What is your ideal Federal Income Tax structure?

[bripat9643]

http://www.flfairtax.org/Documents/Whitepapers/PrebateExplaination-revised-May-2014.pdf

Like I said the biggest most expensive entitlement program ever dreamed up.

You obviously didn't read it.

You're stuck in your own delusions and refuse to look at anything which contradicts your erroneous belief system.

You can't be helped and are a waste of any more of my time.

From the link provided in post #102:
"All qualified families are entitled to receive the monthly prebate."
Explain to me how this is not an entitlement again.... I must have missed how a program that entitles people to something is not an entitlement program.

Is the EIT an entitlement?

 

[bripat9643]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Not sure on the numbers, but I can get on board with that, assuming the numbers work.

15% is too low.

15% is too low even without any deductions, exemptions,or credits? Doesn't sound like it would ease much of a burden on taxpayers then.

The point is not to reduce to total amount of taxes paid. The point is to abolish the income tax, which lots of people manage to avoid paying. Anyone doing cash business can pay no income taxes. They can't avoid paying a sales tax.

 

[bripat9643]

Your example has nothing to do with the reason prebates are part of the Fair Tax.

The reason doesn't matter. it does nothing to charge a higher rate on things only to give a portion of that money back every month. Why not just lower the rate and skip all the extra crap?

What it does is keep people earning below a certain minimum from paying any tax. That's the only way you'll ever get the snowflakes to vote for a national sales tax.

If that's the goal there are less expensive ways to do it than sending a check to every single person every month.

IMO a tax is a tax. if we're going to tax anything whether it be dollars or doughnuts everyone who earns a dollar or eats a doughnut should pay that tax.

About 47% of Americans don't pay any income tax, so why don't you have any trouble with that?

Facts:

1. The 47% statistic only refers to people who do not pay federal income taxes, not people who don’t pay taxes at all. Nearly everybody pays state taxes, such as sales tax.
2. The number of people who don’t pay federal income taxes is actually 43% now, not 47%.
3. Most people who don’t pay federal income tax do pay federal payroll taxes. Only 14.4% pay no federal taxes at all
4. Of that 14.4% who pay no federal taxes, 9.7% are elderly, leaving only 4.7% who are working-age Americans paying no federal taxes
5. Overall, people in the bottom 20% pay 19% of their income to taxes and people in the top 1% pay 33%
6. Although the rich do pay higher taxes at the federal level, the poor pay more of their income to state taxes than the rich in every state.

NOT THAT YOU GIVE A **** ABOUT FACTS ,,,

We're discussing the federal income tax, moron, so all your blabber about state and local taxes are beside the point. The rest of your blather is also meaningless, but I won't waste my time detailing the reasons.

 

[oldsoul]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Not sure on the numbers, but I can get on board with that, assuming the numbers work.

15% is too low.

15% is too low even without any deductions, exemptions,or credits? Doesn't sound like it would ease much of a burden on taxpayers then.

As of 2011 (I know it's old, but for sake of argument let's go with it), total personal income was 12.95 trillion. So, a 15% tax would net 1.9425 trillion. Total expenditures that year were just over 3.6 trillion. So, short of even more deficit spending, or spending cuts, 15% would indeed be too low, for fiscal 2011 at least. I doubt it has changed significantly. So, with current spending the tax would need to be around 30%. Anyone else see a problem with spending here?

 

[oldsoul]

http://www.flfairtax.org/Documents/Whitepapers/PrebateExplaination-revised-May-2014.pdf

Like I said the biggest most expensive entitlement program ever dreamed up.

You obviously didn't read it.

You're stuck in your own delusions and refuse to look at anything which contradicts your erroneous belief system.

You can't be helped and are a waste of any more of my time.

From the link provided in post #102:
"All qualified families are entitled to receive the monthly prebate."
Explain to me how this is not an entitlement again.... I must have missed how a program that entitles people to something is not an entitlement program.

Is the EIT an entitlement?

In a way, yes. More correctly it is a tax deduction, or "credit". However, I would classify ALL deductions/credits as "entitlements".

