I Wear Pants;548703 wrote:Who said confiscate the difference?

Who said hate?

You did. I'm simply not opposed to those that make a ton more than the average paying a bit more in taxes. Not anti-rich people. Just don't see a massive problem with wealthy being taxed more. Obviously it shouldn't be an obscene amount more.

We differ in our opinions on this obviously. From what I gather you believe that the rich should be taxed the same as someone pulling in $9,000 a year. This doesn't make much sense to me.

Just to make it clear, I don't hate the rich, don't want them to give up all/most of their money, and don't think they should be punished for working hard/being good at what they do/being born into good situations. I think that they could have a higher tax rate (not incredibly higher) than the rest of us and it wouldn't be an outrage. Some wealthy agree with me (Buffett, Gates, others) where as some disagree.

WTF are you talking about? The rich ARE taxed a lot higher than someone making $9,000 a year. Someone making $9,000 a year doesn't even pay any taxes and most likely gets money back. The top tax rate is 35% and would go back up to around 39% if Congress repeals the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Add in state and local tax rates and the rich pay around 50% in taxes, if not more.

This crap about Gates/Buffet etc not paying their fair share of taxes pisses me off. Everyone gets their class warfare panties in a wad about a handful of people in this country. These super elites may be able to get around the tax rates with capital gains/stocks etc, but that's not even close to a majority of the wealthy in this country. It looks like to me that the rich are paying their fair share right now, maybe even more.

I Wear Pants;548703 wrote:Who said confiscate the difference?

Who said hate?

You did. I'm simply not opposed to those that make a ton more than the average paying a bit more in taxes. Not anti-rich people. Just don't see a massive problem with wealthy being taxed more. Obviously it shouldn't be an obscene amount more.

We differ in our opinions on this obviously. From what I gather you believe that the rich should be taxed the same as someone pulling in $9,000 a year. This doesn't make much sense to me.

Just to make it clear, I don't hate the rich, don't want them to give up all/most of their money, and don't think they should be punished for working hard/being good at what they do/being born into good situations. I think that they could have a higher tax rate (not incredibly higher) than the rest of us and it wouldn't be an outrage. Some wealthy agree with me (Buffett, Gates, others) where as some disagree.

They already do pay a higher rate...considerably higher. And for the record, the guys who "agree" with you make a little more than 500K a year.

I Wear Pants;548755 wrote:I get that a flat tax sounds ideal but it isn't actually fair. 10% of the income of someone making $20,000 a year is a bigger deal than 10% to someone making $200k or $2 million a year. It's proportionate sure but acting like it affect both equally isn't right.

A consumption tax could be interesting (I'm not versed in tax methodologies so I'm assuming that is one where you're only taxed for goods/services you buy).

IWP & anyone else that would like to learn - go to www.fairtax.org and read up. Go to the FAQ section and you'll learn much about the Fair Tax is applied. To answer your question about the poverty line, the Fair Tax actually gives rebates covering up to the national poverty line...I think on their website it's around $27,500. What this means is that taxpayers would be reimbursed the tax amount up to the poverty line and would pay an effective rate of 0%. It also means that the EEeeeeevil rich would have to pay 23% on their next yacht, tuxedo, and diamond necklace purchase, so they couldn't escape paying taxes like Warren Buffet says that they do. I'm not sure how it differs from a VAT, which places a tax on each and every step of the manufacturing process, but if it's just levied on the end user of the product, I'm all for it.

That actually sounds like something I could get behind.

And to everyone freaking out about the numbers: I was just using placeholder numbers to demonstrate a point. I didn't mean to imply that someone making $9k pays the same amount as the wealthy. I was just trying to say that I thought/think believer is a proponent for a straight percentage tax which sounds fair at first glance but would disadvantage lower income people more than it would higher income people.

However that can be lessened by the type of things that BG said in his last post (rebates for low income earners, higher tax for luxury goods).

BGFalcons82;548903 wrote:I'm not sure how it differs from a VAT, which places a tax on each and every step of the manufacturing process, but if it's just levied on the end user of the product, I'm all for it.

The problem with a VAT tax is that the Feds want this in addition to our current "progressive" income tax scheme. And since a VAT taxes production right down the line, it's absurd.

Fair Tax is the way to go IMHO. Or get rid of the current income tax and change the VAT to an end-user National Consumption Tax.

I'm all for a fair tax, but it'll never happen. Something as easy and understandable as the fair tax would take power away from Congress and that will never happen. Congress will never remove a tax, only add more.

Huckabee was for the Fair Tax wasn't he? I think that's one of the reasons I wanted him to win the nomination in 08.

tk421;549019 wrote:I'm all for a fair tax, but it'll never happen. Something as easy and understandable as the fair tax would take power away from Congress and that will never happen. Congress will never remove a tax, only add more.

The framers of the Constitution had a solution for such a time when the leaders wouldn't listen. I agree it would be very difficult to enact an Amendment to the Constitution, but it is available. FWIW, the fairtax has already been introduced -

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

Huckabee is for a version of it. Forbes is for a flat tax, which is still a tax on individual earnings, not consumption.

