What Tax System Do You Want? Why?

[Foxfyre]

A flat tax. One where everyone pays the same percentage on their earned and unearned incomes.

No tax breaks for the rich, no loopholes, no writeoffs, just a flat percentage tax rate for all americans.

Why? Because that would be fair.

Okay, based on my response to the Sgt, you and I are on the same page. But let me play devil's advocate here for a bit.

A Constitutional expectation of the federal government is that it will promote the general welfare. The general welfare could be seen as promoting the traditional family, promoting charity, promoting home ownership, promoting new business startups and business expansion, etc.

So long as this is applied evenly across the board without respect for the standing of any citizen, is there no room even in a flat tax for the government to promote such activity?

Ah but see promoting the general welfare is not the same as Providing for it . And that very line of the constitution goes on to say Provide the General Defense....if the founders inteded the government to provide us with "Welfare" they would have written provide instead of promote .

Ok ok that was semantics lets put that aside and get back to the devils advocate and my response.

That still leaves all the room the government has now to help promote the general welfare. They will still have the same amount of tax money coming in and they can still fund such programs with that money.

I was going to go on and on with examples but i'll stop here and save those for future responses .

I like good debate.

Ahem. Thwap with a ostrich feather. I did NOT use the term PROVIDE.

I don't think I have on this thread, but on several other threads I have stated unequivocably that I believe any effective tax reform will require a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the Federal government from disbursing any tax monies collected as charity of any kind or that benefits any targeted group. In other words, we have to prohibit elected federal leaders from any ability to use our money to buy votes.

But my 'devil's advocate' argument does not involve charity. It does involve a tax break for ANYBODY without respect for race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, etc. who gets married, buys a home, employs other people, gives to charitable causes, etc. That would promote the general welfare by encouraging such activities and making it more possible for people to engage in such activities.

Do you (or anybody) have any rebuttal on why that would not fall within the scope and intent of promoting the general welfare?

 

[AVG-JOE]

National sales tax with a minimal percentage, like 2% to 5% on yearly incomes over a million would be my push.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Okay, based on my response to the Sgt, you and I are on the same page. But let me play devil's advocate here for a bit.

A Constitutional expectation of the federal government is that it will promote the general welfare. The general welfare could be seen as promoting the traditional family, promoting charity, promoting home ownership, promoting new business startups and business expansion, etc.

So long as this is applied evenly across the board without respect for the standing of any citizen, is there no room even in a flat tax for the government to promote such activity?

Ah but see promoting the general welfare is not the same as Providing for it . And that very line of the constitution goes on to say Provide the General Defense....if the founders inteded the government to provide us with "Welfare" they would have written provide instead of promote .

Ok ok that was semantics lets put that aside and get back to the devils advocate and my response.

That still leaves all the room the government has now to help promote the general welfare. They will still have the same amount of tax money coming in and they can still fund such programs with that money.

I was going to go on and on with examples but i'll stop here and save those for future responses .

I like good debate.

Ahem. Thwap with a ostrich feather. I did NOT use the term PROVIDE.

I don't think I have on this thread, but on several other threads I have stated unequivocably that I believe any effective tax reform will require a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the Federal government from disbursing any tax monies collected as charity of any kind or that benefits any targeted group. In other words, we have to prohibit elected federal leaders from any ability to use our money to buy votes.

But my 'devil's advocate' argument does not involve charity. It does involve a tax break for ANYBODY without respect for race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, etc. who gets married, buys a home, employs other people, gives to charitable causes, etc. That would promote the general welfare by encouraging such activities and making it more possible for people to engage in such activities.

Do you (or anybody) have any rebuttal on why that would not fall within the scope and intent of promoting the general welfare?

I see a big contradiction in your post . The 2 bolded parts seem contradictory to me. I know you tried to separate them by using charity but they still seem to clash.


Providing tax breaks for specific activites in order to promote the general welfare is A-Ok with me. As this is not providing the welfare but promoting activity by the citizens to improve it.

