User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:14:44 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People here are super quick to point out that they pay Social Security, FICA, and Medicare tax (if they work) and sales tax (even though it's local and not federal) and road and fuel taxes assuming they drive. I say that's fine and good. Those taxes make it possible to use the roads, use public schools, etc. None of them except Federal income tax enable the Fed govt to run, and by extension, most state programs. If you pay no net federal taxes, you should not be allowed to vote in federal elections. Period. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The rich have more money, so each individual dollar is worth less to them. In order to tax fairly, the rich need to pay a much higher percentage to be taxed equally to a poor person. People here are super quick to point out that they pay Social Security, FICA, and Medicare tax (if they work) and sales tax (even though it's local and not federal) and road and fuel taxes assuming they drive. I say that's fine and good. Those taxes make it possible to use the roads, use public schools, etc. None of them except Federal income tax enable the Fed govt to run, and by extension, most state programs. If you pay no net federal taxes, you should not be allowed to vote in federal elections. Period. Even you are doing it wrong, Francis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:14:53 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know. I can think of lots of countries with high VAT and high taxes.  Although the problem in places like Greece and Spain is much deeper and more systemic that just black market.
However, there are obviously many STATES in the U.S. that have higher sales taxes and no state income tax, so there's at least some working precedent for it right here in the U.S.,  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"fairness" is an entirely subjective term, and depends entirely on self-interest and how you frame the issue. So arguing about the fairness of one approach versus the other is largely pointless, because you will not convince people that simply see the issue in a different way. That said, I think the argument could be made for "fair" taxes being entire consumption-based. So drop all income taxes, and just have a much larger sales tax. That way, the rich WILL pay more, because they spend more - but the 25% tax they pay for their Aston Martin and yacht will be the exact same rate as the 25% the lower-income person pays when he buys a small Hyundai and a dinghy. That way, you can make shitloads of money - and YOU DECIDE how much you want to be taxed. You don't want to be taxed a lot, just live a modest lifestyle, and you can keep all of your money. But, I am sure someone will disagree, and would think that's horribly unfair.
I agree with you 100%, but how many countries have a VAT and no additional taxes? One problem with a large/onerous sales tax/VAT is that it really encourages tax cheats. Places like Greece have very large VATs, and a massive black market aimed at avoiding paying it. I know. I can think of lots of countries with high VAT and high taxes. Although the problem in places like Greece and Spain is much deeper and more systemic that just black market.
However, there are obviously many STATES in the U.S. that have higher sales taxes and no state income tax, so there's at least some working precedent for it right here in the U.S., I just think enforcement of a national sales tax would be much more difficult than enforcing the national income tax. We hate the IRS now, but can you imagine if they had the authority and charter to insinuate themselves into every single monetary transaction in the US? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:17:34 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take roads, for instance, assuming government in general builds and maintains them. It would seem likely that business and trades would make more use of these than average, to the point you might say that they benefit the wealthy more than the poor, but benefit all to some degree. The wealthy (a broad description) probably find a certain level of progressive taxation benefits them but there are limits. Those roads can be used to move poor and wealthy alike. 
Were you trying to make a point? I'd like clarification, if there was supposed to be one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:19:25 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "fairness" is an entirely subjective term, and depends entirely on self-interest and how you frame the issue. So arguing about the fairness of one approach versus the other is largely pointless, because you will not convince people that simply see the issue in a different way. That said, I think the argument could be made for "fair" taxes being entire consumption-based. So drop all income taxes, and just have a much larger sales tax. That way, the rich WILL pay more, because they spend more - but the 25% tax they pay for their Aston Martin and yacht will be the exact same rate as the 25% the lower-income person pays when he buys a small Hyundai and a dinghy. That way, you can make shitloads of money - and YOU DECIDE how much you want to be taxed. You don't want to be taxed a lot, just live a modest lifestyle, and you can keep all of your money. But, I am sure someone will disagree, and would think that's horribly unfair. with no loopholes, I'm ok with it. Unfortunately, our representatives would be paid off to allow loopholes as soon as the ink was dry on the flat tax law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:19:44 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That, or get rid of federal income taxes and go with The Fair Tax. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No percentages; everyone should pay the same tax. That, or get rid of federal income taxes and go with The Fair Tax. Please God no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:21:05 AM EDT
[#6]
It's not a law applied fairly......i.e. if the rich pay 50%, so should the poor.
