Fair tax anyone?

2nd,
I agree with you up to a point. I'm definitely a middle-class guy and I live strictly cash 'n' carry aside from the mortgage. Any problems I'm having with taxes are #1 they're too high and #2 I can't afford a tax attorney to help me take advantage of loopholes. I'm certainly not materialistic by any stretch and there are alot more out there like myself. Although the stereotype you portray does exist I'm not sure that really applies to middle America.
And I disagree about the class division. Rich people exist because of poor people and poor people exist because of rich people. Remove taxes from the equation and that will still be true. Every dollar a person receives was paid to him by another person. This makes one richer and one poorer. The nature of capitalism.
 
Goslash,

If you think the bottom half of the tax brackets pay too little, what do you think will happen to the country when they pay more than they do now?

Is it good for the US to tax poorer people more?



Or does the good of the country (the reason for levying taxes in the first place), not matter compared to the need for some sort of "fairness"?


I think it funny that Ohen posted seriously what I had joked about previously. If every US citizen paid the same dollar amount, many people would have to pay more than they make! Of course, it would be entirely "fair".;)
 
Rich and poor are relative. If you have what you need and much of what you want you aren't poor. IF you didn't run up an insurmountable debt to get there. The amount of money earned or in your pocket really isn't relevant.

I don't think it's a stereotype. The statistics show a total lack of savings and excessive debt spending. We had and I would guess still have the highest rate of unsecured consumer spending in the history of the world. The majority of the people I know fit the mold, too. Big house mortgaged to 80% or more. Couple late model cars depreciating like mad while costing them 15k a year or more in pymts and insurance and taxes and 10, 20 or 30k or more in credit cards sucking them dry.

All so they have the biggest TV and their kids wear some name-brand I've never even heard of...and don't care to.

They whine about how bad things are. They talk about how the rich have it so easy. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, while driving home in my 15yo truck... :) Remove federal taxes and things won't change much for these people(they'll still be in debt to their eyes). Won't change much for the rich, either(since people keep claiming they avoid taxes anyway, what's the big deal?). But it might well create more investment and more jobs and less fraud and less manipulation of the system and it would CERTAINLY create less government. That alone is worth it.
 
Handy,
If you think the bottom half of the tax brackets pay too little, what do you think will happen to the country when they pay more than they do now?
Is it good for the US to tax poorer people more?
Or does the good of the country (the reason for levying taxes in the first place), not matter compared to the need for some sort of "fairness"?
Click to expand...
What will happen to the country? Not much really. The IRS will drag alot less on the budget although it's a minor contributor. There will be alot of unemployed auditors,CPAs, and tax attorneys. This ain't such a bad thing.

For this reason, I'd say yes; it's a good thing for the U.S. to tax poor people more. And more to the point I don't believe that it's within the purview of the Federal government to make the judgement call.
Not really a 'fairness' thing, just an 'expediency' thing.
 
If you think the flat tax is too harsh on the poor, raise the percentage a little bit and provide greater rebates (the rebates as I understand them are basically an untaxed buying allowance).

've brought up the same point Telperion. No one has an answer for how you control the accounting and definition of "sales" when there is no longer even governmental monitoring of business income.
Click to expand...
If we had a national sales tax today, and someone proposed replacing it with an income tax, I would expect the same general kind of caterwauling:
"How do you define 'income'?"
"The government only monitors sales, not income... what are you going to do, recruit the banks into this scheme?!"
 
If you have rebates, how is it "flat"?


Goslash and 2A,

I guess I find your arguments about the same as those for completely unhindered capitalism. In not so many years of either the economy collapses because those who have stuff to sell eventually lose their consumers because those who need stuff have no money to buy it with. You can "fair and expedient" yourself to death, if you wish.

Graduated taxes, banking and investment law, consumer protection and the like are really just purposeful sabotage to slow the wealth redistribution process down to the point that we can live in it. Forbes is an idiot because his kind will stay far richer if they have consumers to sell to rather than serfs to collect from.
 
leadcounsel; I agree on the overpaid athlete thing... never did I mention it in my post. I think your deifinition of poor is warped. A poor person isn't someone who is driving a 1999 Honda Civic. It's the guy who walks down the street carrying his most treasured possession, a sleeping bag, who's truly poor.

