Taxes

[Mr. P]

Mr. P. Hi there

If you make a buck

If I make a buck

Today

We are likely to pay differing amounts on that one dollar based on how well we keep records, and how well we understand a byzantine tax code, and who we can get to help us.

Additionally, if my bucks add up to more than your bux I will pay a higer percentage and total than you. So in effect I am paying a higher rate as a penalty for making more money.

Additionally, if you are poor you will or can receive funding and assistance that you don't pay anything for. Free ride syndrome sets in and you begin to believe that you are entitled to something.

Now, the flat tax in GwinnLand is simple.

If you make a buck you pay 15%

If I make a buck I pay 15%

If you make 1,000,000 you pay 15%

If I make 1500, I pay (you guessed it 15%)

No questions asked, no refunds, no deductions, no cpa, no complicated tax codes, no incorporating yourself to escape, no nothing. I understand the objections and the possible weasel methods people are promoting. Truthfully the hardest thing to come by in America would be the courage of all the elected officials to simply stick with it and not allow the special interests to complicate matters.

C'ya

So then you're basing "fair" on a percent figure only?
Since the retail sales tax (also known as The fair tax) eliminates the items you mentioned as well,
there's a major flaw in your logic...Do you have a guess what it may be and why most people would view it as
unfair?

Oh yeah, Where the hell is "GwinnLand"?

 

[Comrade]

Yo Comrade!

A solely flat tax would be a regressive tax, the exact opposit of what most of the world considers fair. Since I am not an economist or tax expert, you are gonna hafta break it down barney style for me. Seems that 10 percent of (insert amount) is fair.

A flat income tax (without exemption for the first XX thousand of income) does not exist anywhere.

Russia and Hong Kong have a flat income tax, but exempt that tax to a certain amount... still making the system progressive overall.

Progressive taxation - The more you make, the higher as a total % of earnings you pay as tax.

Regressive taxation - The less you make, the higher as a total % of earnings you pay as tax.



A SALES tax is the worse of regressive taxations.

The poor will spend their earnings much earlier and as a greater whole of total earnings well before the rich. The rich will defer and reinvest much of their earnings and avoid taxation until that wealth is ultimately spent, perhaps generations later.

Therefore, A national sales tax would be radical change to taxation policy and hit the poor with a sledgehammer.

There is a sales tax in every state of the union. So I am maybe missing your point here?

State sales tax is regressive, not progressive. Which may be okay for a state.

On a national level though, a sales tax would radically alter the burden of taxations from the rich to the poor.

Definately keep it in General revenue and not for specific programs, if it happened. A new sales tax should only be used to replace income tax.

We demand this revenue be put into the General budget as before. No reason to limit such a new tax to a few specific budgets which need shoring up. Let Congress decide where this goes, as usual.

Why? If it is in the general fund, there would be a tendancy to inflate the budget to cover the additional funds. I'd think that targeted spending would be the smart way to go.

I'm still thinking that a new sales tax will replace any funds from an income tax now reduced. We want the government to replace lost income tax with this, not add on extra funding for specific programs.

The one very good thing about a national sales tax, among many bad which I think will keep the USA from ever initiating it (ie. regressive taxation on the poor), is that illegal sources of income will contribute to the income base of the government. No more tax breaks for criminals.

Something to think about! Good Point, Hail Yeah

You bet. By taxing illegal income through consumption, in addition to taxing tourist income, we might just relieve the total burden for ALL legal taxpayers.

In that case, the total tax burden on legal taxpaying citizens may even be reduced.

And in that case I'd vote for it!

 

[Shazbot]

A solely flat tax would be a regressive tax, the exact opposit of what most of the world considers fair.

No. As you pointed out in another more recent post, a regressive tax is a tax requiring a higher percentage from lower incomes than from higher incomes. The idea of a flat tax is that the percentage is the same regardless of income. Flat tax is middle ground between regressive and progressive taxation.