Otherwise, you get what we have today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:24:07 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you pay no net federal taxes, you should not be allowed to vote in federal elections. Period. You make it easy for the overlords to enslave us. Step 1) Raise corporate income tax up the wazoo Step 2) Corporate America lays off millions of workers Step 3) Those workers can no longer vote, which means they can't vote for lower taxes Step 4) Effect trickles down and millions of other jobs are lost as well Step 5) Even more people lost their right to vote Step 6) Economy in shambles, so raise taxes even more to fund programs to rebuild it Step 7) Cronies pocket the money. Cronies still get to vote Step 8) Only the rich elites like Bloomberg can vote I swear, some of you would fight right in in a place like Venezuela. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:25:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
How is a progressive tax equal justice under the law? How is it constitutional? let alone whether or not an income tax is legal. Simple. It is not. It also violates equal protection under the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:25:51 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You make it easy for the overlords to enslave us. Step 1) Raise corporate income tax up the wazoo Step 2) Corporate America lays off millions of workers Step 3) Those workers can no longer vote, which means they can't vote for lower taxes Step 4) Effect trickles down and millions of other jobs are lost as well Step 5) Even more people lost their right to vote Step 6) Economy in shambles, so raise taxes even more to fund programs to rebuild it Step 7) Cronies pocket the money. Cronies still get to vote Step 8) Only the rich elites like Bloomberg can vote I swear, some of you would fight right in in a place like Venezuela. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: If you pay no net federal taxes, you should not be allowed to vote in federal elections. Period. You make it easy for the overlords to enslave us. Step 1) Raise corporate income tax up the wazoo Step 2) Corporate America lays off millions of workers Step 3) Those workers can no longer vote, which means they can't vote for lower taxes Step 4) Effect trickles down and millions of other jobs are lost as well Step 5) Even more people lost their right to vote Step 6) Economy in shambles, so raise taxes even more to fund programs to rebuild it Step 7) Cronies pocket the money. Cronies still get to vote Step 8) Only the rich elites like Bloomberg can vote I swear, some of you would fight right in in a place like Venezuela. You can still vote in state and local elections, as long as your state considers you eligible. Elect good state reps and you don't have to worry about what happens at the national level, right? Stop spending money that's not yours, and fuck the FSA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:27:06 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Were you trying to make a point? I'd like clarification, if there was supposed to be one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Take roads, for instance, assuming government in general builds and maintains them. It would seem likely that business and trades would make more use of these than average, to the point you might say that they benefit the wealthy more than the poor, but benefit all to some degree. The wealthy (a broad description) probably find a certain level of progressive taxation benefits them but there are limits. Those roads can be used to move poor and wealthy alike.
Were you trying to make a point? I'd like clarification, if there was supposed to be one. Just thinking how people justify progressive taxes. I'm more with DK Prof and a consumption tax. ETA the best argument against flat taxes or consumption taxes are that they will be extremely disruptive to the Byzantine tax scheme as it exists at present. So, it's like a corollary to "too big to fail", too complex to reform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:27:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: However, there are obviously many STATES in the U.S. that have higher sales taxes and no state income tax, so there's at least some working precedent for it right here in the U.S., Get both. For example, live in Washington State and pay no income tax, but shop in Oregon and pay no sales tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:28:18 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Equal protection under the law? Equal protection of what exactly? You have the right to pay the same amount of taxes as your neighbor, who makes exactly the same as you do and has the same sized family. How long before someone starts talking about ex-post facto in this thread? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Life isnt fair. You agreed to pay your taxes by accepting the benefit of holding a job in America. Your choice, pay the tax or dont work and have no tax liability. There is no fucking 'fair' or 'constitutional' about it. Quit whining about communism and progressivism. What happened to equal protection under the law? Equal protection under the law? Equal protection of what exactly? You have the right to pay the same amount of taxes as your neighbor, who makes exactly the same as you do and has the same sized family. How long before someone starts talking about ex-post facto in this thread? Because, simply, if I make more money, how is it equal protection that it is taxed at a higher rate simply because I make more than the next guy? Why is my 50k over what the next guy earns less valuable to me or my time spent earning it less valuable than his labor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:29:06 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get both. For example, live in Washington State and pay no income tax, but shop in Oregon and pay no sales tax. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