On that, s/he has to juggle a car payment, housing, food, medical bills, and the occassional entertainment
Click to expand...

The things you just named are things rich people have. Go to Africa, you'll find out what poor really is. If you have a roof over your head, medical attention, and a car to drive; you are by far not poor.

On the example of soldiers; there isn't a single soldier out there who is doing it for the money. God bless them, they do it for love of country, not love of money. Same thing with teachers.

The point I'm trying to make is that I honestly don't have ANY sympathy for how "painful" a large tax is for those making millions of dollars. You know why, because I don't think they add nearly the BENEFIT to the society as the working poor.
Click to expand...

Really leadcounsel? Are you typing this on a computer? What kind of operating system are you using? Most likely something on MS-DOS, which Bill Gates invented. Tell me he didn't add anything to society? Computers are used for everything these days; from a kid researching homework, reading LawDog's awesome stories, to the stabilized turret platform of an M1A2 Abrams.

Leadcounsel; only 1% of the rich (which by the gov't standards, is anyone making over $200,000 or so) are athletes. The majority are hard working men and women.
 
Computers...

Well, this is a whole different topic. In a nutshell, I don't see how computers have really added any VALUE to life. Sure they help fill our days with additional tasks. Technology has improved lives to some degree, but degraded life in many other ways. I'd say, all in all, computer technology has taken away value rather than added. It's helped to erode personal and social skills and is responsible for taking away many good jobs because computers are more efficient.

As far as the athletes, that's purely an example. If you don't think there are a lot of multimillionaires in this nation, who do you think ownes the businesses that own the skylines of every city? How about those mansions and lofts in every city or the massive vacation homes in resort towns nationwide? Admittedly the number of superwealthy is very small, but the number of millionaires is rather large indeed.

One could argue that if we tax the successful, it will decrease their incentives to be successful and/or they will leave the nation and be successful elsewhere. First, nobody is going to try to be less successful. Second, no nation on earth is better for business than America, even with high taxes. No entreprenuer is going to be leaving any time soon. (Instead, they'll just ship their jobs off to another nation which just helps to erode our economy... oh, wait, that's already standard practice)
 
I am rich

I am rich. I have been rich for a while now, ever since the Clinton administration. He promised us he was only going to raise the taxes on the rich. My taxes got raised, so, I MUST be rich.:rolleyes:

But I actually am rich. Just not with money, or material goods.
 
Handy,
I guess I just don't see how altering tax liability is going to bring about TEOTWAWKI. If I understand your position, your model of capitalism is like a water fountain; the money travels upwards but without a pump (i.e. federal wealth redistribution) the source would soon run dry.
The problem is that's not the way it works. Submitted as proof, the entire federal budget is a tiny percentage of the GNP. If your model were to hold true the economy would have collapsed by now.
Poor people make their money the same as rich people; providing goods and services. I am by no means "rich", but I am paid adequately for the services I provide to my employer. Back when I was *truly* poor I provided services to clients.
If we're talkin' true free enterprise Capitalism, there are always many sources for goods and services. A rich man who demands too much for his commodity soon finds himself bankrupt because his competitors will eat him alive or his market will dry up as his clients/customers find a way to do without his goods/services.
IAC, I'm not an "unhindered Capitalism" kinda guy. Corporations need some checks from the government in order to force them to comply with the best interests of the community when capitalism might dictate otherwise.
 
Dump the IRS, dump income tax, go to pure federal sales tax. No more filing, no more corps getting around paying taxes through various loopholes. No more illegal immigrants getting out of paying taxes.
Click to expand...

I am in favor of it. But be advised that it will NOT eliminate the IRS - they will still be needed for compliance issues (black market / barter / garage sale end runs around the law). BUT, they *could* be made to be far, far smaller in such a simpler tax system. This is nothing but good. And if you don't pay taxes until you spend, then it's good for encouraging savings. And you don't have to pay any taxes if you choose not to spend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top