Why is it that we don't have a FairTax in the USA? Would it work in other countries too?
-
Any tax that replaces our current tax would probably be better... :sigh: - almost 50% on salary - 58% on all bonusses on your salary - 21% VAT on must products - municipality taxes - ... not much left :( . (don't get me started on what the government, which we actually don't have for the moment, does with all this money)
V.
You are paying a very high rate of tax..almost 50% of the people in the US do not pay any taxes due to all kinds of tax breaks for families etc. This is why we are in trouble now. Everyone should be paying at the point of consumption not on earned income. Prebates for the poor. They won't pay taxes and will have to prove they are poor and not driving some expensive car or living in a big expensive home while paying for food with food stamps..has happened here before.
-
And why would you think I have a car that needs only 3L Diesel for 100 km? :)
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011 -
But the poor get a prebate with the FairTax..so it does not affect them at all. What we have now is a unfair and complex tax code of over 67000 pages. Even the IRS here in the US has admitted that it's too big and too complicated to run. The Fairtax calls for a 23% tax on "New" items. used are exempt. There is a prebate for those who's incomes fall below a certain amount ( ie if you are poor you don't have to pay a sales tax) Everyone pays the same amount. There are no corporate taxes, no payroll taxes, no income tax. Think of the growth potential! We are only taxed on consumption at the cash register. Left wing governments do love a big government and taxes for the reason you stated. Not sure socialism is the way we need to go in the US.
na uh ... you said "flat rate consumption tax" ... the moment you start adding allowances for this or that group of people or products you're back where you started with a tax code dave's 10% flat rate on all income is the only fair way to do things
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
No, it does not eliminate Social security, medicare or medicaid..it funds those systems which are basically heading towards bankruptcy. It will mean that everyone will get SS and medicare or medicaid and not have to worry about "Cuts" which is what they are talking about now.
so, you're talking about something like a 30% sales tax? yeah, right. nobody would pay it. fraud would be widespread.
-
You are paying a very high rate of tax..almost 50% of the people in the US do not pay any taxes due to all kinds of tax breaks for families etc. This is why we are in trouble now. Everyone should be paying at the point of consumption not on earned income. Prebates for the poor. They won't pay taxes and will have to prove they are poor and not driving some expensive car or living in a big expensive home while paying for food with food stamps..has happened here before.
-
That is the best and most effective solution. It's simple to administer and easy to understand. I earn 10$ and I need to give away 10% of that.I dont get it, why dont people and nations simplify stuff ? Good thinking _Maxx_.I often think about tellng this idea to people and then retract because people just love to be crazy.
T1000_ wrote:
I dont get it, why dont people and nations simplify stuff
because, politicians use the tax code to reward their supporters. this "fair tax" system would, in no time at all, be littered with the same kinds of loopholes and giveaways that make our current system so complex. it's just the nature of politics.
-
Really bad idea. It adversely affects the less well off, who would then be paying more tax as a percentage of income. What is needed is a universal rate system. 10% of all income is taxed, 10% on Purchases, 10% on Corporation tax etc. A complex and unweildy tax system is used to control and monitor people, it is a form of economic slavery. Left Wing governments love it because it allows for more intrusion into the lives of its citizens. Simpler Tax systems are easier to enforce, and, generally, raise more money for the state, and allow more money to be kept for the workers. (This is because there is less red tape and bureaucracy involved in calculation, and the same with collection.) Also, whilst I am on the subject... Incremental rate hikes for higher earners make no sense... Taking ever larger %'s from the high earners may seem like a good idea for the socialists/trotskyites, but it acts as a disenfranchisement. "The harder I work, the less I am rewarded" is not going to encourage people to work. And the higher earners are the ones we need working. The lower earners are given the tax breaks, and yet are less productive for the country. We need the higher earners to be encouraged, for then they create markets and jobs which is better for all.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
It would have to be a bit more complex than that. In the U.S., we have federal AND state, and sometimes even city income taxes. And then there are sales taxes. If both the feds AND the states started collecting sales taxes, everything would end up costing 25% again as much as it does now. And then there's property taxes. How does that get resolved? I personally think that any property that's been paid off should be exempt from property taxes 9or at least significantly discounted). I think that once you reach a certain age, and if you've been paying income taxes for the immediately previous 20 years income should no longer taxable. In fact, i think that as you get older, your income taxes should be reduced or a portion of your taxes should be set aside in some sort of retirement account that you control but that you can't access until you become 65 or so. There is no "one good answer", and there are certainly a raft of other good ideas. These are just musings without any more thought devoted to them than the time it took to write them down. As a result, I'm not interested in defending any of these ideas, so do with them as you will.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
We are paying over $4 a gallon for gas here. More in some areas of the country. We drive a lot here and public transportation outside of the big cities is not good. Go hybrid..go green.