 

[bripat9643]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Not sure on the numbers, but I can get on board with that, assuming the numbers work.

15% is too low.

15% is too low even without any deductions, exemptions,or credits? Doesn't sound like it would ease much of a burden on taxpayers then.

As of 2011 (I know it's old, but for sake of argument let's go with it), total personal income was 12.95 trillion. So, a 15% tax would net 1.9425 trillion. Total expenditures that year were just over 3.6 trillion. So, short of even more deficit spending, or spending cuts, 15% would indeed be too low, for fiscal 2011 at least. I doubt it has changed significantly. So, with current spending the tax would need to be around 30%. Anyone else see a problem with spending here?

1. The income tax does not constitute total federal revenue.
2. Federal revenue is significantly lower than $3.6 trillion.
3. Income taxes plus payroll taxes were about $2.5 trillion in 2015. A 20% rate would probably generate that amount.
4. Lots of people don't pay income taxes for various reasons. Everyone would pay the FAIR tax, so revenue would probably be considerably larger.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Not sure on the numbers, but I can get on board with that, assuming the numbers work.

15% is too low.

15% is too low even without any deductions, exemptions,or credits? Doesn't sound like it would ease much of a burden on taxpayers then.

As of 2011 (I know it's old, but for sake of argument let's go with it), total personal income was 12.95 trillion. So, a 15% tax would net 1.9425 trillion. Total expenditures that year were just over 3.6 trillion. So, short of even more deficit spending, or spending cuts, 15% would indeed be too low, for fiscal 2011 at least. I doubt it has changed significantly. So, with current spending the tax would need to be around 30%. Anyone else see a problem with spending here?

1. The income tax does not constitute total federal revenue.
2. Federal revenue is significantly lower than $3.6 trillion.
3. Income taxes plus payroll taxes were about $2.5 trillion in 2015. A 20% rate would probably generate that amount.
4. Lots of people don't pay income taxes for various reasons. Everyone would pay the FAIR tax, so revenue would probably be considerably larger.

Come on....man....dont confuse them with facts and charts and graphs and shit.

They are EMOTIONAL.....WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN! They don't know math....why are you being culturally biased?

 

[Siete]

The reason doesn't matter. it does nothing to charge a higher rate on things only to give a portion of that money back every month. Why not just lower the rate and skip all the extra crap?

What it does is keep people earning below a certain minimum from paying any tax. That's the only way you'll ever get the snowflakes to vote for a national sales tax.

If that's the goal there are less expensive ways to do it than sending a check to every single person every month.

IMO a tax is a tax. if we're going to tax anything whether it be dollars or doughnuts everyone who earns a dollar or eats a doughnut should pay that tax.

About 47% of Americans don't pay any income tax, so why don't you have any trouble with that?

Facts:

1. The 47% statistic only refers to people who do not pay federal income taxes, not people who don’t pay taxes at all. Nearly everybody pays state taxes, such as sales tax.
2. The number of people who don’t pay federal income taxes is actually 43% now, not 47%.
3. Most people who don’t pay federal income tax do pay federal payroll taxes. Only 14.4% pay no federal taxes at all
4. Of that 14.4% who pay no federal taxes, 9.7% are elderly, leaving only 4.7% who are working-age Americans paying no federal taxes
5. Overall, people in the bottom 20% pay 19% of their income to taxes and people in the top 1% pay 33%
6. Although the rich do pay higher taxes at the federal level, the poor pay more of their income to state taxes than the rich in every state.

NOT THAT YOU GIVE A **** ABOUT FACTS ,,,

We're discussing the federal income tax, moron, so all your blabber about state and local taxes are beside the point. The rest of your blather is also meaningless, but I won't waste my time detailing the reasons.

CANT READ ?

the first sentence of the post addresses federal income tax - all the way to the last one.


and these pissants dont/cant/wont understand why nobody gives two shits what the believe ...

 

[my2¢]

I favor taxing only those that won't ***** about it and won't miss the money, dead people.

 

[oldsoul]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Not sure on the numbers, but I can get on board with that, assuming the numbers work.

15% is too low.