I can see i'm standing on the edge of a very slippery slope right now and am trying too keep from falling down .

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah but see promoting the general welfare is not the same as Providing for it . And that very line of the constitution goes on to say Provide the General Defense....if the founders inteded the government to provide us with "Welfare" they would have written provide instead of promote .

Ok ok that was semantics lets put that aside and get back to the devils advocate and my response.

That still leaves all the room the government has now to help promote the general welfare. They will still have the same amount of tax money coming in and they can still fund such programs with that money.

I was going to go on and on with examples but i'll stop here and save those for future responses .

I like good debate.

Ahem. Thwap with a ostrich feather. I did NOT use the term PROVIDE.

I don't think I have on this thread, but on several other threads I have stated unequivocably that I believe any effective tax reform will require a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the Federal government from disbursing any tax monies collected as charity of any kind or that benefits any targeted group. In other words, we have to prohibit elected federal leaders from any ability to use our money to buy votes.

But my 'devil's advocate' argument does not involve charity. It does involve a tax break for ANYBODY without respect for race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, etc. who gets married, buys a home, employs other people, gives to charitable causes, etc. That would promote the general welfare by encouraging such activities and making it more possible for people to engage in such activities.

Do you (or anybody) have any rebuttal on why that would not fall within the scope and intent of promoting the general welfare?

I see a big contradiction in your post . The 2 bolded parts seem contradictory to me. I know you tried to separate them by using charity but they still seem to clash.


Providing tax breaks for specific activites in order to promote the general welfare is A-Ok with me. As this is not providing the welfare but promoting activity by the citizens to improve it.

I can see i'm standing on the edge of a very slippery slope right now and am trying too keep from falling down .

Don't worry friend. I think you will probably have a soft landing.

My rationale is that a moral society does give a hand up to those who need and deserve it and does take care of the truly helpless. But I have found absolutely no way for the federal government to do that without corrupting those authorizing charity and also those receiving it. So I believe that in a society where freedom, liberty, and appreciation for human rights prevail, such must be accomplished by the private sector or locally via social contract.

I do not see that giving a uniform across the board, equally administrated, tax break for certain activities that have proven themselves to promote the general welfare is charity. It is a way to encourage people to engage in such activity and/or make it possible for there to be more of it. Because I can deduct the charitable contributions I make, for instance, I can afford to make more of them.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ahem. Thwap with a ostrich feather. I did NOT use the term PROVIDE.

I don't think I have on this thread, but on several other threads I have stated unequivocably that I believe any effective tax reform will require a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the Federal government from disbursing any tax monies collected as charity of any kind or that benefits any targeted group. In other words, we have to prohibit elected federal leaders from any ability to use our money to buy votes.

But my 'devil's advocate' argument does not involve charity. It does involve a tax break for ANYBODY without respect for race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, etc. who gets married, buys a home, employs other people, gives to charitable causes, etc. That would promote the general welfare by encouraging such activities and making it more possible for people to engage in such activities.

Do you (or anybody) have any rebuttal on why that would not fall within the scope and intent of promoting the general welfare?

I see a big contradiction in your post . The 2 bolded parts seem contradictory to me. I know you tried to separate them by using charity but they still seem to clash.


Providing tax breaks for specific activites in order to promote the general welfare is A-Ok with me. As this is not providing the welfare but promoting activity by the citizens to improve it.

I can see i'm standing on the edge of a very slippery slope right now and am trying too keep from falling down .

Don't worry friend. I think you will probably have a soft landing.

My rationale is that a moral society does give a hand up to those who need and deserve it and does take care of the truly helpless. But I have found absolutely no way for the federal government to do that without corrupting those authorizing charity and also those receiving it. So I believe that in a society where freedom, liberty, and appreciation for human rights prevail, such must be accomplished by the private sector or locally via social contract.

I do not see that giving a uniform across the board, equally administrated, tax break for certain activities that have proven themselves to promote the general welfare is charity.

