Max Power said:If you have more cars, you use the roads more, etc.
How so? I have two cars, doesn't mean I use more roads or drive more. I can only drive one at a time !
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Max Power said:If you have more cars, you use the roads more, etc.
Consumption is no more a necessity than income? Really? Try not spending (consuming) ANY money (income) for two days an get back to me.Max Power said:Consumption is no more a necessity than income, and ditto for control over it.
I don't see how any implementation would undo any burden on that small percentage of the population, so long as they continue to have a large percentage of the money.
Mr. P said:Consumption is no more a necessity than income? Really? Try not spending (consuming) ANY money (income) for two days an get back to me.
Mr. P said:No sale. I could only live in one house and drive one car at a time..Ya get an F for that one. :teeth:
http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htmThe rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.
Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.
Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.
Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.
Nice, but Liberal BS! A & B benifit equally. The only difference is what each do with that benifit.Max Power said:
Oh I thought you said...Max Power said:You can only consume as much as you make. No more.
So, just as consumption is necessary, so is income.
Or you can live on a farm and do neither.
Consumption is no more a necessity than income,
Credit only delays payment, it does nothing else.Mr. P said:Oh I thought you said...
LOL you dont know much about finance do you? Ever hear of credit?
No?Then thats beside the point, you STILL havent told me why, with reasonable justification, you think the so called Rich should pay MORE tax than anyone else.
And you are for the flat tax? I think you said that.Max Power said:Credit only delays payment, it does nothing else.
I was simply pointing out that consumption and income are both (essentially) necessary.
No?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=360495&postcount=24
That aside, do you want to know why I think the rich should pay more tax than other people?
The USG budget is over $2 trillion, which comes out to more than $8,000 per person (this COMPLETELY neglects the fact that not everyone is a taxpayer). Someone who makes minimum wage, and works full time with no vacation makes less than $14,000 per year, which leaves a take home pay of less than $6,000 - not enough to live on, and that doesn't even count state or local taxes.
In this "true" flat tax system, the fed would collapse instantly, and people would starve.
All I said is that I think it'd be more fair.Mr. P said:And you are for the flat tax? I think you said that.
Yes, I know that... but if they had to pay as "fair" as you want it, then they will be paying more than 8 grand.Yes, I still want to know. Your poor people thing is again more Liberal BS. Someone making 14k will not pay federal income tax, who ya think yer foolin?
Because some use more. It's that simple. No, it's not completely fair, I know, but that's life.So tell me, tell me, why should some pay more? Yer still in the F range,
but you have a lot of company, as I said, no one has ever been able to justify with reason, taxing some more than others.
Max Power said:All I said is that I think it'd be more fair.
I haven't decided for myself whether I'd be for or against it.
Okay, but it's not fair, or even close to fair.
Yes, I know that... but if they had to pay as "fair" as you want it, then they will be paying more than 8 grand.
Nope, go check it out that's not true. They still won't pay federal income tax...Fairtax.org.
Because some use more. It's that simple. No, it's not completely fair, I know, but that's life.
See, you have NO case. If some use more which I would agree is true, why would you assume they are "rich"? Regardless, the fair tax is based on consumption (USE) so that should make you happy. It is Fair to all not any group or class.
Life's not fair.Mr. P said:Okay, but it's not fair, or even close to fair.
What you're talking about is not the "true" flat tax, so you aren't disagreeing as much as discussing something different altogether.Nope, go check it out that's not true. They still won't pay federal income tax...Fairtax.org.
It's all the same.See, you have NO case. If some use more which I would agree is true, why would you assume they are "rich"? Regardless, the fair tax is based on consumption (USE) so that should make you happy. It is Fair to all not any group or class. .
You can talk in circles all ya want.Max Power said:Life's not fair.
What you're talking about is not the "true" flat tax, so you aren't disagreeing as much as discussing something different altogether.
It's all the same.
Income tax, consumption tax.
Money is only good if you spend it, otherwise it's just green paper.
So, make a few bucks and pay a certain percentage of income tax, or make a few bucks, then buy something and pay a certain percentage of consumption tax, it's all the same thing.
Max Power said:Life's not fair.
What you're talking about is not the "true" flat tax, so you aren't disagreeing as much as discussing something different altogether.
It's all the same.
Income tax, consumption tax.
Money is only good if you spend it, otherwise it's just green paper.
So, make a few bucks and pay a certain percentage of income tax, or make a few bucks, then buy something and pay a certain percentage of consumption tax, it's all the same thing.
