What Tax System Do You Want? Why?

What should our tax system be?

  • Current Income Tax – no change in the status quo.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Graduated Income Tax – the wealthy pay much more.

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Flat Income Tax - everyone pays the same percentage.

    Votes: 10 40.0%
  • National sales tax/Fair Tax – replaces all other taxes.

    Votes: 7 28.0%
  • No Tax – Unconstitutional – Rely on private donations.

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Other - explain.

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • Total voters
    25
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.

And I will reiterate that if you can't explain it in simple garden variety English on a level that makes sense to people, the people aren't going to trust it or buy into it.

Your explanation might make perfect sense if you can illustrate it in an understandable way. Otherwise, though your motives appear to be more sensible and defensible, you sound like Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al telling us how wonderful it will be if we just buy into a healthcare reform that nobody understands or can explain in a way that it makes sense. The explanation comes out as another giant smokescreen intended to camouflage the true motives and give them license to screw the people even more.

And part of that smokescreen is that the savings will more than offset any new taxes, something nobody with more than half a brain even remotely believes.
 
Last edited:
Half empty I guess.

There are no "new taxes" -- ALL federal taxes are eliminated and replaced by the single APT tax. Do you believe the Fair tax folks that argue businesses will save 20% from the changes proposed moving to a retail sales tax -- well, the move to APT will encompass the exact same savings. I actually believe 10 to 15% is right but the Fair Taxers need that 20% to offset their 23% sales tax requirement. But 10% minus 0.3% is still a savings of 9.7%.

Most people cannot believe the small 0.3% will cover all revenue required by the Federal government to balance the budget. New calculations will need to be done after the Congress gets finished gorging itself. The fact is the 0.3% could actually be 0.15% except we have arbitarily cut the tax base in half to account for behavior changes in transaction patterns. The actual determination of the APT transaction tax base is not simple and never will be. It requires an economist familiar with such data to get it right as there is a tendency to double count some things and make it even larger than reality. Dr. Feige is conservative in his estmates and gets it right.

I appreciate your admonition to make it simple -- and perhaps some things can be done but I suggest yourself and those taking part in this exchanges can follow the logic.
 
Hypothetical: You have just taken a job as a lobbyist for a tax reform group. They're letting you lobby Congress for the kind of tax system you think we should have.

What do you lobby for and why?
Graduated income tax.

Those who can barely fend for themselves should not have their earning garnished. Those who can't spend their money quickly enough can easily afford a greater rate without being burdened in the least.

The current system, however, is one giant clusterfuck.
 
Flat tax, everyone pays the same, no exclusions no loop holes. With a base level at which one does not pay anything due to poverty.
How do you determine a percentage where the poor are not driven into the streets yet the rich pay enough (assuming they don't just open Swiss accounts) that the State has sufficient funds?
 
Hypothetical: You have just taken a job as a lobbyist for a tax reform group. They're letting you lobby Congress for the kind of tax system you think we should have.

What do you lobby for and why?

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?

The General Welfare clause means nothing at all. The powers granted are specifically enumerated.
 
☭proletarian☭;1920378 said:
Flat tax, everyone pays the same, no exclusions no loop holes. With a base level at which one does not pay anything due to poverty.
How do you determine a percentage where the poor are not driven into the streets yet the rich pay enough (assuming they don't just open Swiss accounts) that the State has sufficient funds?

Ahh that question is unanswerable, because it will always exist no matter which tax system we use. People and the gummit always want more.

The majority of the poor waste more than the flat tax would be anyway.
 
Last edited:
I would like our taxes to be something like this. Absolutely no income taxes from either the State or Federal government. No tax loopholes for anybody. The only tax in America would be a 15% national sales tax on everything sold in America. That 15% could never be raised and everybody would be the same and required to pay it if you purchased anything except for food, medicine, and clothing. 10% of this money would go to the federal government. 5% of the money would go to the State government. Each State would only get 5% of the money that was collected from their State. If you didn't want to pay taxes, then it's simple. Don't buy anything except medicine, food and clothing. This way, everybody would pay the same taxes including the illegal aliens and the guys like Bill Gates. Everybody would be equal.
Bill Gates would pay nothing. He'd buy French coats, British Undies, and produce from Mexico.
 
☭proletarian☭;1920378 said:
Flat tax, everyone pays the same, no exclusions no loop holes. With a base level at which one does not pay anything due to poverty.
How do you determine a percentage where the poor are not driven into the streets yet the rich pay enough (assuming they don't just open Swiss accounts) that the State has sufficient funds?

Ahh that question is unanswerable, because it will always exist no matter which tax system we use. People and the gummit always want more.

With a flat tax, it is most poignant. With a graduated system, we can ensure that we do not tax the working poor into the streets while being able to ensure that the rich can pay, who can be moregreatly taxed without incurring any burden, can make up for whatever the middle class fails to raise for the State's need.

Keep in mind that I simultaneously support massive cuts to gov't spending, including making it illegal to send federal dollars to hometown pet projects.
 
☭proletarian☭;1920414 said:
☭proletarian☭;1920378 said:
How do you determine a percentage where the poor are not driven into the streets yet the rich pay enough (assuming they don't just open Swiss accounts) that the State has sufficient funds?

Ahh that question is unanswerable, because it will always exist no matter which tax system we use. People and the gummit always want more.

With a flat tax, it is most poignant. With a graduated system, we can ensure that we do not tax the working poor into the streets while being able to ensure that the rich can pay, who can be moregreatly taxed without incurring any burden, can make up for whatever the middle class fails to raise for the State's need.

Keep in mind that I simultaneously support massive cuts to gov't spending, including making it illegal to send federal dollars to hometown pet projects.

Like Interstate bypasses and repair?
Dams and dikes to prevent flooding?

Pet project is a misunderstood term.
 
Like 'art' projects in your hometown and bridges that effectively go nowhere at all.

If the city needs it, let the city pay for it through local taxes, petition its own State for a resolution to build it with State taxes, or petition a banking institution for a loan to pay for it.

Congress should not be involved in such matters.

Interstate systems are an exception, as they have been a federal program from the beginning.
 
☭proletarian☭;1920434 said:
Like 'art' projects in your hometown and bridges that effectively go nowhere at all.

If the city needs it, let the city pay for it through local taxes, petition its own State for a resolution to build it with State taxes, or petition a banking institution for a loan to pay for it.

Congress should not be involved in such matters.

Interstate systems are an exception, as they have been a federal program from the beginning.

Why exempt interstate systems?

Roll them back to the states. Divide up the gas money based on miles of interstate currently existing in each state.
then stop the federal gas tax and let states tax their gas and maintain their roads.
 
When were the interstates handled by the States? Wasn't it planned and executed by the Fed from the get-go?

We need an overarching authority to coordinate the maintenance, repair, and improvement of our infrastructure.

We can use the funds freed up by getting rid of the ATF.
 

Forum List

Back
Top