Why is it that we don't have a FairTax in the USA? Would it work in other countries too?
-
You do pave the roads you drive on..with your dollars you do pay for that. People do try to get around the system, but it appears that now 50% of the people have done this with the governments blessing. I am not sure why I have to foot the bill for the other 50% that are not paying taxes at all. Earned Income Credit...so if you just make babies and more babies until your eggs run out the government will help you with that. How about you don't have any kids or just have one that you can afford and don't expect the government to help out. Be responsible and learn to pay your own way..that is my motto in life. I don't take, I don't expect and I pay in to the system. Why is that so hard for some people?
mindserve wrote:
You do pave the roads you drive on..
I was actually referring to the phyiscal work and gathering material to do so. I mentioned the items I did because our taxes cover the costs of all of those.
mindserve wrote:
How about you don't have any kids or just have one that you can afford and don't expect the government to help out. Be responsible and learn to pay your own way..that is my motto in life.
I agree. I can argue both ways on this. My parents raised 10 children (8 by birth.) My dad could afford it. Never got government assistance. He is extremely good with his money! I have to ask you, do you have children? If not, this isn't an area you should be arguing. I have 3 of my own. My wife has 3 from her previous marriage. It costs money to raise them! If I can get a discount on my taxes by raising them, I'll raise them and take every break I can! I'm not going to have baby after baby for that. I've in places (California) where that is all people did. I agree with you. Be responsible and learn to pay your own way.
mindserve wrote:
I don't take, I don't expect and I pay in to the system. Why is that so hard for some people?
One word...selfishness.
If you know what I mean...and I think you do...
-
mindserve wrote:
How far can this go on until it does collapse.
not forever. but we're not there yet.
mindserve wrote:
Really, this is just my opinion but I don't see how cutting programs or raising taxes will trim 14 trillion dollars.
four things: 1. a deficit is what happens when the govt spends more than it takes in. 2. the govt is taking in less than it did in 2000 because: 2a. the Bush tax cuts reduced the amount govt income relative to the overall economy. 2b. the recession reduced the overall economy. 3. spending went up temporarily due to bailouts and stimulus. what we need to do to get back to the balanced budget that Clinton had is: 1. get out of the recession. 2. return tax levels to where they were previously, probably even a little higher. we are enjoying historically low tax rates right now (especially the rich), but there is abundant evidence that those low rates do not generate employment like tax fetishists claim;businesses are making record profits, CEO salary is at historic levels, but businesses are not hiring. and there is no evidence that the rich will become less productive, or pack up and leave, if rates go higher.
People think we had a balanced budget during the clinton administration but I don't think so. I think the economy was good but only because of the tech bubble that eventually burst. Many of Bush #1's tax breaks went into effect during the Clinton administration. BTW, is a difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt to anyone who is following this thread. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in any particular year, which we are doing now, exponentially. so we have to cut out the freebies and raise taxes. Lets raise it for everyone with a FairTax. The national debt is the total amount the government owes and which is now the ceiling that needs to be raised so we can borrow more money ( from China ? Like we need that). And even if we do this and we will, we are in deep trouble if we cannot bring the deficit down. 14 trillion is an amount that could take decades to bring down if we can. Well, see this video. I am shocked too. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5050407/US-backing-for-world-currency-stuns-markets.html[^]
-
Middle class. That's the middle. What is middle class. Well, rich people are those making $250K or more a year. Poverty level is about 11K a year. Everyone else is in the middle. That's most of America I think. dagnabbit? LOL ! ok, you are playing the devils advocate but dagnabbit? Don't you have to file Schedule A to get the housing or mortgage interest deduction? Most people don't. They don't because the standard deduction for the middle class is usually higher than the interest they pay on the mtg. People in the middle don't have fancy expensive homes. If you have a 401K you are lucky. Not everyone does and not every employer contributes. If you have a job that has health benefits you pay for the insurance out of your paycheck and it's hefty. Big deal , so they take off $158 dollars and then tax you on the balance. You think it helps? It doesn't. Try paying for dental and disability and health insurance and then social security and medicare and federal income tax. I can tell you it's a big hit every week. Then add in a few dollars for charity contributions and you can see how quickly it all adds up.
mindserve wrote:
People in the middle don't have fancy expensive homes.
don't need a fancy home. just need a mortgage. and if your range for "middle" includes people up to $250K, there will definitely be some 'fancy' homes in there.
mindserve wrote:
If you have a 401K you are lucky.
if you can afford to save, and if you don't have a 401k through an employer, there are plenty of other pre-tax retirement plans. IRA, SEP, etc..
mindserve wrote:
If you have a job that has health benefits you pay for the insurance out of your paycheck and it's hefty.
indeed it is. but it's pre-tax. and that's a loophole. want to hear people scream? threaten to take that away :)
mindserve wrote:
You think it helps? It doesn't.
i bet $158 is a lot of money to someone.