15% is too low even without any deductions, exemptions,or credits? Doesn't sound like it would ease much of a burden on taxpayers then.

As of 2011 (I know it's old, but for sake of argument let's go with it), total personal income was 12.95 trillion. So, a 15% tax would net 1.9425 trillion. Total expenditures that year were just over 3.6 trillion. So, short of even more deficit spending, or spending cuts, 15% would indeed be too low, for fiscal 2011 at least. I doubt it has changed significantly. So, with current spending the tax would need to be around 30%. Anyone else see a problem with spending here?

1. The income tax does not constitute total federal revenue.
2. Federal revenue is significantly lower than $3.6 trillion.
3. Income taxes plus payroll taxes were about $2.5 trillion in 2015. A 20% rate would probably generate that amount.
4. Lots of people don't pay income taxes for various reasons. Everyone would pay the FAIR tax, so revenue would probably be considerably larger.

I think you are missing my point here. It's not where the money comes from, it's that the money isn't enough to cover the spending. There I spelled it out for you. Now, comment on that.
That said:
1) gee, ya think?
2) Um, that's part of my point.
3) could we compare apples to apples here?
4) as discussed in an earlier post, the number who don't pay any federal tax is actually relatively low. The percentage of those who don't pay federal income tax that would, under the "fair tax", is largely comprised of the poor, and elderly. Great, now Grandma can pay her "fair share" too.

 

[oldsoul]

Not sure on the numbers, but I can get on board with that, assuming the numbers work.

15% is too low.

15% is too low even without any deductions, exemptions,or credits? Doesn't sound like it would ease much of a burden on taxpayers then.

As of 2011 (I know it's old, but for sake of argument let's go with it), total personal income was 12.95 trillion. So, a 15% tax would net 1.9425 trillion. Total expenditures that year were just over 3.6 trillion. So, short of even more deficit spending, or spending cuts, 15% would indeed be too low, for fiscal 2011 at least. I doubt it has changed significantly. So, with current spending the tax would need to be around 30%. Anyone else see a problem with spending here?

1. The income tax does not constitute total federal revenue.
2. Federal revenue is significantly lower than $3.6 trillion.
3. Income taxes plus payroll taxes were about $2.5 trillion in 2015. A 20% rate would probably generate that amount.
4. Lots of people don't pay income taxes for various reasons. Everyone would pay the FAIR tax, so revenue would probably be considerably larger.

Come on....man....dont confuse them with facts and charts and graphs and shit.

They are EMOTIONAL.....WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN! They don't know math....why are you being culturally biased?

Seriously? You just couldn't help yourself, could you? And you accuse others of being emotional, ha! Ha, ha, ha. That is too funny!!!

 

[bripat9643]

Not sure on the numbers, but I can get on board with that, assuming the numbers work.

15% is too low.

15% is too low even without any deductions, exemptions,or credits? Doesn't sound like it would ease much of a burden on taxpayers then.

As of 2011 (I know it's old, but for sake of argument let's go with it), total personal income was 12.95 trillion. So, a 15% tax would net 1.9425 trillion. Total expenditures that year were just over 3.6 trillion. So, short of even more deficit spending, or spending cuts, 15% would indeed be too low, for fiscal 2011 at least. I doubt it has changed significantly. So, with current spending the tax would need to be around 30%. Anyone else see a problem with spending here?

1. The income tax does not constitute total federal revenue.
2. Federal revenue is significantly lower than $3.6 trillion.
3. Income taxes plus payroll taxes were about $2.5 trillion in 2015. A 20% rate would probably generate that amount.
4. Lots of people don't pay income taxes for various reasons. Everyone would pay the FAIR tax, so revenue would probably be considerably larger.

I think you are missing my point here. It's not where the money comes from, it's that the money isn't enough to cover the spending. There I spelled it out for you. Now, comment on that.
That said:
1) gee, ya think?
2) Um, that's part of my point.
3) could we compare apples to apples here?
4) as discussed in an earlier post, the number who don't pay any federal tax is actually relatively low. The percentage of those who don't pay federal income tax that would, under the "fair tax", is largely comprised of the poor, and elderly. Great, now Grandma can pay her "fair share" too.