However, there are obviously many STATES in the U.S. that have higher sales taxes and no state income tax, so there's at least some working precedent for it right here in the U.S., Get both. For example, live in Washington State and pay no income tax, but shop in Oregon and pay no sales tax. It's how cigarette smuggling into NY remains profitable, also. Imagine how much "smuggling" and tax avoidance would happen if a national sales tax of 15% was added to all existing state and local sales taxes. You going to pay 25% sales tax, or buy it from ebay and avoid any? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:29:41 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In theory. In reality they would do all their shopping at "swap meets", and the local "Mercado" that doesn't accurately report sales tax, or pay it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the labor participation rate is just 63%, then there is 37% of the population not paying any FITW, Medicare or SS. Get rid of the income tax entirely. Then go to a larger federal sales tax. That would capture everybody, including all the illegals that are here working cash on the barrel head jobs. That really is a huge benefit of sales tax instead of income tax, in addition to other "fairness" considerations. In theory. In reality they would do all their shopping at "swap meets", and the local "Mercado" that doesn't accurately report sales tax, or pay it. As should we all.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:30:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair? Legal? Look - I believe the rich sometimes pay too many taxes. Most uber rich only pay capital gains, because that's their source of revenue, which is much much lower. Earned income brackets are way too high and only punish people like doctors and lawyers who work hard for their money. Poor people also pay no taxes, which is stupid because then they don't have any skin in the game. Paying taxes means you have a vested interest in how the money is spent. So that's also an issue. The idea behind tax brackets? Simple - the money $$ you make, the higher % of it becomes disposable. The more that's disposable, the more the government feels justified in taking. If you can't understand that concept, the debate really isn't worth having. That's silly. Just because the state arbitrarily feels that your income after a certain level is disposable neither makes it fair, equal, or just. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:31:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simple. It is not. It also violates equal protection under the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How is a progressive tax equal justice under the law? How is it constitutional? let alone whether or not an income tax is legal. Simple. It is not. It also violates equal protection under the law. I'm neither a lawyer or a constitutional expert, but I don't think that's correct. Everyone is treated equally under the law. Tax law applies the same to people. If any person makes $300K, he/she gets taxed at the same rate as any other person. If the person making $300K this year makes $30K next year, he will be taxed the same as every other person that makes $30K. Just like mandatory sentencing laws (as an example). The guy that gets busted for 2 oz gets a lower sentence than the guy that gets busted for 2 pounds. The fact that they get different punishments is not a violation of equal protection under the law. ... and yes, I do see the irony of comparing income to a crime  - I'm just making a parallel for the legal "logic"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:33:07 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because, simply, if I make more money, how is it equal protection that it is taxed at a higher rate simply because I make more than the next guy? Why is my 50k over what the next guy earns less valuable to me or my time spent earning it less valuable than his labor? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Life isnt fair. You agreed to pay your taxes by accepting the benefit of holding a job in America. Your choice, pay the tax or dont work and have no tax liability. There is no fucking 'fair' or 'constitutional' about it. Quit whining about communism and progressivism. What happened to equal protection under the law? Equal protection under the law? Equal protection of what exactly? You have the right to pay the same amount of taxes as your neighbor, who makes exactly the same as you do and has the same sized family. How long before someone starts talking about ex-post facto in this thread? Because, simply, if I make more money, how is it equal protection that it is taxed at a higher rate simply because I make more than the next guy? Why is my 50k over what the next guy earns less valuable to me or my time spent earning it less valuable than his labor? Because a flat tax is regressive in nature. You can't win either way, apparently.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:38:03 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because a flat tax is regressive in nature. You can't win either way, apparently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because, simply, if I make more money, how is it equal protection that it is taxed at a higher rate simply because I make more than the next guy? Why is my 50k over what the next guy earns less valuable to me or my time spent earning it less valuable than his labor? Because a flat tax is regressive in nature. You can't win either way, apparently. It is, but only slightly. Exempt all food items (prepared and raw ingredients) like many states do anyway. Exempt utilities. That's about the only exemptions that would be needed to take the wind out of the "regressive" sails. You don't NEED a new car, whether it's a $15K Kia or a $150K Mercedes. You should be taxed the same on either. There should be no federal sales tax on any used item sale either, so to claim that a federal sales tax hurts the "poor" is BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:41:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only part of the progressive tax that actually works is on the lower and middle class. The rich pay folks to find ways to reduce and evade taxes. The lower class get their share of built-in tax evasion. It's the middle-class (and small businesses) that bear the real burden. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:41:22 AM EDT
