Taxes and who Really pays

[theHawk]

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 !

 

[Mr. P]

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.

Consumption is no more a necessity than income? Really? Try not spending (consuming) ANY money (income) for two days an get back to me.

As far as undoing a burden, of course it would, it would allow them to decide how much burden to bare. Same with EVERYONE else. Very simple individual CHOICE. Gotta love that!

 

[Max Power]

Consumption is no more a necessity than income? Really? Try not spending (consuming) ANY money (income) for two days an get back to me.

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.

 

[Max Power]

No sale. I could only live in one house and drive one car at a time..Ya get an F for that one. :teeth:

No?

The 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.

http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

 

[Mr. P]

No?


http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

Nice, but Liberal BS! A & B benifit equally. The only difference is what each do with that benifit.

 

[Mr. P]

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.

Oh I thought you said...

Consumption is no more a necessity than income,

LOL…you don’t know much about finance do you? Ever hear of credit?
Then that’s beside the point, you STILL haven’t told me why, with reasonable justification, you think the so called “Rich” should pay MORE tax than anyone else.

 

[Max Power]

Oh I thought you said...


LOL…you don’t know much about finance do you? Ever hear of credit?

Credit only delays payment, it does nothing else.
I was simply pointing out that consumption and income are both (essentially) necessary.

Then that’s beside the point, you STILL haven’t told me why, with reasonable justification, you think the so called “Rich” should pay MORE tax than anyone else.

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.

 

[Mr. P]

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.

And you are for the flat tax? I think you said that.

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?

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]

And you are for the flat tax? I think you said that.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Because some use more. It's that simple. No, it's not completely fair, I know, but that's life.

 

[Mr. P]

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.

..

 

[Max Power]

Okay, but it's not fair, or even close to fair.

Life's not fair.

Nope, go check it out that's not true. They still won't pay federal income tax...Fairtax.org.

What you're talking about is not the "true" flat tax, so you aren't disagreeing as much as discussing something different altogether.

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. .

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.

 

[Mr. P]

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.

You can talk in circles all ya want.
You failed.

 

[Hobbit]

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.

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. And haven't you ever heard of, I dunno, saving money?

Second, you tax something to discourage it, so why are we trying to discourage people from making money? 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]

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.

Exactly, you're asking for black markets to show up.

And haven't you ever heard of, I dunno, saving money?

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.

Second, you tax something to discourage it, so why are we trying to discourage people from making money?

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)

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.

I'll definately agree that the current system is far too complicated, and a consumption tax would be much simpler.

 

[Hobbit]

Exactly, you're asking for black markets to show up.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

I'll definately agree that the current system is far too complicated, and a consumption tax would be much simpler.

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.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

I want to rep this, I dont know how

I like that statement about taxes are to punish things and you want less of. So true, they give tax breaks to those things they want stimulated, and tax increases on things they want less of. So, you are absolutely correct.

Income taxes should be abolished and banned. Most people think we have always had them, they are shocked to hear we have had them less than 100 years.

It simply gives so much more power to the govt,,,

Max ,,the reason some of those things I consider essential is because if the services for such things are cut, like air port controllers, then people will DIE. Private sector depends on the ability of the workers to strike in order to have fair power against their employers. I would hate to have a murderer in my house and when I dail 911 I get a recording that they are on strike.

Roads are public thourough fares, I should not have to pay to travel on any road, ever. PERIOD. I have a right to go where I want as long as it isnt private property.

 

[Max Power]

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.

You'd have to ask yourself if that would change if the sales tax was changed from ~8% to ~40%.

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.

Let me just say that we're only talking about different methods of collecting money, not about collecting a different amount of money. It is the huge amount of money collected, where the inefficiency lies - NOT how it is collected.
Unless something is done to fix that, this will only redistribute the problem.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

NO,no,no…Consumption IS a necessity, one that YOU have total control over.
There’s no punishment, just an effective way to “Fairly” collect tax. That includes everyone who doesn’t 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.

Although I basically agree with your tax philosophy, I disagree with you on the notion that consumption tax wont hurt consumption. ANY TAX on ANY THING will hurt it somewhat. Its inevitable. If the cost of something is increased, it lessens its appeal to some.

But that is irrelevant, because you have to tax SOMETHING. So the, its gonna punish it arguement can be used on anything.

But basically, trying to find a "fair" way to tax is foolish and impossible. ALthough I do think it would be great to simply eliminate income taxes and choose ANY OTHER METHOD would be a tremendous benefit to virtuallyl everyone.

But the real problem is still spending. As long as spending remains out of control as it has been for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time, the problem remains.

We need a continued swing to the right on all issues, and this will bring the spending issue to the forefront where it belongs.

What used to be considered moderate views, is now considered far right. Once we get that "far right" view back to the middle of the pendulum swing, (and leave all the evil baggage that some used to attatch to it, WHICH US NEOCONS WONT ANY LONGER ALLOW- such as racism and blatant sexism)

then the idea of radical spending cuts in the govt, and giving the responsability of caring for the poor back to the extended family, charities and the church, will prevail.

The left, which wants church out of govt, and supports the rights of people to have a cradle to grave govt sponsorship of their lives if they so choose, create this problem.

When the govt takes care of poor people, it ENCOURAGES more to become poor and dependent on govt. When private charities and churches take care of poor people, it ENCOURAGES them to get out of poverty.

The main question for all leftists, is this, what is your priority. If you want less govt taxation, then you have to bite the bullet and support the right. If your priority is having church out of govt, then keep on supporting higher govt spending, and DONT BITCH about high and unfair taxation, cuz you are supporting the root cause.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

Your basic point makes sense. Thats why a consumption tax works towards fairness more than income taxes.

that does not need to be addressed through income taxes. Property taxes and gas taxes would take care of that.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

Exellent point. Keeping the money in a flow of PRODUCTION is the key.

Every time the money changes hands, are the money changers doing something to create wealth?

When you put the money in the hands of the govt, they are merely redistributing the wealth, but producing nothing. They create class envy to keep their jobs.

What I really dont understand is why people are more concerned about "fairness" than just plain standard of living. I mean, our middle class is considered "extremely rich" in most of the world. Even our ghettos would be a dream for most living in the Philippines, which is NOT the exception world wide.

I would rather have 10% of a billion, than 50% of $100,000.