I am a proponent for the flat tax since the tax rate is the same regardless of individual need. A problem I see with a national sales tax is this (or a similar) situation: I never get sick. Really, the last time I had the flu was over 6 years ago. My sister, on the other hand, gets sick several times a year. Our medicinal needs differ greatly. No matter the tax program, she is going to spend more than me on medicine - that's a given. However, with a sales tax instead of an income tax, she will not only be spending more on medicines than me, but will be getting taxed more than me. This situation can extend itself to any level of individual need - from the amount of food I eat, to the amount of clothing I go through in x years, to mere luck of the draw. A flat tax would eliminate that problem - the tax would be equal for all, regardless of how the money is spent.

-Douglas

 

[Mr. P]

FAIR is the operative word here...I don't think from the posts I read here that
some of you have a clue about what the National retail Sales tax really is...
Check out....http://fairtax.org/

 

[Comrade]

No. As you pointed out in another more recent post, a regressive tax is a tax requiring a higher percentage from lower incomes than from higher incomes. The idea of a flat tax is that the percentage is the same regardless of income. Flat tax is middle ground between regressive and progressive taxation.

A flat SALES tax IS a regressive tax, requiring a higher percentage from lower incomes than from higher incomes.

Because those with a lower income spend a higher percentage of that total on immediate personal consumption, which is where taxation occurs.

I am a proponent for the flat tax since the tax rate is the same regardless of individual need. A problem I see with a national sales tax is this (or a similar) situation: I never get sick. Really, the last time I had the flu was over 6 years ago. My sister, on the other hand, gets sick several times a year. Our medicinal needs differ greatly. No matter the tax program, she is going to spend more than me on medicine - that's a given. However, with a sales tax instead of an income tax, she will not only be spending more on medicines than me, but will be getting taxed more than me. This situation can extend itself to any level of individual need - from the amount of food I eat, to the amount of clothing I go through in x years, to mere luck of the draw. A flat tax would eliminate that problem - the tax would be equal for all, regardless of how the money is spent.

-Douglas[/QUOTE]

Eventually all income would be taxed, but the rich would be able to defer the tax that those living paycheck-to-paycheck could not.

The time value of money dictates that that tax for the rich would be less when they eventually spend that money.

 

[nakedemperor]

What was your professor teaching and why is his so ill informed?

A lot of people get tripped up by fuzzy math...

"By far the vast majority goes to those at the bottom." -Dubya, repeated dozens of times in his stump speech on the 2000 campaign trail on his promised initial tax cuts.

The bottom 60% got 14.7% of the tax breaks. And since he's not a professor, I'd say it would be too much hubris to just say he lied about it. He obviously just couldn't do that math.

 

[Hobbit]

A lot of people get tripped up by fuzzy math...

"By far the vast majority goes to those at the bottom." -Dubya, repeated dozens of times in his stump speech on the 2000 campaign trail on his promised initial tax cuts.

The bottom 60% got 14.7% of the tax breaks. And since he's not a professor, I'd say it would be too much hubris to just say he lied about it. He obviously just couldn't do that math.

Have you been listening to anything we've been saying? The reason the bottom %60 got %14.7 of the tax break was that they were only paying about %5-10 of the taxes in the first place. You can't base the thing on raw dollars, since the rich are already paying so much and any tax break will get them a large break in raw numbers. The bottom %60 got a bettet percentage break.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say I pay $100,000 a year in taxes, and you pay about $1000 a year. If the tax break says that all people who pay at least $100,000 a year pay %2 less than they did the previous year, while those paying less that $1500 will now be paying no taxes at all, who got the better break. Yeah, I would be saving $2000 to your $1000, but you got a %100 break to my %2. See how it works now?

 

[nakedemperor]

This is how liberals spin tax breaks:


If I make 1,000,000 a year, and the tax rate is 33%, my taxes are 333,333.

If you make 10,000 a year, and the tax rate is 33%, your taxes are 3,333.

When the president says "Okay! All income taxes are now 30%" I save 33,333 dollars a year in taxes. You save 333 dollars. Democrats now start hollering that "Look! Your tax breaks are only saving the RICH PEOPLE money!! They are TAX BREAKS FOR THE ELITE RICH!!"