[#20]
We have to treat everyone in this country equally. We can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.....oh yeah....except we can discriminate the fuck out of people because they make more money than others
Apparently income discrimination is OK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:43:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When you say flat tax, are you talking about a flat percentage of income or, government budget / every registered voter = everyone pays the the exact same amount? If income, then that is very progressive in my book... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anytime somebody wants to talk seriously to me about politics I ask them if they believe in a graduated tax system. When they say "yes" I call them a communist and refuse further discussion. Works for me! I was once called a regressive for suggesting a flat tax. Wore that badge with honor... When you say flat tax, are you talking about a flat percentage of income or, government budget / every registered voter = everyone pays the the exact same amount? If income, then that is very progressive in my book... That's my kind of progress. A fair slice of everybody's pie, along with significant budget reform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:44:14 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No percentages; everyone should pay the same tax. How is that even logical? Or possible? Or anything but utterly ridiculous? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:47:52 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is, but only slightly. Exempt all food items (prepared and raw ingredients) like many states do anyway. Exempt utilities. That's about the only exemptions that would be needed to take the wind out of the "regressive" sails. You don't NEED a new car, whether it's a $15K Kia or a $150K Mercedes. You should be taxed the same on either. There should be no federal sales tax on any used item sale either, so to claim that a federal sales tax hurts the "poor" is BS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because, simply, if I make more money, how is it equal protection that it is taxed at a higher rate simply because I make more than the next guy? Why is my 50k over what the next guy earns less valuable to me or my time spent earning it less valuable than his labor? Because a flat tax is regressive in nature. You can't win either way, apparently. It is, but only slightly. Exempt all food items (prepared and raw ingredients) like many states do anyway. Exempt utilities. That's about the only exemptions that would be needed to take the wind out of the "regressive" sails. You don't NEED a new car, whether it's a $15K Kia or a $150K Mercedes. You should be taxed the same on either. There should be no federal sales tax on any used item sale either, so to claim that a federal sales tax hurts the "poor" is BS. That works if you're talking about something like the Fair Tax, where an income tax is replaced with a consumption tax. Doesn't work with an income tax, because the family might be exempt from the 5% on food, but they'd be losing 20-25% from income tax. Edit: You could remove sales tax altogether and a flat tax would still be regressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:48:43 AM EDT
[#24]
I believe it is unconstitutional and total BS. The rich should revolt by pooling money and buying their own army to fight it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:52:03 AM EDT
[#25]
The government doesn't need to know what or how much your income is. It is frankly none of their business. Same as whether yoy file married or seperately.
How basically giving the .gov an income confession in the form of a 1040 every April 15th does not violate the 5th Amendment blows my mind? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:55:20 AM EDT
[#26]
TxRabbitBane's proposed tax plan-
1. Every citizen (man, woman, child) should pay X dollars in tax every year, same for everyone, regardless of income or a certain number of hours of community service. Parents/guardians are liable for their kids' taxes until they achieve majority. Orphans and state dependent folks TBD. Active duty military on deployment exempt for the length of their deployment. 2. There should be a federal sales tax, rate determined by (?) GDP (or something other than congressional vote, anyway, some function of the health of the economy). Certain staples will be exempt. Congress can raise or lower this by no more than a certain percentage, and then only for a fixed period (one congressional term?). 3. debtor's prison for those who do not pay their taxes, where they do gov't/public service work to repay their debt. No lingering effects or forfeiture of rights once released... You paid what you owe, all is forgotten. Falsification of records = prosecution for fraud. 4. Imports/exports subject to federal tax, rate determined by congress. That's it. No more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:56:09 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because a flat tax is regressive in nature. Bullshit. Poor people are more affected by a flat consumption tax because they are fucking poor, not because the tax is regressive by nature. Everyone paying the same percentage of every dollar they spend, no matter how many dollars they spend, is about as "fair" as it gets. This is just another example of the left controlling the language. Just because something isn't "progressive" doesn't mean it's "regressive". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:57:50 AM EDT
[#28]
Everybody needs to go to their payroll office tomorrow, fill out a new W-4 and claim 99 dependents or 9 or a flat $50. The quicker we can starve this government of its tax money, its lifeblood, the better.