Well tha's more than 1/3 cheaper than here. With a quick calculation I got 6.30 € per gallon, assuming current prices. But my little car is no hybrid and Diesel is cheaper.
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011 -
Really bad idea. It adversely affects the less well off, who would then be paying more tax as a percentage of income. What is needed is a universal rate system. 10% of all income is taxed, 10% on Purchases, 10% on Corporation tax etc. A complex and unweildy tax system is used to control and monitor people, it is a form of economic slavery. Left Wing governments love it because it allows for more intrusion into the lives of its citizens. Simpler Tax systems are easier to enforce, and, generally, raise more money for the state, and allow more money to be kept for the workers. (This is because there is less red tape and bureaucracy involved in calculation, and the same with collection.) Also, whilst I am on the subject... Incremental rate hikes for higher earners make no sense... Taking ever larger %'s from the high earners may seem like a good idea for the socialists/trotskyites, but it acts as a disenfranchisement. "The harder I work, the less I am rewarded" is not going to encourage people to work. And the higher earners are the ones we need working. The lower earners are given the tax breaks, and yet are less productive for the country. We need the higher earners to be encouraged, for then they create markets and jobs which is better for all.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Left Wing governments love it because it allows for more intrusion into the lives of its citizens.
Right-wing governments love it because it allows them to cut one tax while raising others by twice as much, and still claim to have cut taxes.
Dalek Dave wrote:
"The harder I work, the less I am rewarded" is not going to encourage people to work.
Bollocks. The more you earn, the more you are rewarded. If you make three million, you still take home a cr@pload more than us poor suckers who only make two million. I'd be happy to take home an extra five-hundred-odd thousand for every million that's added to my gross (more than five-hundred-odd in the UK; taxes here are higher). The top rate is the same for every penny earned by anyone who goes over the threshold, but the right wing always tries to make it look as if earning more money means that you start paying more than 100% in tax, and actually become poorer if you make more. The fact is that if you take two extra percent away from someone earning 20,000 a year, it hits them a lot harder than someone losing half a percent of his fifth million. Let's not forget how many hard-working people were dropped below the official poverty line during the thatcher years -- but that was OK, because her rich pals all got a load of extra money for nothing, didn't they? And the poor ****ers lower down the scale are the ones who are forced to work hardest and are treated worst by their employers, so don't give me that "all my hard work" cr@p.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
T1000_ wrote:
I dont get it, why dont people and nations simplify stuff
because, politicians use the tax code to reward their supporters. this "fair tax" system would, in no time at all, be littered with the same kinds of loopholes and giveaways that make our current system so complex. it's just the nature of politics.
what maxx_ was suggesting is simply fair and simple. Tax any income at a flat 20% or 15% or whatever after a certain threshold. Simplicity doesn't give in room for loop holes. If you have simple laws people will stop finding loop holes to evade taxes. It is humans (people) who made politics a profession. May be you have to start some uprising or revolutions like they did in Eqypt.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Simpler Tax systems are easier to enforce, and, generally, raise more money for the state, and allow more money to be kept for the workers.
(This is because there is less red tape and bureaucracy involved in calculation, and the same with collection.)And accountants would be out of a job. No downsides then!
They'd still spend half of the year counting themoney, then the other half figuring out how much 10% of that would be.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
what maxx_ was suggesting is simply fair and simple. Tax any income at a flat 20% or 15% or whatever after a certain threshold. Simplicity doesn't give in room for loop holes. If you have simple laws people will stop finding loop holes to evade taxes. It is humans (people) who made politics a profession. May be you have to start some uprising or revolutions like they did in Eqypt.
T1000_ wrote:
Simplicity doesn't give in room for loop holes.
the "simplicity" is irrelevant: people do not care about the algorithmic beauty of the tax code. and, loopholes will always happen - it's how politicians reward their benefactors.
T1000_ wrote:
If you have simple laws people will stop finding loop holes to evade taxes
this is sheer fantasy. people will always seek to spend less money, and nobody cares how complex the law is, when deciding to comply or not (see speed limit laws, for example - nothing could be simpler than "do not go faster than X", and yet there is probably no law that is broken more often)
-
T1000_ wrote:
Simplicity doesn't give in room for loop holes.
the "simplicity" is irrelevant: people do not care about the algorithmic beauty of the tax code. and, loopholes will always happen - it's how politicians reward their benefactors.
T1000_ wrote:
If you have simple laws people will stop finding loop holes to evade taxes
this is sheer fantasy. people will always seek to spend less money, and nobody cares how complex the law is, when deciding to comply or not (see speed limit laws, for example - nothing could be simpler than "do not go faster than X", and yet there is probably no law that is broken more often)
Counter argument using English as a language is easy. There has to be an argument to the point and not an abstract statement like "this is sheer fantasy. people will always seek to spend less money.". If there is a strict and fair rule that - you have to pay flat 15% on any income above 75000$, there is obviously less room for fraud. An individuals bank account is always available for a probe.