:-/

Dumbasses. I'd be willing to bet a guy making $10K a year would MUCH more appreciate the $333 he's saved, over somebody who even ten TIMES that amount doesn't mean much to their quality of life.

In 2000 president Bush said the following dozens of times in his stump speech, concerning the first-round of his promised tax breaks:

"By far the vast majority [of tax breaks] will go to those at the bottom."

So let's assume that because he didn't tell us they will get more (not just more, but the "VAST MAJORITY") RELATIVE to their income, he didn't MEAN that. Otherwise his statement would have been just plain dishonest.

The bottom 60% of taxpayers recieved 14.7% of the returned money.

Now, Dubya isn't a college professor, so I'm not going to say he was being dishonest, I'm just going to assume he didn't realize that the "bottom" meant the bottom 50% and that "vast majority" doesn't mean, "vast minority".

Or maybe that's just my kooky liberal interpretation =P

P.S. I'm repeating myself because I hate quoting myslef

 

[Fmr jarhead]

No matter how many times you say the same thing, you still look and sound like a MORON!!!! You don't get it do you?

 

[MtnBiker]

The bottom 60% of taxpayers recieved 14.7% of the returned money.

Are you of the belief that the bottom 60% of taxpayers should have received 60% of the money returned?

 

[Comrade]

A lot of people get tripped up by fuzzy math...

"By far the vast majority goes to those at the bottom." -Dubya, repeated dozens of times in his stump speech on the 2000 campaign trail on his promised initial tax cuts.

The bottom 60% got 14.7% of the tax breaks.[/B] And since he's not a professor, I'd say it would be too much hubris to just say he lied about it. He obviously just couldn't do that math.

Here's the mathematical aspect of a tax cut, which is more complex than you seem to recognize.

We already have a highly progressive income tax scale.

Moi told us the bottom half only pay less than 5% of the total tax.

The rich upper half are paying the huge majority of taxes, understand? More than 95% of the total tax paid.

14.7% of the total dollar amount of cuts go to that bottom 60%, who were alreadly paying LESS than that percentage as a total, and the scale is now even MORE progressive than before, which proves Bush correct

I think you should at least hold off on the ever popular "stupid Bush" claim... just do the math.

 

[Comrade]

In 2000 president Bush said the following dozens of times in his stump speech, concerning the first-round of his promised tax breaks:

"By far the vast majority [of tax breaks] will go to those at the bottom."

So let's assume that because he didn't tell us they will get more (not just more, but the "VAST MAJORITY") RELATIVE to their income, he didn't MEAN that. Otherwise his statement would have been just plain dishonest.

Who injected "of tax breaks". Link for context?

The bottom 60% of taxpayers recieved 14.7% of the returned money.

Now, Dubya isn't a college professor, so I'm not going to say he was being dishonest, I'm just going to assume he didn't realize that the "bottom" meant the bottom 50% and that "vast majority" doesn't mean, "vast minority".

Or maybe that's just my kooky liberal interpretation =P

P.S. I'm repeating myself because I hate quoting myslef

We don't do dollar-for-dollar tax cuts because even the middle earners should pay tax as well as the rich.

A reduction in tax of $1,000 to someone paying $2,000 is a 50% tax cut.

A reduction of $9,000 to someone paying $27,000 in tax is a 33% tax cut.

The bottom earners got a higher tax cut, but you see it as a ripoff to the poor, because they only got 10% of the total dollars cut.

Even though the end result is a more progressive tax scale more beneficial to the poor than ever before.

Bush graduated Yale, and he understands percentages. You don't. So lay off and learn something!

 

[Shazbot]

A flat SALES tax IS a regressive tax, requiring a higher percentage from lower incomes than from higher incomes.

Because those with a lower income spend a higher percentage of that total on immediate personal consumption, which is where taxation occurs.

Eventually all income would be taxed, but the rich would be able to defer the tax that those living paycheck-to-paycheck could not.

The time value of money dictates that that tax for the rich would be less when they eventually spend that money.

Oops. That was my mistake. I thought you were referring to a flat income tax - not a flat sales tax!

-Dougas

 

[Comrade]

Oops. That was my mistake. I thought you were referring to a flat income tax - not a flat sales tax!

