Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Take your own advice. Fairness does not mean everyone is treated the same way. Doing so would favor some over others.
That is not equitable. For taxation, equity is a the degree of burden a tax creates. Some taxpayers might not be able to bear the same tax rate as others.
The very definition says otherwise. I even posted it for you.
The degree of burden it creates? In your world, you have to harm someone in order for fairness to be legitimate?
Wow.
The only fair method of taxation is a steeply progressive income tax. Our tax policy should be reformed to add more tax brackets and to increase marginal tax rates at every level to a maximum rate of at least 90% on the top tax bracket. That would spread the cost of American burden fairly.
So, your version of "fair" is to impose a steeply progressive tax upon hard working people living in our nation's inner cities, some of whom have two jobs in order to accumulate wealth and then move out of the inner city, while those across our nation who are too lazy to work two jobs should get a pass on your steeply progressive tax?
Why do you promote such theft?
The only fair method of taxation is a steeply progressive income tax. Our tax policy should be reformed to add more tax brackets and to increase marginal tax rates at every level to a maximum rate of at least 90% on the top tax bracket. That would spread the cost of American burden fairly.
So, your version of "fair" is to impose a steeply progressive tax upon hard working people living in our nation's inner cities, some of whom have two jobs in order to accumulate wealth and then move out of the inner city, while those across our nation who are too lazy to work two jobs should get a pass on your steeply progressive tax?
Why do you promote such theft?
Taxes are not theft. Theft is an unlawful taking of something of value. Taxes are lawful.
I would like someone to re-introduce the fair tax with this caveat: The prebates need to be raised for the lower incomes. The numbers on the chart need to be doubled at least. The biggest argument against FT is the effect on the poor. I agree and propose changing that so everyone can take home an entire paycheck. It would also be to each states advantage to follow suit.
Any takers?
the short and simple answer is no...the Republicans won't do a DAMN thing about tax reforms other than give lip service.
Same as usual.
Take your own advice. Fairness does not mean everyone is treated the same way. Doing so would favor some over others.
Seriously? I think we have a winner for most inane statement of the week, and it's only Monday. If fairness does not mean treating everyone the same, then what else could it possibly mean? This is truly monumental in its gross stupidity and thoughtlessness.
It means managing the treatment so everyone is affected equally. For instance, a 10% tax on a poor man might be too much but a 10% tax on a rich man might not be enough.
Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
FAIRTAX is NOT 23+23...it's 23% PERIOD.Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
Why not support the following which is real tax reform?
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
I wonder how the public would respond this coming election if our "conservatives" in Congress, instead of constantly giving lip service to "tax reform", would actually introduced such a resolution and make it part of their 2014 campaign. And how would our "conservatives" in the media respond? Would such a proposal to return to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our founders intended it to operate, smoke out those in the media who pretend they are "conservatives"?
JWK
..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
So, it's fair to shoulder one segment of the population with the bulk of the tax burden?
How in ay way is it fair to have the majority of Americans paying nothing?
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.
The only fair method of taxation is a steeply progressive income tax. Our tax policy should be reformed to add more tax brackets and to increase marginal tax rates at every level to a maximum rate of at least 90% on the top tax bracket. That would spread the cost of American burden fairly.
FAIR is subjective.. period
It is FAIR in your eyes when you get to pay a lesser rate and someone else who you envy is forced to pay more... and no fucking way does any government deserve 90% of anyone's income
Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
The FairTax is a tax reform proposal for the federal government of the United States that would replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 122) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption.
It seems like every time the government reforms taxes, I spend additional hours in paperwork. I think the idea is that if you won't lower taxes then you have to work for them which means finding deductions and credits and keeping a God awful amount of receipts.
FAIRTAX is NOT 23+23...it's 23% PERIOD.Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
Why not support the following which is real tax reform?
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
I wonder how the public would respond this coming election if our "conservatives" in Congress, instead of constantly giving lip service to "tax reform", would actually introduced such a resolution and make it part of their 2014 campaign. And how would our "conservatives" in the media respond? Would such a proposal to return to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our founders intended it to operate, smoke out those in the media who pretend they are "conservatives"?
JWK
..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Ahhhhhh...tax reform. A topic near and dear to my heart.
But first let me say that Representative Williams is just as wrong today as he was in 1797. The Roman Empire did not fall because of direct taxes any more than it fell because of the tolerance of homosexuality. Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the issue du jour goes back to our Founding.
I am a conservative with a libertarian bent, and so I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. I am also deeply opposed to tax expenditures. Tax expenditures go by many names. Deductions, subsidies, credits, boondoggles, loopholes, etc. They should all be banned. I cannot take any politician who claims to be for tax reform who does not address the outrageous annual tax expenditures which total over $1.2 trillion.
That's per year, folks. Most of the time when you hear somebody bitching about some program costing x billion dollars or x trillion dollars, they are talking about how much it will cost over ten years.
Tax expenditures are costing us $1.2 trillion per year.
What does that mean to you? It means your income tax rate is higher than it should be. It means everyone is forced into a higher tax rate to pay for all these tax expenditures. If you get a tax deduction, or if you have employer health insurance (all employer health insurance receives a giant tax exemption), other people are having to pay for your tax breaks. That makes you no different than someone on food stamps.
Even worse, because we refuse to pay the even higher tax rates it would take to fully cover the cost of these tax expenditures, we force the federal government to end up borrowing the balance. And that, more than any other budget item you can name, is the leading cause of our $17 trillion debt. If you removed tax expenditures, and did not change a single other thing, our government would have a revenue surplus every year.
So we clearly need to enact a ban on tax expenditures.
Tax expenditures exist because our politicians trade them in exchange for campaign cash which ensures a Representative's 98 percent chance of re-election. Take away their ability to put boondoggles in our tax code, and you remove one big incentive to bribe them with campaign cash.
No tax reform will succeed without first removing the ability of our politicians and special interests to corrupt it. You can enact a Fair Tax all day long and it will be rendered immediately ineffective if our politicians and special interests can put $1.2 trillion dollars worth of exemptions in it.
I'll get to the Fair Tax later. I'm kind of a fan. Because, after all, it's a tax on consumption which can replace a tax on production (income tax).
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
You just blew your own credibility out of the water since you demonstrated you have no real understanding of the Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax would replace all federal income and payroll taxes. And it is not two new taxes. It is one.