I am tired of straddling an I-beam 12 floors up building scaffold so Shaniqua and her 8 crotch fruit from 8 different unknown fathers can swipe their EBT/Link at Wally World on the first. Think this obesity epidemic would go away if .gov was subsidizing their pork rinds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 10:58:06 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it is unconstitutional and total BS. The rich should revolt by pooling money and buying their own army to fight it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:00:27 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The "lowest income" 47% of Americans pay zero federal income tax. What a burden. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The only part of the progressive tax that actually works is on the lower and middle class. The rich pay folks to find ways to reduce and evade taxes. The "lowest income" 47% of Americans pay zero federal income tax. What a burden. How many of those pay negative tax? With the earned income credit they actually take money from the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:03:57 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many of those pay negative tax? With the earned income credit they actually take money from the government. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The only part of the progressive tax that actually works is on the lower and middle class. The rich pay folks to find ways to reduce and evade taxes. The "lowest income" 47% of Americans pay zero federal income tax. What a burden. How many of those pay negative tax? With the earned income credit they actually take money from the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:04:42 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The rich have more money, so each individual dollar is worth less to them. In order to tax fairly, the rich need to pay a much higher percentage to be taxed equally to a poor person. So, a person who makes $10,000 a year should pay (just to pick a number) 10% income tax, or $1000. A person who makes $100,000 a year should pay 20% tax, or $20,000. A person who makes $1,000,000 a year should pay 40% tax, or $4000,000. Yeah. Seems fair to me. What really seems fair is people just get to keep the same amount. If you earn nothing in a year, the government gives you $50,000. If you earn $1,000,000, the government takes $950,000 and lets you keep $50,000. How is that not fair? Everyone is equal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:06:28 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because a flat tax is regressive in nature. re•gres•sive :adjective: (of a tax) taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes If the top 40% of income earners pay 106% of the tax burden, how could a flat tax be “regressive?” Currently the bottom 40% are getting 6% of IRS revenue given to them. Not only do they pay nothing into the system, they actually get paid to file a tax return. To “take a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes” you first have to start to take something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:06:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That works if you're talking about something like the Fair Tax, where an income tax is replaced with a consumption tax. Doesn't work with an income tax, because the family might be exempt from the 5% on food, but they'd be losing 20-25% from income tax. Edit: You could remove sales tax altogether and a flat tax would still be regressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because, simply, if I make more money, how is it equal protection that it is taxed at a higher rate simply because I make more than the next guy? Why is my 50k over what the next guy earns less valuable to me or my time spent earning it less valuable than his labor? Because a flat tax is regressive in nature. You can't win either way, apparently. It is, but only slightly. Exempt all food items (prepared and raw ingredients) like many states do anyway. Exempt utilities. That's about the only exemptions that would be needed to take the wind out of the "regressive" sails. You don't NEED a new car, whether it's a $15K Kia or a $150K Mercedes. You should be taxed the same on either. There should be no federal sales tax on any used item sale either, so to claim that a federal sales tax hurts the "poor" is BS. That works if you're talking about something like the Fair Tax, where an income tax is replaced with a consumption tax. Doesn't work with an income tax, because the family might be exempt from the 5% on food, but they'd be losing 20-25% from income tax. Edit: You could remove sales tax altogether and a flat tax would still be regressive. Yes, I'm talking about a fixed national sales tax, to replace income tax. The "fair tax" is bullshit, and they can shove their "prebates" where the sun don't shine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:11:39 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TxRabbitBane's proposed tax plan- 1. Every citizen (man, woman, child) should pay X dollars in tax every year, same for everyone, regardless of income. Parents/guardians are liable for their kids' taxes until they achieve majority. Orphans and state dependent folks TBD. Active duty military on deployment exempt for the length of their deployment. In lieu of this, X number of hours community service. 2. There should be a federal sales tax, rate determined by (?) GDP (or something other than congressional vote, anyway, some function of the health of the economy). Certain staples will be exempt. Congress can raise or lower this by no more than a certain percentage, and then only for a fixed period (one congressional term?). 