-Dougas

No biggie.

 

[Moi]

I vote for the complete flat tax. There's been threads about this before.

No money for IRS, no money on paper to create a tax "return", no money wasted in other words.

Fair, easy, doable.

 

[Comrade]

I vote for the complete flat tax. There's been threads about this before.

No money for IRS, no money on paper to create a tax "return", no money wasted in other words.

Fair, easy, doable.

Why Fair?

 

[Moi]

Why Fair?

Because you can't "scam" it easily. One of the high costs of the IRS (and thus our taxes) is compliance. Even from those who just make mistakes due to the fluidity of what's deductible each year. Then there are the people who deduct things to which they aren't entitled...takes a lot of money to reveiw each tax return, investigate disparities, enforcement, etc.

Fair also because no deductions means that each $ is counted equally. Just because someone owns a house doesn't mean they should pay less tax than the person who rents for their lives.

Finally, I also think it's fair that we're all treated equally. If I make a $ and pay 10 cents, and you make $10 and pay $1...we're equal. That's fair.

 

[pegwinn]

Hi Again. Mr. P. It's late and I am not sure about the tone of your post. If you are trying to bait me, it won't work. I am not an economist, cpa, or tax authority. I am telling you what is fair to me in my opinion. If you are going to be rude, then well........

So then you're basing "fair" on a percent figure only?
Since the retail sales tax (also known as The fair tax) eliminates the items you mentioned as well, there's a major flaw in your logic...Do you have a guess what it may be and why most people would view it as unfair? As I said, my opinion of fair is simply using a percent. For easy math we can use 10 percent. I pay 10 percent of my 1000 bux. You pay 10 percent of your million. I am the one proposing that we have a flat income tax, and a NST. You don't have to agree.
Oh yeah, Where the hell is "GwinnLand"? GwinnLand is where my family lives. It is a soverign place here in Texas where my kids got no 5th amendment. If I ask "did you do it?" they have the right to tell the truth. It is a place where the constitution is a great idea, but never doubt that it is not a democracy, but instead a benevolent dictatorship

 

[Comrade]

Because you can't "scam" it easily. One of the high costs of the IRS (and thus our taxes) is compliance. Even from those who just make mistakes due to the fluidity of what's deductible each year. Then there are the people who deduct things to which they aren't entitled...takes a lot of money to reveiw each tax return, investigate disparities, enforcement, etc.

Still though, every sale now must take into account that tax, and the additional burden of paperwork and enforcement is now transferred to every seller. Some seller will cheat and some buyers will arrange purchases outside of that process.

Income tax is fairly effecient with employer W-2 compliance.

But I still agree with you, overall there is fewer headaches.

Fair also because no deductions means that each $ is counted equally. Just because someone owns a house doesn't mean they should pay less tax than the person who rents for their lives.

They only do if their interest payments exceed the net deduction amount renters would otherwise take for free. It's complicated, but the idea is not to penalize those home owners paying massive interest on a new home and the net effect is to encourage home ownership, which is good. Not worth a debate though, I kind of agree with you too.

Finally, I also think it's fair that we're all treated equally. If I make a $ and pay 10 cents, and you make $10 and pay $1...we're equal. That's fair.

I mentioned that the entire world taxes progressively. This kind of radical shift to a regressive scale won't ever happen in our lifetime.

You are talking about a flat sales tax, so what you make is irrelevent. What you spend gets taxed. The poor spend a greater percentage amount of their total income and do so much sooner than the rich. And the time value of money again, mean the rich end up paying less as a total % of earnings than the poor, when their earnings are finally spend and therefore taxed.

If you understand that, let's then agree a flat sales tax is nothing but a REGRESSIVE tax which penalizes the poor.

And again, this is radicial change from any traditional taxation policy in the Western world. It's intolerable, in fact. It won't happen!

 

[Annie]

Coming at this as a math disabled person. 100% of my income is spent, because it's so low. Now, in the past, less than 25% of my income was spent, perhaps I should say 'our income'? Anyways, over 75% of income was saved/invested. Would this be taxed? I don't think so.

How is this fair?