WHy haven't we had more discussions on issues. You seem like a normal american to me....i can't even guess if your a rep or a dem from our last several posts which is EXACTLY what I like when i debate people. Going on your own personal views and ideas is a HUGE thing in my book.

I wish I had more to add to this debate but I basically agree with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see a big contradiction in your post . The 2 bolded parts seem contradictory to me. I know you tried to separate them by using charity but they still seem to clash.


Providing tax breaks for specific activites in order to promote the general welfare is A-Ok with me. As this is not providing the welfare but promoting activity by the citizens to improve it.

I can see i'm standing on the edge of a very slippery slope right now and am trying too keep from falling down .

Don't worry friend. I think you will probably have a soft landing.

My rationale is that a moral society does give a hand up to those who need and deserve it and does take care of the truly helpless. But I have found absolutely no way for the federal government to do that without corrupting those authorizing charity and also those receiving it. So I believe that in a society where freedom, liberty, and appreciation for human rights prevail, such must be accomplished by the private sector or locally via social contract.

I do not see that giving a uniform across the board, equally administrated, tax break for certain activities that have proven themselves to promote the general welfare is charity.

WHy haven't we had more discussions on issues. You seem like a normal american to me....i can't even guess if your a rep or a dem from our last several posts which is EXACTLY what I like when i debate people. Going on your own personal views and ideas is a HUGE thing in my book.

I wish I had more to add to this debate but I basically agree with you.

Thanks. I knew you would come around. (J/k)

I vote Republican more often than I vote Democrat, but for some years now it is only because it was the less unacceptable of two unacceptable choices. Many days I would like to throw out the whole bunch and start over with Wal-mart shoppers picked at random. They couldn't possibly do worse.

There really isn't an existing political party that fits my political ideology. I'm working on it though.

Actually I would prefer that ya'll just appoint me benevolent dictator with unlimited powers for a couple of years, and I would get it all straightened out.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

forget the parties and join us

The Kick Them All Out Project - Imposing our undeniable will on the government through the power of our votes!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMrhNFva-2g&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Big Black Dog]

Ahem. Thwap with a ostrich feather. I did NOT use the term PROVIDE.

I don't think I have on this thread, but on several other threads I have stated unequivocably that I believe any effective tax reform will require a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the Federal government from disbursing any tax monies collected as charity of any kind or that benefits any targeted group. In other words, we have to prohibit elected federal leaders from any ability to use our money to buy votes.

But my 'devil's advocate' argument does not involve charity. It does involve a tax break for ANYBODY without respect for race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, etc. who gets married, buys a home, employs other people, gives to charitable causes, etc. That would promote the general welfare by encouraging such activities and making it more possible for people to engage in such activities.

Do you (or anybody) have any rebuttal on why that would not fall within the scope and intent of promoting the general welfare?

I see a big contradiction in your post . The 2 bolded parts seem contradictory to me. I know you tried to separate them by using charity but they still seem to clash.


Providing tax breaks for specific activites in order to promote the general welfare is A-Ok with me. As this is not providing the welfare but promoting activity by the citizens to improve it.

I can see i'm standing on the edge of a very slippery slope right now and am trying too keep from falling down .

Don't worry friend. I think you will probably have a soft landing.

My rationale is that a moral society does give a hand up to those who need and deserve it and does take care of the truly helpless. But I have found absolutely no way for the federal government to do that without corrupting those authorizing charity and also those receiving it. So I believe that in a society where freedom, liberty, and appreciation for human rights prevail, such must be accomplished by the private sector or locally via social contract.

I do not see that giving a uniform across the board, equally administrated, tax break for certain activities that have proven themselves to promote the general welfare is charity. It is a way to encourage people to engage in such activity and/or make it possible for there to be more of it. Because I can deduct the charitable contributions I make, for instance, I can afford to make more of them.

I think donations to charity are a good thing and I have several that I donate to frequently and boldly BUT why should those donations be a tax deduction? If you could not deduct those donations from your taxes, would you still donate to those charities?