I think a problem with a consumption tax is that anytime there is a downturn in consumer spending we'd have a massive drop in tax revenue. Perhaps have a fairly low flat tax and then a fair tax/consumption tax on that?

Or am I confused.

Have there ever been any studies done that give a figure for what kind of revenues a Fair Tax would bring in?

I Wear Pants;549123 wrote:I think a problem with a consumption tax is that anytime there is a downturn in consumer spending we'd have a massive drop in tax revenue. Perhaps have a fairly low flat tax and then a fair tax/consumption tax on that?

Or am I confused.

No, you're no more confused than normal Just teasin ya.

Yes, a downturn in the economy would impact tax collections. What do we have now? With a net unemployment near 17%, the government is scrambling for ways to get more revenue as an increasing portion of the taxpayers have turned into benefit collectors. Nothing is perfect. But a society without the IRS, the tax code which NO ONE can figure out, lobbyists and influence peddlers pushing their agendas on the tax code, and politicians with their hands out looking for grease sure is desirable, isn't it?

I suppose the single most important reason I like the fairtax or flat tax is this: How in the hell can you have a tax system that is so misunderstood, so convoluted, so corrupt, and so counterproductive be the best way for all Americans to pay their fair share? How can anyone determine what is "fair" by reading the thousands upon thousands of pages of the tax code is beyond a vast majority of Americans. If we can't understand it as a society, then how in the hell can we rely upon it for our future?

According to a study on fairtax.org.

The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces.

So, even with a Fair Tax rate of 23 percent, the government would still run a deficit over $1T. I don't ever see a time when there is only one federal tax in this country, it's never going to happen.

tk421;549214 wrote:Have there ever been any studies done that give a figure for what kind of revenues a Fair Tax would bring in?

From the website I referenced earlier:

Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?

The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org.

I think if people would spend 10 to 15 minutes reading the FAQ's on the fairtax.org website, you will find answers to most of your questions.

I've been in favor of the Fair Tax ever since I heard about it years ago. Eliminating taxes on capital gains would flood businesses with capital to expand their operations and add jobs, and the companies that pay their evil executives in stock and what not, those fat cats would still have to pay the tax when they spend that money.

tk421;549229 wrote:According to a study on fairtax.org.



So, even with a Fair Tax rate of 23 percent, the government would still run a deficit over $1T. I don't ever see a time when there is only one federal tax in this country, it's never going to happen.

23% is pretty damned low when you look at most country's taxes.

I Wear Pants;549790 wrote:23% is pretty damned low when you look at most country's taxes.

Apparently we need to be like all the other socialist countries and pony up?

believer;549814 wrote:Apparently we need to be like all the other socialist countries and pony up?

Yeah, when I was in Belgium recently for work I was talking with some of my coworkers from our Belgium office.

Lets just they can have their income tax structure and shove it, they "get to keep" roughly half their money from their paycheck, that's it. And this wasn't some rich guy either, just a typical AutoCAD designer/draftsmen.

I assume the engineers above him who made more money had even more of their income confiscated in taxes.

When I was in Italy it wasn't much better.

believer;549814 wrote:Apparently we need to be like all the other socialist countries and pony up?

No. I just think that 23% isn't a realistic number that could work. I think abour 30% give or take is more likely to work.

I'm also for lowering some corporate taxes (gasp) as we're actually on the high side of those which probably does discourage some investment in the US.

Why 30 percent? Do you believe the government has a right to ANY of this money?

A lower tax rate is ultimately better for everyone -- including the economy. Let the government PARE DOWN its "services" to meet the lower tax rate -- not the other way around.

Writerbuckeye;550020 wrote:Why 30 percent? Do you believe the government has a right to ANY of this money?

A lower tax rate is ultimately better for everyone -- including the economy. Let the government PARE DOWN its "services" to meet the lower tax rate -- not the other way around.

No No NO, we couldn't possibly just lower our spending to meet the current (or lower) tax receipt levels, that's just plain retarded!

I'm a realist.

believer;548483 wrote:And so did Olberdouche tell you on PMSNBC that welfare mothers create the jobs? No wait....I forgot. Big Government creates the jobs.

So you're telling me that the people with the money are NOT the jobs creators? Then can you enlighten me on who really does?

Talk about delusional bullshit.

Sorry, I don't watch any news entertainment networks unless I want a chuckle. Sorry you can't seem to tell the difference.

I Wear Pants;550146 wrote:I'm a realist.

Me too, and if we don't downsize government it will devour us and we are finished ..... really!

Writerbuckeye;550020 wrote:Why 30 percent? Do you believe the government has a right to ANY of this money?

A lower tax rate is ultimately better for everyone -- including the economy. Let the government PARE DOWN its "services" to meet the lower tax rate -- not the other way around.

You mean cutting wasteful, ridiculous and redundant Big Government spending makes more sense than raising taxes? Oh I forgot...You're one of those eeeeevil mean-spirited sexist, homophobic and racist conservatives who want old people to die in the streets.

believer;550650 wrote:You mean cutting wasteful, ridiculous and redundant Big Government spending makes more sense than raising taxes? Oh I forgot...You're one of those eeeeevil mean-spirited sexist, homophobic and racist conservatives who want old people to die in the streets.

Ummm.... you forgot Islamophobe!