I would also like government spending to be a lot lower, but that's another issue. The question is, If we are going to raise the same amount of revenue, how is the best way to do it. The income tax is intrusive, overly compicated and harmful to the economy.

1. Your post argued as if it was.
2. No, that wasn't your point. You assumed the FAIR tax would have to cover the entire federal budget.
3. I am comparing apples to apples: the revenue that the FAIR tax would have to replace
4. There are a lot of people making money off the books that would have to pay taxes under the FAIR tax. I'm talking about drug dealers, prostitutes, people doing work under the tables, yada yada yada

 

[Skull Pilot]

So basically as I understand it this so called prebate is tantamount to giving every single person in the country a 12000 check every year.

And you people can't see a problem with that?

It's not a $12,000 check. It's 20% of $12,000. so it's $2,400. We already give everyone earning below a certain amount a check. It's called the EIT.

Yep my mistake I used the wrong number.

But it's still paying everyone in the country thousands of dollars every year.

I don't understand why that is a good idea.

The supposed reason for the rebate is to refund people living below the poverty level the amount of sales taxes they paid.

Why not just lower the rate for everyone and have the people below the poverty line apply for welfare that will then refund them the lower amount to cover the taxes they would have paid?

That eliminates the need and expense of writing every person in the country a check every month.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me do you save more money if you buy something for $100 then get a check back for $50 than if you just bought the same thing for $50 in the first place?

Your example has nothing to do with the reason prebates are part of the Fair Tax.

The reason doesn't matter. it does nothing to charge a higher rate on things only to give a portion of that money back every month. Why not just lower the rate and skip all the extra crap?

What it does is keep people earning below a certain minimum from paying any tax. That's the only way you'll ever get the snowflakes to vote for a national sales tax.

If that's the goal there are less expensive ways to do it than sending a check to every single person every month.

IMO a tax is a tax. if we're going to tax anything whether it be dollars or doughnuts everyone who earns a dollar or eats a doughnut should pay that tax.

What do you propose instead of the FAIR tax?

I don't have a problem with a national consumption tax. It's the prebate I do not agree with.

IMO no one should be exempt from any taxes. If we are going to have an income tax then tax all income at one flat rate. If we are going to have a consumption tax then everyone who buys something pays it. I don't have a problem not taxing groceries and clothing though.

To me it seem ridiculous to charge a higher tax rate only to give a large portion of it back to taxpayers thereby incurring million of dollars in additional and unnecessary expenses

 

[Skull Pilot]

http://www.flfairtax.org/Documents/Whitepapers/PrebateExplaination-revised-May-2014.pdf

Like I said the biggest most expensive entitlement program ever dreamed up.

You obviously didn't read it.

You're stuck in your own delusions and refuse to look at anything which contradicts your erroneous belief system.

You can't be helped and are a waste of any more of my time.

From the link provided in post #102:
"All qualified families are entitled to receive the monthly prebate."
Explain to me how this is not an entitlement again.... I must have missed how a program that entitles people to something is not an entitlement program.

Is the EIT an entitlement?

Of course it is since it is a refundable tax credit and people can actually receive more of a refund that they actually paid in taxes

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Not sure on the numbers, but I can get on board with that, assuming the numbers work.

15% is too low.

15% is too low even without any deductions, exemptions,or credits? Doesn't sound like it would ease much of a burden on taxpayers then.

As of 2011 (I know it's old, but for sake of argument let's go with it), total personal income was 12.95 trillion. So, a 15% tax would net 1.9425 trillion. Total expenditures that year were just over 3.6 trillion. So, short of even more deficit spending, or spending cuts, 15% would indeed be too low, for fiscal 2011 at least. I doubt it has changed significantly. So, with current spending the tax would need to be around 30%. Anyone else see a problem with spending here?

There is a difference between a tax credit and a refundable tax credit. The EIT is the latter

 

[Little-Acorn]

What is your ideal Federal Income Tax structure?


Same one that's in the original Constitution, but with "mandatory" thrown in.