Another question I have relates to "promote the general welfare". I read this to mean that the government should not stand in my way if I wish to do things that are beneficial to me making a living, i.e., providing for myself. Income taxes do nothing to promote my general welfare. Instead, income taxes detract from that. What say you?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think donations to charity are a good thing and I have several that I donate to frequently and boldly BUT why should those donations be a tax deduction? If you could not deduct those donations from your taxes, would you still donate to those charities?

Another question I have relates to "promote the general welfare". I read this to mean that the government should not stand in my way if I wish to do things that are beneficial to me making a living, i.e., providing for myself. Income taxes do nothing to promote my general welfare. Instead, income taxes detract from that. What say you?

Yours are a reasonable question and observation here I think.

I think at least some charitable donations should be at least considered in the equation because we are a moral people and we do care about those who cannot provide for themselves. Therefore it is in the interest of and promotes the general welfare to encourage benevolence. All those soup kitchens and homeless shelters and orphanages etc. etc. etc. relieve human desperation and most likely reduce crime and unacceptable human conditions and/or help people become useful, productive citizens and all that benefits us all. Government could do that too if it could manage to do it without corrupting itself, but by now, I think most of us who still think know that it won't do it without corrupting itself. So it is best to leave that to the private sector or local social contract and encourage more of that.

I think you are defining 'pursuit of happiness' more than the 'general welfare'. My definition (and that of the Founders) of 'general welfare' is that which benefits all of society without prejudice and without respect to any special interests or individual needs. In other words a city water and sewer system provides potable water and sanitary conditions for the entire community without respect to any political interests or race or creed or whatever. Rich and poor benefit alike. I think giving a tax break for those providing benevolence to those in need without prejudice and available to rich and poor alike encourages more benevolence and therefore also promotes the general welfare as previously described.

 

[uscitizen]

I think most of the problem is all the folks who want to make other folks pay their share. No deductions, credits, "targeted tax breaks" or whatever your flavor. Here is your oar, pull your weight.

We have all these fancy breaks for all kinds of folks.

I am not totally blind that there should be some distinction, so I am all in favor of a large personal exemption. But any other ways of making others pay your way.... forgetaboutit

There is no need for a personal exemption if the tax rate is lowered and applied to all income and all deductions are eliminated.

Seriously why should someone pay less taxes because they choose to have a gaggle of kids?

That family will use way more government and state services than do I who have no children and they should pay for it.

Yep flat rate on ALL personal income. If you make $5 you pay the same percentage as somenone making 100,000,000.

We might get the rate lower than sales tax.

think of the money we could save on the IRS.

No long form, no paid preparers, just a form saying yep what you witheld is correct. Or I have additional money and her is the tax on it.

 

[wjhermann]

Thanks for considering a new idea. What you are asking about is the so-called "cascade" effect. Indeed the small transaction tax would be assessed at every level without an exemption for intermediate goods (7% of tax base would be eliminated - not too bad). The key to this well-founded concern is the tax rate - it is so small I submit that suppliers who bid for business would use the lack of charging such as a bargaining chip -- now they couldn't do that if it were 5 or 6% but at 0.3% or 0.6% both sides it is small enough to be lost in the bargaining. But let's consider further that the tax is added incorporated into the product one year, one time with no compounding or new addition each year. That is balanced by the relief to all those intermediate supply companys of 20% ( Fair Tax folks number) complaince and corporate tax costs. So add 0.3 or 0.6% and subtract 20% from the company's cost -- I believe that would be an overwhelming savings effect. A negative cascade if you will. Lastly, to that argument I say inflation at a rate maybe 10 times the APT tax rate is add to costs EVERY YEAR not just once.

