity. No tax reduction will be forthcoming because the majority of those who vote have no incentive to reduce the taxes on "The Rich."
With current policy are are just a few percentage points short of more than one-half of all earners not paying federal taxes. Once greater than half of those who are elegible to vote no longer have to pay taxes, our tax system will go unstable and the taxes paid by the remaining taxpayers will quickly increase to the point of economic insanity. No tax reduction will be forthcoming because the majority of those who vote have no incentive to reduce the taxes on "The Rich."