Whatever YOU think of as a 'fair tax code'... assume that.
Ass-U-Me A Fair Tax Code.
- Thread starter AVG-JOE
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2
Ass-U-Me-ing a fair tax code that's aimed at keeping the tax obligation of the average Joe making $75,000 per year an exact match to what he pays under the current system, what do you think would happen to the tax obligations of those making more than $75,000?
How 'bout those making less than $75,000?
Assuming fair taxes....
How 'bout those making less than $75,000?
Assuming fair taxes....
- Thread starter
- #3
Of course, I'm ass-u-me-ing that, like me, YOU believe that the current tax code in the USA is indeed unfair.
If YOU don't, that's o.k.... the answer would then be no changes to either end.
If YOU don't, that's o.k.... the answer would then be no changes to either end.
- Thread starter
- #4
If I could find a bookie on the subject, I would bet that those making less than $75,000, especially those making below the line to qualify for the earned income tax credit, would see their tax obligations go up.
I'd also bet that those making more than $75,000, especially those above the line to qualify for the Seven Figures Club, would see tax obligations go up.
Ass-U-Me-ing Fair Taxes.
I'd also bet that those making more than $75,000, especially those above the line to qualify for the Seven Figures Club, would see tax obligations go up.
Ass-U-Me-ing Fair Taxes.
- Thread starter
- #6
You can't argue that the assumption creating the hypothesis is impossible.
If literalism is getting in your way, assume a tax code that is substantially more fair than the one currently employed.
Surely that's possible, otherwise, what's the point?
Assuming taxes more fair than they are today, and assuming tax neutrality for those earning $75,000, what happens to the tax obligations at the high and low ends compared to what's paid using the complicated pile of shit currently guiding the IRS?
I'll stick with my initial thoughts. Both ends go up, the 7 Figures Club substantially.
If literalism is getting in your way, assume a tax code that is substantially more fair than the one currently employed.
Surely that's possible, otherwise, what's the point?
Assuming taxes more fair than they are today, and assuming tax neutrality for those earning $75,000, what happens to the tax obligations at the high and low ends compared to what's paid using the complicated pile of shit currently guiding the IRS?
I'll stick with my initial thoughts. Both ends go up, the 7 Figures Club substantially.
- Thread starter
- #7
So what you're saying is that you see any move toward fairness in the tax code as having a negative impact on the wealthy, and a positive impact on the poor, eh? And it's because of direct payment to low income folks? Are these payments necessary to achieve fairness?
I don't understand the payments, nor can I discern your goal. Are you saying that direct cash payments to the poor is the best way to achieve fairness in the tax code?
If that's the case, you must be happy with the way some things are currently. What with lump-sum earned income tax credits buying used boats for the poor and the paperwork needed to get the yearly redistribution payments feeding the shareholders of H&R Block & Liberty Tax Service.
Interesting...
hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
A fair tax code would be to make those that ran up the national debt pay it off. Since there are no poor in congress, fair would be to make the rich pay it, because it's the rich that have been running this country.
Raygun almost tripled the national debt from less than one trillion to over $2.5 trillion in his eight years. Shrub daddy almost doubled it again in only four years form $2.5 to $4.5 trillion. Bubba Clincon added a trillion, but balanced the budget, and left office with a $300 billion annual surplus. Shrub Jr. destroyed the surplus in less than six months with a republican congress, and doubled the the national debt again from $5.5 trillion to over $11 trillion, and left office with a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2008. And also destroyed not only the U.S. economy, but also the global economy. Obumer has been cleaning up his mess for five years, with the republicans obstructing every effort.
Every honest person that reads this, knows it's the truth.
Hilarious for pres.....