This argument is empty yet is the favorite way Fair tax adovocates try to discredit APT. The legitimate concerns are with the liquidity of the bond, equity and commodity trading. But here again there is a sizable trade off -- capital gains taxes both long and short term are gone so add 0.3% and subtract up to 35% (short term cap gains as income). I can see where Goldman Sacks and friends might have a problem with their hypertrading - something new to crater the economy - but not sure thye should be the cause of us all continuing to pay 70% more than we need to or worry about the IRS and tax returns. It is the low rate that makes many arguments empty.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for considering a new idea. What you are asking about is the so-called "cascade" effect. Indeed the small transaction tax would be assessed at every level without an exemption for intermediate goods (7% of tax base would be eliminated - not too bad). The key to this well-founded concern is the tax rate - it is so small I submit that suppliers who bid for business would use the lack of charging such as a bargaining chip -- now they couldn't do that if it were 5 or 6% but at 0.3% or 0.6% both sides it is small enough to be lost in the bargaining. But let's consider further that the tax is added incorporated into the product one year, one time with no compounding or new addition each year. That is balanced by the relief to all those intermediate supply companys of 20% ( Fair Tax folks number) complaince and corporate tax costs. So add 0.3 or 0.6% and subtract 20% from the company's cost -- I believe that would be an overwhelming savings effect. A negative cascade if you will. Lastly, to that argument I say inflation at a rate maybe 10 times the APT tax rate is add to costs EVERY YEAR not just once.

This argument is empty yet is the favorite way Fair tax adovocates try to discredit APT. The legitimate concerns are with the liquidity of the bond, equity and commodity trading. But here again there is a sizable trade off -- capital gains taxes both long and short term are gone so add 0.3% and subtract up to 35% (short term cap gains as income). I can see where Goldman Sacks and friends might have a problem with their hypertrading - something new to crater the economy - but not sure thye should be the cause of us all continuing to pay 70% more than we need to or worry about the IRS and tax returns. It is the low rate that makes many arguments empty.

But again, can you simplify it so that the average person who hasn't studied this a great deal (or at all) can make sense of it? (If you can't simplify it into plain garden variety English, you know darn well the federal government can't and/or won't.)

For instance, the ingredients in a basic loaf of bread is essentially: flour, sugar, yeast, salt, shortening, milk, and a heat source. Where would this tax apply in the process of making those ingredients available, assembling, baking, packaging, marketing, and stocking a loaf of bread on the grocer's shelf? How much would that add to the cost of the loaf of bread in addition to the tax the consumer pays to buy it?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think most of the problem is all the folks who want to make other folks pay their share. No deductions, credits, "targeted tax breaks" or whatever your flavor. Here is your oar, pull your weight.

We have all these fancy breaks for all kinds of folks.

I am not totally blind that there should be some distinction, so I am all in favor of a large personal exemption. But any other ways of making others pay your way.... forgetaboutit

How about everyone who can prove US Citizenship being able to earn $30,000 a year tax free?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think most of the problem is all the folks who want to make other folks pay their share. No deductions, credits, "targeted tax breaks" or whatever your flavor. Here is your oar, pull your weight.

We have all these fancy breaks for all kinds of folks.

I am not totally blind that there should be some distinction, so I am all in favor of a large personal exemption. But any other ways of making others pay your way.... forgetaboutit

How about everyone who can prove US Citizenship being able to earn $30,000 a year tax free?

Okay, again I am not intending to be contentious or argumentative here, but do want all the bases covered.

Would the $30,000 apply to individuals or to families? That is a pretty substantial amount, so if that was the plan, why wouldn't people barter, shift earnings to others, or shelter or otherwise do their damndest to keep their reported income under that $30,000? Millions of social security recipients who elect to take their benefits at Age 62+ rather than Age 65+ are now shifting their reportable income to other family members to avoid having to pay the tax on earned amounts over the designated threshhold.

And how would that help with the dangerous situation of millions and millions of Americans having no stake in the consequences for raising the taxes or eliminating deductions or tax shelters for everybody else?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think most of the problem is all the folks who want to make other folks pay their share. No deductions, credits, "targeted tax breaks" or whatever your flavor. Here is your oar, pull your weight.

We have all these fancy breaks for all kinds of folks.

I am not totally blind that there should be some distinction, so I am all in favor of a large personal exemption. But any other ways of making others pay your way.... forgetaboutit

How about everyone who can prove US Citizenship being able to earn $30,000 a year tax free?