-
People think we had a balanced budget during the clinton administration but I don't think so. I think the economy was good but only because of the tech bubble that eventually burst. Many of Bush #1's tax breaks went into effect during the Clinton administration. BTW, is a difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt to anyone who is following this thread. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in any particular year, which we are doing now, exponentially. so we have to cut out the freebies and raise taxes. Lets raise it for everyone with a FairTax. The national debt is the total amount the government owes and which is now the ceiling that needs to be raised so we can borrow more money ( from China ? Like we need that). And even if we do this and we will, we are in deep trouble if we cannot bring the deficit down. 14 trillion is an amount that could take decades to bring down if we can. Well, see this video. I am shocked too. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5050407/US-backing-for-world-currency-stuns-markets.html[^]
mindserve wrote:
. Many of Bush #1's
tax breaks went into effect during the Clinton administration.when i said "Bush tax breaks", i meant Bush Jr.
mindserve wrote:
Lets raise it for everyone with a FairTax.
your definition of "fair" is not universally shared. i don't think it's fair that the 50% of Americans who make $30K or less should be asked to give up 30% of their income just to soothe the delicate feelings of a handful of jackasses who feel put upon because they're suffering with having to pay an effective rate of 18%[^]
-
mindserve wrote:
. Many of Bush #1's
tax breaks went into effect during the Clinton administration.when i said "Bush tax breaks", i meant Bush Jr.
mindserve wrote:
Lets raise it for everyone with a FairTax.
your definition of "fair" is not universally shared. i don't think it's fair that the 50% of Americans who make $30K or less should be asked to give up 30% of their income just to soothe the delicate feelings of a handful of jackasses who feel put upon because they're suffering with having to pay an effective rate of 18%[^]
it's 23% not 30%. Really, a FairTax is the way it should be. If we don't have a FairTax then we will end up with Vat taxes and other taxes. Or the government will have to cut medicare, medicaid and social security. There is no other way out of this. You said yourself we have to raise taxes. On whom? That 50% ? Why don't you ask them if they want to fork over more money to the government every week and lose the EIC and other tax breaks. That's what is going to happen anyway so lets do it now.
-
Not sure how many of you in the USA are familiar with the FairTax movement. Since this is tax day here in the US I thought I would post and bring it to your attention. Especially since many of you are ISV and programmers working for yourselves. The FairTax would mean the elimination of all forms of income tax, including payroll taxes and medicare and Social Security tax. It would be replaced by a consumption tax on new items that are purchased. The only problem I have with this is that food and medicine would be taxed. A prebate would exist for those who earn less than X amount of dollars so they are not burdened with the tax. In my mind it seems to make sense since I can control what I purchase. I don't have to have that expensive new 52 inch tv. I do expect manufacturers to get around the tax by offering discounts on the merchandise, so that the items will still be affordable. That means prices in general will go down unless raw materials go up...ie oil goes up. How many of you know about the FairTax and if you are not in the USA would you think it would work in your own countries.?
Fairtax is a fraud. Check the fine print; they propose taxing everything that can be consumed and I mean everything. If your local city buys something, it will be taxed. If the state buys something, it will be taxed. The prebate thing is also a fraud; the government will remove that ASAP. If you give the government power to tax consumption, you will regret it. Fairtax claimes the IRS would go away. In name only! Someone has to collect these taxes and do audits. Moreover, collecting taxes on consumption is a lot more complicated than it appears and extremely prone to fraud.
mindserve wrote:
I do expect manufacturers to get around the tax by offering discounts on the merchandise, so that the items will still be affordable
No they wouldn't. All prices would go up. Moreover, the manufacturer would be paying tax on their consumption. Massive taxes since manufacturing is really expensive. Or are you going to advocate that the million dollar machine company X buys be excempt? Where does the excemption stop? If I'm a farmer and buy seed, is that taxed? What if it's a type of seed that I can eat? Now what?
-
it's 23% not 30%. Really, a FairTax is the way it should be. If we don't have a FairTax then we will end up with Vat taxes and other taxes. Or the government will have to cut medicare, medicaid and social security. There is no other way out of this. You said yourself we have to raise taxes. On whom? That 50% ? Why don't you ask them if they want to fork over more money to the government every week and lose the EIC and other tax breaks. That's what is going to happen anyway so lets do it now.
mindserve wrote:
Really, a FairTax is the way it should be.
we disagree.
mindserve wrote:
Why don't you ask them if they want to fork over more money to the government every week and lose the EIC and other tax breaks.
i'm sure they would not like that. but perhaps more importantly, eliminating the EITC would not even dent the deficit. the annual cost of the EITC is on the order of a few tens of billions. a lot of money, but a tiny fraction of what we need.
mindserve wrote:
On whom? That 50%
frankly, i think all rates should go up. and i think they should go up even more for the truly wealthy. but let's not pretend that the EITC is responsible for our current situation.