3. debtor's prison for those who do not pay their taxes, where they do gov't/public service work to repay their debt. No lingering effects or forfeiture of rights once released... You paid what you owe, all is forgotten. Falsification of records = prosecution for fraud. That's it. No more. Let's just go with the most obviously fucked up part of this, debtor's prison. Someone screws up, gets sick, runs up medical bills, what have you, and doesn't have the money to pay that $X*, they go work forced labor for the govt for the next 6 months. Are you going to force their company to hire this person back? Because otherwise, they don't have a source of income for this year's $X. So the cycle starts again, and they get further behind. You've just ruined a citizen's life and created an essentially permanent government slave. Good job. And speaking of the unemployed. You're always going to have some unemployment in an economy, if they're scrapping by on their savings and charity, you know like GD says they should instead of relying on the govt, and don't find a job, you would throw them into a forced job. A job which they can't afford to quit, because then they can't afford to pay this fixed tax. You've just turned the poor and unemployed into a permanent underclass which must work for the government. That's fucked up. *A note on X. In 2013, the Federal government collected $1.6 trillion from income taxes. US population in July 2013 was ~316m. Your X would be $5000 per person. The median American family made $51,000 in 2013. The median household size in 2012 (can't find 2013) was ~2.5. $5000 * 2.5 = $12,500 per household, or a 25% Federal tax rate on the median family. Familes which make less than that, or which more than 1 kid, Replacement rate is 2.1. Your policy results in a 25% tax rate when they have 0.5 kids. If the household size were 4.1, it would be ~$20,000, or 40%. Congratulations, you've just found a tax scheme which promotes not having any children. let alone having enough children to replace you. I'm sure that'll do wonders for our nation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:13:54 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm neither a lawyer or a constitutional expert, but I don't think that's correct. Everyone is treated equally under the law. Tax law applies the same to people. If any person makes $300K, he/she gets taxed at the same rate as any other person. If the person making $300K this year makes $30K next year, he will be taxed the same as every other person that makes $30K. Just like mandatory sentencing laws (as an example). The guy that gets busted for 2 oz gets a lower sentence than the guy that gets busted for 2 pounds. The fact that they get different punishments is not a violation of equal protection under the law. ... and yes, I do see the irony of comparing income to a crime - I'm just making a parallel for the legal "logic"Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is a progressive tax equal justice under the law? How is it constitutional? let alone whether or not an income tax is legal. Simple. It is not. It also violates equal protection under the law. I'm neither a lawyer or a constitutional expert, but I don't think that's correct. Everyone is treated equally under the law. Tax law applies the same to people. If any person makes $300K, he/she gets taxed at the same rate as any other person. If the person making $300K this year makes $30K next year, he will be taxed the same as every other person that makes $30K. Just like mandatory sentencing laws (as an example). The guy that gets busted for 2 oz gets a lower sentence than the guy that gets busted for 2 pounds. The fact that they get different punishments is not a violation of equal protection under the law. ... and yes, I do see the irony of comparing income to a crime - I'm just making a parallel for the legal "logic"No, but you don't get my point. I may be taxed at my 300k the same rate as the next guy who makes 300k but both of us are taxed at a higher rate for that 300k than the guy who makes 30k. Based only on our income is our property and effort considered less valuable to us than the other guys. That is being unequal under the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:13:57 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I'm talking about a fixed national sales tax, to replace income tax. The "fair tax" is bullshit, and they can shove their "prebates" where the sun don't shine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because, simply, if I make more money, how is it equal protection that it is taxed at a higher rate simply because I make more than the next guy? Why is my 50k over what the next guy earns less valuable to me or my time spent earning it less valuable than his labor? Because a flat tax is regressive in nature. You can't win either way, apparently. It is, but only slightly. Exempt all food items (prepared and raw ingredients) like many states do anyway. Exempt utilities. That's about the only exemptions that would be needed to take the wind out of the "regressive" sails. You don't NEED a new car, whether it's a $15K Kia or a $150K Mercedes. You should be taxed the same on either. There should be no federal sales tax on any used item sale either, so to claim that a federal sales tax hurts the "poor" is BS. That works if you're talking about something like the Fair Tax, where an income tax is replaced with a consumption tax. Doesn't work with an income tax, because the family might be exempt from the 5% on food, but they'd be losing 20-25% from income tax. Edit: You could remove sales tax altogether and a flat tax would still be regressive. Yes, I'm talking about a fixed national sales tax, to replace income tax. The "fair tax" is bullshit, and they can shove their "prebates" where the sun don't shine. Rebates are the only way it works, otherwise existing lower income families suddenly can't afford to put food on the table. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:15:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm neither a lawyer or a constitutional expert, but I don't think that's correct. Everyone is treated equally under the law. Tax law applies the same to people. If any person makes $300K, he/she gets taxed at the same rate as any other person. If the person making $300K this year makes $30K next year, he will be taxed the same as every other person that makes $30K. Just like mandatory sentencing laws (as an example). The guy that gets busted for 2 oz gets a lower sentence than the guy that gets busted for 2 pounds. The fact that they get different punishments is not a violation of equal protection under the law. ... and yes, I do see the irony of comparing income to a crime - I'm just making a parallel for the legal "logic"Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is a progressive tax equal justice under the law? How is it constitutional? let alone whether or not an income tax is legal. Simple. It is not. It also violates equal protection under the law. I'm neither a lawyer or a constitutional expert, but I don't think that's correct. Everyone is treated equally under the law. Tax law applies the same to people. If any person makes $300K, he/she gets taxed at the same rate as any other person. If the person making $300K this year makes $30K next year, he will be taxed the same as every other person that makes $30K. Just like mandatory sentencing laws (as an example). The guy that gets busted for 2 oz gets a lower sentence than the guy that gets busted for 2 pounds. The fact that they get different punishments is not a violation of equal protection under the law. ... and yes, I do see the irony of comparing income to a crime - I'm just making a parallel for the legal "logic"So if we tax every black person extra it would be legal so long as we tax all black people the same? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:15:51 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"fairness" is an entirely subjective term, and depends entirely on self-interest and how you frame the issue. So arguing about the fairness of one approach versus the other is largely pointless, because you will not convince people that simply see the issue in a different way. That said, I think the argument could be made for "fair" taxes being entire consumption-based. So drop all income taxes, and just have a much larger sales tax. That way, the rich WILL pay more, because they spend more - but the 25% tax they pay for their Aston Martin and yacht will be the exact same rate as the 25% the lower-income person pays when he buys a small Hyundai and a dinghy. That way, you can make shitloads of money - and YOU DECIDE how much you want to be taxed. You don't want to be taxed a lot, just live a modest lifestyle, and you can keep all of your money. But, I am sure someone will disagree, and would think that's horribly unfair.
Agreed! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:16:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that even logical? Or possible? Or anything but utterly ridiculous? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No percentages; everyone should pay the same tax. How is that even logical? Or possible? Or anything but utterly ridiculous? Total taxes needed in the us is X. Total population in the US is Y. Thus, each citizen owes X/Y. I can't see a more fair or equitable way to share the load. After all, Joe six-pack vote carries the exact same weight as mine, so why shouldn't his share of taxes be the exact same as mine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:19:18 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Total taxes needed in the us is X. Total population in the US is Y. Thus, each citizen owes X/Y. I can't see a more fair or equitable way to share the load. After all, Joe six-pack vote carries the exact same weight as mine, so why shouldn't his share of taxes be the exact same as mine? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No percentages; everyone should pay the same tax. How is that even logical? Or possible? Or anything but utterly ridiculous? Total taxes needed in the us is X. Total population in the US is Y. Thus, each citizen owes X/Y. I can't see a more fair or equitable way to share the load. After all, Joe six-pack vote carries the exact same weight as mine, so why shouldn't his share of taxes be the exact same as mine? X is 5000. Median income is 50k. You want an America where the average household can have 2 kids raised by 2 parents? They've got a 40% tax rate. Heaven forbid they want more than 2 kids.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:20:26 AM EDT
[#42]
There are different ways of defining fair. Taking away from ones need versus taking from one's excess are not exactly equal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:21:25 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rebates are the only way it works, otherwise existing lower income families suddenly can't afford to put food on the table. Don't tax their SNAP/EBT, problem solved.  I already mentioned exempting food items (prepared and raw) as many states do, and exempting utilities. That's all that is needed, no "prebate" or rebate necessary.