Okay, again I am not intending to be contentious or argumentative here, but do want all the bases covered.

Would the $30,000 apply to individuals or to families? That is a pretty substantial amount, so if that was the plan, why wouldn't people barter, shift earnings to others, or shelter or otherwise do their damndest to keep their reported income under that $30,000? Millions of social security recipients who elect to take their benefits at Age 62+ rather than Age 65+ are now shifting their reportable income to other family members to avoid having to pay the tax on earned amounts over the designated threshhold.

And how would that help with the dangerous situation of millions and millions of Americans having no stake in the consequences for raising the taxes or eliminating deductions or tax shelters for everybody else?

Everyone who can prove that they're a US citizen can earn 30,000 tax free. All others are welcome to come and work at their own risk, and they'll pay 5% in taxes on all they earn. Citizens are taxed at 5% on everything over $30,000. Add a national sales tax of about 7% and taxes in this country would be fair.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about everyone who can prove US Citizenship being able to earn $30,000 a year tax free?

Okay, again I am not intending to be contentious or argumentative here, but do want all the bases covered.

Would the $30,000 apply to individuals or to families? That is a pretty substantial amount, so if that was the plan, why wouldn't people barter, shift earnings to others, or shelter or otherwise do their damndest to keep their reported income under that $30,000? Millions of social security recipients who elect to take their benefits at Age 62+ rather than Age 65+ are now shifting their reportable income to other family members to avoid having to pay the tax on earned amounts over the designated threshhold.

And how would that help with the dangerous situation of millions and millions of Americans having no stake in the consequences for raising the taxes or eliminating deductions or tax shelters for everybody else?

Everyone who can prove that they're a US citizen can earn 30,000 tax free. All others are welcome to come and work at their own risk, and they'll pay 5% in taxes on all they earn. Citizens are taxed at 5% on everything over $30,000. Add a national sales tax of about 7% and taxes in this country would be fair.

Sorry, but I don't think it is fair to allow tens of millions of Americans to not have a stake in the consequences of tax policy. That invites cheating and corruption at all levels. The only truly fair system is the same rate applied to every citizen or non citizen who is here legally regardless of their circumstances. Non citizens who are not here legally should be strongly encouraged to leave.

 

[LuckyDan]

Flat. Simple, fair, no one is punished for success, everyone knows what they're paying and what they're getting for their money. It gives everyone a stake.

 

[Oddball]

The only flat, simple and, above all, fair direct tax on the productive in NO TAX.

Go back to running the essential functions of gubmint with constitutionally provided duties, imposts and excises, and leave the rustics the hell alone.

 

[hvactec]

if Ron Paul runs again the next time around he has my vote
over the years I paid my share 10 x over
at one time a had 3 rental houses for over 14 years now in my third business all the taxes I paid state and federal , property taxes etc.
this system is on its way out and we can't stop it unless we stop the printing presses by the time I am old enough to collect the money will be gone
taxes
OK I voted flat

 

[wjhermann]

Foxfyre,

I will reiterate, every business in the supply chain for your loaf of bread will realize a 10 to 20% savings in their federal income tax, payroll tax, compliance costs, tax planning costs etc. and for that savings will pay 0.3% one side or 0.6% both side (poor negotiator). So that loaf of bread should decrease considerably in price.

It is easy to make the APT claims simple, as in:

NOW THAT’S TAX REFORM!

How do you end the IRS, completely fund the federal budget, and solve the Social Security/Medicare funding dilemma while allowing virtually all families, individuals and businesses a very generous cost/tax cut? Find a tax base which is 100 times larger than our current individual and corporate income tax base so you can have the lowest possible rates. The Federal Budget with SS and Medicare will be covered twice over by a rate of 0.3% of each side of all transactions in the economy. Then provide an automatic system for immediate collection with no forms since all exemptions and deductions are eliminated.

But, alas, as with any tax system the explanation behind the bottom line takes more than a casual understanding. As with any idea the "half full" or "half empty" attitude with which the understanding is approached makes a big difference.