Raygun almost tripled the national debt from less than one trillion to over $2.5 trillion in his eight years. Shrub daddy almost doubled it again in only four years form $2.5 to $4.5 trillion. Bubba Clincon added a trillion, but balanced the budget, and left office with a $300 billion annual surplus. Shrub Jr. destroyed the surplus in less than six months with a republican congress, and doubled the the national debt again from $5.5 trillion to over $11 trillion, and left office with a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2008. And also destroyed not only the U.S. economy, but also the global economy. Obumer has been cleaning up his mess for five years, with the republicans obstructing every effort.
Every honest person that reads this, knows it's the truth.
Hilarious for pres.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Steven_R
Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
- Jul 17, 2013
- 4,852
- 930
- 245
You want fair? Get rid of any and all Income Tax entirely and go with just sales taxes. Call it 10% federal, 3% state and 2% county or city. Buy a Snickers bar for a dollar and pay 15 cents. Buy a 30 million dollar jet and pay 4.5 million in taxes. Everyone wins, everyone has skin in the game.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...but then it wouldn't wouldn't achieve the ultimate "fairness" - income equality.
hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...but then it wouldn't wouldn't achieve the ultimate "fairness" - income equality.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. If it does, then there's no need for money at all. Capitalism is the art of screwing as many as possible, in order to have more toys than everybody else.
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...but then it wouldn't wouldn't achieve the ultimate "fairness" - income equality.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. If it does, then there's no need for money at all. Capitalism is the art of screwing as many as possible, in order to have more toys than everybody else.
Thank you, Karl Marx.
hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
No problem dude, the more void of conscience, the less guilt for all those toys. How's your motto go? Oh yeah, greed is good, huh.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...but then it wouldn't wouldn't achieve the ultimate "fairness" - income equality.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. If it does, then there's no need for money at all. Capitalism is the art of screwing as many as possible, in order to have more toys than everybody else.
Thank you, Karl Marx.
"Ultimately, the ideal society is one in which, if taxes are necessary, everyone pays them as freely and cheerfully as they pay their dues to some club of which they are devoted members - where citizen and state can trust each other perfectly." Emrys Westacott
Fair is so hard a concept to pin down. Anyone left alone on deserted island would create zero wealth. What that means is individually we are all useless. That is a hard pill for most to swallow. So given that outside of society everyone is useless, everyone should be taxed according to the needs of society in a Rawlsian scheme that models the golden rule. Thus those who exploit our earth, its talents, and its resources and make lots from it, should pay lots. Seems the only fair thing to do. Wealthy useless people used to pay lots now they think they are not useless. How's that for twisted thinking.
"Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness." George Bernard Shaw
"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax
Corrected link: http://jimnichols.tumblr.com/post/1090502607/ubi-and-the-flat-tax
"The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations." Jeffrey D. Sachs The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American
"A final word on politics. As in economics nothing is certain save the certainty that there will be firm prediction by those who do not know. It is possible that in some election, near or far, a presidential candidate will emerge in the United States determined to draw into the campaign those not now impelled to vote. Conceivably those so attracted - those who are not threatened by higher taxes and who are encouraged by the vision of a new governing community committed to the rescue of the cities and the impacted underclass - could outnumber those lost because of the resulting invasion of contentment. If this happens the effort would succeed." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Culture of Contentment'
"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
Fair is so hard a concept to pin down. Anyone left alone on deserted island would create zero wealth. What that means is individually we are all useless. That is a hard pill for most to swallow. So given that outside of society everyone is useless, everyone should be taxed according to the needs of society in a Rawlsian scheme that models the golden rule. Thus those who exploit our earth, its talents, and its resources and make lots from it, should pay lots. Seems the only fair thing to do. Wealthy useless people used to pay lots now they think they are not useless. How's that for twisted thinking.
"Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness." George Bernard Shaw"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax
Corrected link: http://jimnichols.tumblr.com/post/1090502607/ubi-and-the-flat-tax
"The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations." Jeffrey D. Sachs The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American
"A final word on politics. As in economics nothing is certain save the certainty that there will be firm prediction by those who do not know. It is possible that in some election, near or far, a presidential candidate will emerge in the United States determined to draw into the campaign those not now impelled to vote. Conceivably those so attracted - those who are not threatened by higher taxes and who are encouraged by the vision of a new governing community committed to the rescue of the cities and the impacted underclass - could outnumber those lost because of the resulting invasion of contentment. If this happens the effort would succeed." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Culture of Contentment'
"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #16
The first thing I think of when contemplating fairness is applying the same formula for the calculations for everyone.
The fairest concept I've ever heard of for an income tax is one of 18% with one $40,000 deduction for all. Combine this with a small consumption tax of 3% so everyone has a dog in the fight, including those making less than $40k in a year, and everyone has a tax obligation that can be understood, because it's exactly the same as everyone else's tax obligation.
Adjustments would be easy to... just change the percentage and/or the deduction. As long as nobody gets any exemptions, extra deductions or special treatment not given to everyone, fairness is achieved.
The fairest concept I've ever heard of for an income tax is one of 18% with one $40,000 deduction for all. Combine this with a small consumption tax of 3% so everyone has a dog in the fight, including those making less than $40k in a year, and everyone has a tax obligation that can be understood, because it's exactly the same as everyone else's tax obligation.
Adjustments would be easy to... just change the percentage and/or the deduction. As long as nobody gets any exemptions, extra deductions or special treatment not given to everyone, fairness is achieved.
FA_Q2
Gold Member
Why fix the rate based on the rate at 75k? That is (to me) 5the worst way to actually gauge the rate because it is precisely this group that takes it in the shorts. The rich ensure that they are not paying a commensurate rate through deductions and the poor ensure they are not paying through breaks. Essentially, I see a fair tax as increasing the burden on both the poor and the rich while the middle class (which should be the vast majority of us) would see some reductions. This would be realized by reducing the rate and axing all those deductions/credits which many of those middle class people are not able to pull in the same manner that the rich and poor do.Ass-U-Me-ing a fair tax code that's aimed at keeping the tax obligation of the average Joe making $75,000 per year an exact match to what he pays under the current system, what do you think would happen to the tax obligations of those making more than $75,000?
How 'bout those making less than $75,000?
Assuming fair taxes....
No. That is the exact same thing that we currently have. You have immediately built into that system the same exact problem that we have now – a built in ‘class’ that do not pay taxes. That gives people the incentive to increase that bottom threshold to fall into it and shift that burden to others. Class warfare.
A ‘fair’ tax is one that taxes all at the same rate, period.
FA_Q2
Gold Member
I don’t see the advantage to this and quite frankly this is NOT a ‘fair’ tax as those that do not use all their income share a smaller burden than those that do. Not only that but you get into all sorts of complexities that make this tax a complete mess in the end due to the fact that not all ‘products’ should be taxed. Such things as raw materials to create other products (aka. A VAT tax) would not be covered under this creating loopholes all over the place. It is FAR simpler to tax individual incomes (and that includes income from ALL sources) at one single flat rate with no exceptions. It is also by far the most visible. You see EXACTLY what you pay in taxes and that keeps such things in the forefront of the mind of the electorate.
percysunshine
Diamond Member
The phrase 'Fair Tax' is an oxymoron. Based on the adage that when something is taxed, society gets less of it, the least destructive tax would be along the lines of a flat rate applied to consumption. Not that that will ever happen. Too many accountants would lose their jobs and Congress would only need to meet once every three years.
ds
In reality, the fist thinf you should consider is that income tax can NEVER be Fair, no matter what the rate. Income tax punishes production. If you try to make more money, you just get taxed more, so why bother trying to make too much. Only the FairTax eliminates the income tax, the IRS and 90 percent of the lobbyists. It REPLACES the income tax and makes every one aware of exactly how much they are being taxed. Then we can do some thing about the rate. Call or write to your congress man and tell him to support and vote for HR 25
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Has Trump been conned into working toward a despotic cashless society? Sure seems that way
- Started by johnwk
- Replies: 0
-
-