Citizens no longer send in Income Taxes directly to the Federal Govt. Each state sends its citizens' Income Taxes to the Fed govt, according to the population of the state. If State A has twice the population of State B, then State A's share of Federal Income Taxes is twice as much money as State B's share.

And each state can then turn around and charge its own citizens in any way it likes, for Federal Income Taxes it paid to the Fed. If a state wants to change its wealthy citizens hugely while changing its lower 50% practically nothing (as the Fed does today), it can. Or if it wants to charge the same percentage of all its citizens ("flat" tax), it can do that instead. Or a consumption tax, or some other scheme. It's totally up to the states.

Of course, if a state wants its highest earners (and producers) to remain in the state, if might be a good idea for them to NOT "soak the rich" too much. Then their most productive citizens might not flee to a lower-tax state. This is also totally up to the states to decide.

Competition. It's a wonderful thing.

All the Fed does is decide how much the total income tax burden is, that it needs from citizens. Then it divides that amount by the number of people in the U.S. Then it tells each state, "You have NNN million people, so you have to send MMM million dollars to Washington DC". It's up to each state to decide how that state wants to collect it.

 

[bripat9643]

Your example has nothing to do with the reason prebates are part of the Fair Tax.

The reason doesn't matter. it does nothing to charge a higher rate on things only to give a portion of that money back every month. Why not just lower the rate and skip all the extra crap?

What it does is keep people earning below a certain minimum from paying any tax. That's the only way you'll ever get the snowflakes to vote for a national sales tax.

If that's the goal there are less expensive ways to do it than sending a check to every single person every month.

IMO a tax is a tax. if we're going to tax anything whether it be dollars or doughnuts everyone who earns a dollar or eats a doughnut should pay that tax.

What do you propose instead of the FAIR tax?

I don't have a problem with a national consumption tax. It's the prebate I do not agree with.

IMO no one should be exempt from any taxes. If we are going to have an income tax then tax all income at one flat rate. If we are going to have a consumption tax then everyone who buys something pays it. I don't have a problem not taxing groceries and clothing though.

To me it seem ridiculous to charge a higher tax rate only to give a large portion of it back to taxpayers thereby incurring million of dollars in additional and unnecessary expenses

The problem with that is that it will never pass. The left will demagogue it to death. I would prefer a straight sales tax myself, but the reality of politics is that you can't get something like that into law.

 

[Darkwind]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

I loved the movie Robin Hood as a kid... I would love a Robin Hood tax structure.

Take all the money away from the rich and give to the poor. Tax the hell out of them. Republicans call high taxes on the rich theft, I say who cares they deserve to have most of their money taken away from them via taxes. Robin Hood was my hero as a kid, do whatever needs be done to take away all the money from the rich and give it to the poor. Tax the hell out of them. Evenly spread the wealth. Tax the upper-middle class like crazy too.

So, your heroes are thieves. Very unAmerican of you.

 

[jc456]

Tell me do you save more money if you buy something for $100 then get a check back for $50 than if you just bought the same thing for $50 in the first place?

Your example has nothing to do with the reason prebates are part of the Fair Tax.

The reason doesn't matter. it does nothing to charge a higher rate on things only to give a portion of that money back every month. Why not just lower the rate and skip all the extra crap?

You still are completely clueless why the prebate exists in the Fair Tax. It never ceases to amaze me how people totally ignorant of even the most basic facts still feel free to express confident solutions, even after their face has been rubbed in their ignorance.

I know why they say it exists.

But tell me how is the so called prebate calculated? There is nothing in their website that gives that calculation.

And how much will it cost to implement? Every single person who pays the national sales tax will get a check every month for an as yet undetermined amount.

The prebate will be the biggest and most expensive entitlement program ever dreamed of.

You eliminate the prebate and lower the rate so as to collect the same revenue that would be netted or you exclude certain classes of goods and services such as grocery and clothing items up to a set dollar amount or a combination of both

Either way you eliminate the most expensive part of the plan, lower the rate of the sales tax AND still collect the same net revenue

dude that makes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much sense.