-
But the higher earners are, generally, better educated and more business savvy. These are the entrepreneurs who create wealth. Joe Blow who works in a shop or a factory does his job, and get's his pay, but doesn't create the market, yet, perversely, gets the tax breaks.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
But the higher earners are, generally, better educated and more business savvy
If we're talking generalisations, it's a fairly well known "fact" that as someone climbs the income scale, regardless of income tax levels, the proportion of income spent on tax decreases.....more money == better accountants == more "creative" tax returns.
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Counter argument using English as a language is easy. There has to be an argument to the point and not an abstract statement like "this is sheer fantasy. people will always seek to spend less money.". If there is a strict and fair rule that - you have to pay flat 15% on any income above 75000$, there is obviously less room for fraud. An individuals bank account is always available for a probe.
T1000_ wrote:
. There has to be an argument to the point and not an abstract statement like
:omg: are you serious ? you write "Simplicity doesn't give in room for loop holes" and then complain that my argument is abstract ? seriously ?
T1000_ wrote:
If there is a strict and fair rule that - you have to pay flat 15% on any income above 75000$, there is obviously less room for fraud.
but that's not the "Fair Tax" scheme.
T1000_ wrote:
An individuals bank account is always available for a probe.
not if that account is in a bank in a country that doesn't allow governments to look at private bank accounts.
-
Counter argument using English as a language is easy. There has to be an argument to the point and not an abstract statement like "this is sheer fantasy. people will always seek to spend less money.". If there is a strict and fair rule that - you have to pay flat 15% on any income above 75000$, there is obviously less room for fraud. An individuals bank account is always available for a probe.
And all that gold, silver and gems I have hidden under my bed do not show up in any bank account. So when I want to evade taxes, please give me the money in a briefcase on a dark parking lot.
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011 -
T1000_ wrote:
. There has to be an argument to the point and not an abstract statement like
:omg: are you serious ? you write "Simplicity doesn't give in room for loop holes" and then complain that my argument is abstract ? seriously ?
T1000_ wrote:
If there is a strict and fair rule that - you have to pay flat 15% on any income above 75000$, there is obviously less room for fraud.
but that's not the "Fair Tax" scheme.
T1000_ wrote:
An individuals bank account is always available for a probe.
not if that account is in a bank in a country that doesn't allow governments to look at private bank accounts.
-
And all that gold, silver and gems I have hidden under my bed do not show up in any bank account. So when I want to evade taxes, please give me the money in a briefcase on a dark parking lot.
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011Now there are 2 points here.If gold and gems are your asset, ie you bought them with your earned money - then this money is already taxed.If you inherited it from some one - then it's not taxed. If you stole from some where you'll get caught if you try and encash it, because when u encash it, you might have to show proof of recipt how you got it.
-
Now there are 2 points here.If gold and gems are your asset, ie you bought them with your earned money - then this money is already taxed.If you inherited it from some one - then it's not taxed. If you stole from some where you'll get caught if you try and encash it, because when u encash it, you might have to show proof of recipt how you got it.
Did I really buy them with my earned money? I could also use 'black' money given to me in the briefcase on the parking lot. The point is, that people will come up with some craetive ways to get 'black' money that does not show up on their accounts and never gets taxed. Our government is grimly determined to tax all income, including interest on whatever you have. And that's why carrying a briefcase full of money over some borders is considered a severe crime here.
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011 -
Dalek Dave wrote:
Left Wing governments love it because it allows for more intrusion into the lives of its citizens.
Right-wing governments love it because it allows them to cut one tax while raising others by twice as much, and still claim to have cut taxes.
Dalek Dave wrote:
"The harder I work, the less I am rewarded" is not going to encourage people to work.
Bollocks. The more you earn, the more you are rewarded. If you make three million, you still take home a cr@pload more than us poor suckers who only make two million. I'd be happy to take home an extra five-hundred-odd thousand for every million that's added to my gross (more than five-hundred-odd in the UK; taxes here are higher). The top rate is the same for every penny earned by anyone who goes over the threshold, but the right wing always tries to make it look as if earning more money means that you start paying more than 100% in tax, and actually become poorer if you make more. The fact is that if you take two extra percent away from someone earning 20,000 a year, it hits them a lot harder than someone losing half a percent of his fifth million. Let's not forget how many hard-working people were dropped below the official poverty line during the thatcher years -- but that was OK, because her rich pals all got a load of extra money for nothing, didn't they? And the poor ****ers lower down the scale are the ones who are forced to work hardest and are treated worst by their employers, so don't give me that "all my hard work" cr@p.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Someone earns an extra £100 a year and gets to keep all of it. I earn an extra £100, I get to keep £48 of it. Hardly fair, considering how much tax I am already paying. If there is to be fairness, then tax all at the same level.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]