Poor families buy a lot of things used, and don't pay taxes on those transactions. I should know I grew up in one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:23:21 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
X is 5000. Median income is 50k. You want an America where the average household can have 2 kids raised by 2 parents? They've got a 40% tax rate. Heaven forbid they want more than 2 kids. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No percentages; everyone should pay the same tax. How is that even logical? Or possible? Or anything but utterly ridiculous? Total taxes needed in the us is X. Total population in the US is Y. Thus, each citizen owes X/Y. I can't see a more fair or equitable way to share the load. After all, Joe six-pack vote carries the exact same weight as mine, so why shouldn't his share of taxes be the exact same as mine? X is 5000. Median income is 50k. You want an America where the average household can have 2 kids raised by 2 parents? They've got a 40% tax rate. Heaven forbid they want more than 2 kids. It is not my concern if they want more kids than they can pay for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:23:30 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are different ways of defining fair. Taking away from ones need versus taking from one's excess are not exactly equal. Like hell they aren't equal. And fuck be upon anyone except me who tries to tell me what my "needs" vs. my "excesses" are. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:25:51 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't tax their SNAP/EBT, problem solved. I already mentioned exempting food items (prepared and raw) as many states do, and exempting utilities. That's all that is need, no "prebate" or rebate necessary.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Rebates are the only way it works, otherwise existing lower income families suddenly can't afford to put food on the table. Don't tax their SNAP/EBT, problem solved. I already mentioned exempting food items (prepared and raw) as many states do, and exempting utilities. That's all that is need, no "prebate" or rebate necessary.Unfortunately, it's not solved. The Fair Tax rate of 30% is calculated based on the expectation that food, etc would be taxed. If you cut out that source of revenue, the tax rate has to go up. Here's the Fair Tax org's explanation of why they don't just exempt food. "Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple? Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs. Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped. " |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:26:27 AM EDT
[#47]
It's painfully obvious that many seemingly intelligent people can't grasp simple mathematic concepts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:27:46 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not my concern if they want more kids than they can pay for. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No percentages; everyone should pay the same tax. How is that even logical? Or possible? Or anything but utterly ridiculous? Total taxes needed in the us is X. Total population in the US is Y. Thus, each citizen owes X/Y. I can't see a more fair or equitable way to share the load. After all, Joe six-pack vote carries the exact same weight as mine, so why shouldn't his share of taxes be the exact same as mine? X is 5000. Median income is 50k. You want an America where the average household can have 2 kids raised by 2 parents? They've got a 40% tax rate. Heaven forbid they want more than 2 kids. It is not my concern if they want more kids than they can pay for. The median American household can't afford to have any kids under that system. Certainly not at replacement rate. Your policy would incentivize not having kids. You know the problem Japan is facing, which makes our Baby Boom demographic change look small? That's the kind of demographics shift this policy would create. It would not be good for this country at all. A rapidly shrinking population does not make for a healthy country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:32:57 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately, it's not solved. The Fair Tax rate of 30% is calculated based on the expectation that food, etc would be taxed. If you cut out that source of revenue, the tax rate has to go up. Here's the Fair Tax org's explanation of why they don't just exempt food. "Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple? Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs. Finally, exempting one product or service income class, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped. " Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rebates are the only way it works, otherwise existing lower income families suddenly can't afford to put food on the table. Don't tax their SNAP/EBT, problem solved. I already mentioned exempting food items (prepared and raw) as many states do, and exempting utilities. That's all that is need, no "prebate" or rebate necessary.Unfortunately, it's not solved. The Fair Tax rate of 30% is calculated based on the expectation that food, etc would be taxed. If you cut out that source of revenue, the tax rate has to go up. Here's the Fair Tax org's explanation of why they don't just exempt food. "Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple? Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs. Finally, exempting one product or service income class, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped. " Fucking prebates. 
The "fair tax" fools are all about getting rid of the current progressive tax scheme, and replacing it with... a progressive tax scheme. What progress! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 11:34:16 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let's see. How about this - the rich elites that run the country set taxes equal to $20k per person per year regardless of employment status. Can't afford that? Public housing for you, and you lose your right to vote. I swear some people don't think things through. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How could it be abused? Let's see. How about this - the rich elites that run the country set taxes equal to $20k per person per year regardless of employment status. Can't afford that? Public housing for you, and you lose your right to vote. I swear some people don't think things through. I know, right? First they want to let women and blacks vote, and now this? Sheesh... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