Exactly, you're asking for black markets to show up.Hobbit said:First off, a tax on consumption isn't the same as a tax on income. The consumption economy is twice the nation's taxable income, not to mention the fact that two people have to work together to dodge consumption tax.
Why do you save money?And haven't you ever heard of, I dunno, saving money?
Tax is a necessary evil in a society like this.Second, you tax something to discourage it, so why are we trying to discourage people from making money?
I'll definately agree that the current system is far too complicated, and a consumption tax would be much simpler.Then there's the endless compliance costs, thousands of pages of tax code, the fact that every product is taxed about 50 times before it even reaches the retail level. The thing's a monolith. It costs this country 50 cents for every dollar collected in taxes just to comply with the code, and most people still don't do it correctly.
Read "The Fair Tax Book." If I knew you in person, I'd give you my copy. It's really the best way to understand all of this.
Max Power said:Exactly, you're asking for black markets to show up.
Why do you save money?
So that you can spend it the future, right?
So, once you spend it, it gets taxed.
Your point is moot.
Tax is a necessary evil in a society like this.
I don't see why discouraging people from spending money is any better than discouraging people from making money.
(BTW, you don't tax something ONLY to discourage it)
I'll definately agree that the current system is far too complicated, and a consumption tax would be much simpler.
Hobbit said:Read "The Fair Tax Book." I can't remember the exact number, but less than half of all taxpayers claim any deductions. I also know that celebrities always overpay, since the IRS would lick their chops at making an example of somebody high profile, and they don't want the headache of proving the validity of deductions. I've heard numberous celebrities from radio, TV, and Hollywood say this. As far as "dodging taxes," if you look it up, nearly all of these tax shelters are perfectly legal and are also the only way some of these people can keep an appreciable amount of their income.
Income tax is one of the biggest travesties of our modern system, and a documented item on the list of steps to a communist society. The way taxes work is that you're supposed to tax something you want less of, and right now, income is taxed, meaning the government is essentially saying it doesn't want people to make money. This punishes success and stagnates the economy, not to mention that until a constitutional ammendment that was advertised as a weapon of class warfare, income tax was unconstitutional, and was ruled a such before.
You'd have to ask yourself if that would change if the sales tax was changed from ~8% to ~40%.Hobbit said:Actually, you're not. There's a state sales tax in 48 states, and that hasn't caused a black market. Then there's the fact that the seller doesn't benefit from the tax break and runs the greatest risk of being caught. Sure, there'll be some dodges, but compare that to how many people dodge their taxes now that you can do it by yourself.
Saving money for later instead of spending it is far wiser and is good for the economy, as it lowers interest rates on loans (banks have more money to dole out) and it encourages investment, which isn't taxed and leads to booms
Not to mention that when people start saving money rather than spending it, they start looking to the future for things like home ownership, another thing that benefits the economy.
Now, I am currently aware that discouragement is not the sole reason for taxation. It is, however, an undeniable side affect of any tax. Look at the luxury tax. When it was enacted, it didn't collect more money, it just meant fewer people bought luxuries. Now, as we have seen, whether you save, invest, or spend, it benefits the economy. However, if you're discouraged from making money in the first place through income tax, it hurts the economy, so why don't we tax something other than income? Taxing spending at the retail level won't do that much to discourage spending, as spending is already taxed through embedded income tax. However, eliminating the income tax will encourage increased earnings, leading to an economic boom wherever it goes.
We agree on something? Pinch me. Personally, I think this alone is enough to justify eliminating the income tax, but then there's all those other reasons that make it all the sweeter.
Mr. P said:NO,no,no Consumption IS a necessity, one that YOU have total control over.
Theres no punishment, just an effective way to Fairly collect tax. That includes everyone who doesnt pay tax now. Why continue to burden a small percentage of the population with the majority of the taxes? Now that IS Punishment for everything we want to promote, drive, education, achievement and success.
Max Power said:Well, there is a correlation between what the government "gives" you ,and how much money you make. If a person owns 2 or more houses, then it should make sense that that person should contribute more to national defense (you need defense for more land), stuff like that. If you have more cars, you use the roads more, etc.
theHawk said:Even if rich people did just go and spend their money, how is that not helping the economy? Don't you think the house builder, car and boat builders will be happy to get money from rich people? Doesn't matter if rich people "invest" or just go and blow all their money, other people benefit from it. A concept liberals don't seem to understand.