-
mindserve wrote:
it appears that now 50% of the people have done this with the governments blessing
that "50% don't pay anything" line is misleading at best, totally false at worst. that "50%" does pay SS & Medicare taxes. they pay sales, property and gas taxes like everybody else, too. they probably end up paying state income taxes, too. they get a refund on federal income tax. but not on all the other taxes. and, don't forget: the median income (single earner) in the US is under $30K/yr. so they get a break from their fed income tax. big deal. we're not talking about people livin large, here.
One problem with federal tax credits is that if you hit the sweet spot, you don't just zero out your income tax obligation, but can get back more than you paid in. My bigger complaint is the government making the tax code so complex in order to provide these credits. That creates opportunity for a lot of fraud. I have no problem paying taxes, but do have a problem with requiring a computer program to fill out even a simple tax return. I also like the idea that everyone pays some income tax (not just FICA and medicare, which are largely hidden taxes.)
-
Fairtax is a fraud. Check the fine print; they propose taxing everything that can be consumed and I mean everything. If your local city buys something, it will be taxed. If the state buys something, it will be taxed. The prebate thing is also a fraud; the government will remove that ASAP. If you give the government power to tax consumption, you will regret it. Fairtax claimes the IRS would go away. In name only! Someone has to collect these taxes and do audits. Moreover, collecting taxes on consumption is a lot more complicated than it appears and extremely prone to fraud.
mindserve wrote:
I do expect manufacturers to get around the tax by offering discounts on the merchandise, so that the items will still be affordable
No they wouldn't. All prices would go up. Moreover, the manufacturer would be paying tax on their consumption. Massive taxes since manufacturing is really expensive. Or are you going to advocate that the million dollar machine company X buys be excempt? Where does the excemption stop? If I'm a farmer and buy seed, is that taxed? What if it's a type of seed that I can eat? Now what?
Fairtax is not a fraud imo, and some of the top economists support it, not wing nuts. But it does test our normalcy bias. That's not a Glenn Beck thing either, it's a very real human condition. They tax the consumer at the register and it's just a consumption tax which is what state sales taxes are now anyway. If you think raising income taxes is the best way to go then hang on to that idea because they are going to go up quickly and soon and if you think that's the way to go, then enjoy the ride. We can't continue on with our current tax system and something has to be done. I think the FairTax is the way to go even if you don't think that way. So that's my rant and it's good to hear your side of it too but even though I have questions myself about the Fair Tax and concerns I also know once it became law it would not read the way it does now. All things will be considered, including the farmer who buys seed.
-
Fairtax is not a fraud imo, and some of the top economists support it, not wing nuts. But it does test our normalcy bias. That's not a Glenn Beck thing either, it's a very real human condition. They tax the consumer at the register and it's just a consumption tax which is what state sales taxes are now anyway. If you think raising income taxes is the best way to go then hang on to that idea because they are going to go up quickly and soon and if you think that's the way to go, then enjoy the ride. We can't continue on with our current tax system and something has to be done. I think the FairTax is the way to go even if you don't think that way. So that's my rant and it's good to hear your side of it too but even though I have questions myself about the Fair Tax and concerns I also know once it became law it would not read the way it does now. All things will be considered, including the farmer who buys seed.
The solution is to simplify our current tax system and remove loopholes, not build a new system that is even more prone to fraud and cheating. Plus, you don't get it. Fairtax are documented liars. They are going to tax EVERYTHING you consume. This includes every transaction made by or with the government. They have to do this because their current plan won't raise enough revenue. They will also do multiple taxation on items. When you manufacture something, it requires parts and materials that go through multiple buyers; ever purchase will be taxed. This will cause massive inflation. Do you really believe that increasing the cost of EVERY good and service by 20-30% is a good idea? Not only that, but analysis shows that your taxes will likely increase by 200-300%. Are you so willing now? One more thing; I'm almost fifty. I've saved a lot of money. If you suddenly add a consumption tax, I will be double-taxed (I paid taxes on my income and now you're taxing me heavily on my consumption years later.) Moreover, due to the massive coming inflation, my savings projections will go out the window. Last of all, without not only repealing the 16th amendment, but wording the amendment to prohibit ANY form of income tax, we would all get double taxed. (Fairtax is likely unconstitutional, so the constitution would have to be amended--my own belief is that the Fairtax group are simply deceivers who simply want to institute a national sales tax. No thanks.)
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I earn an extra £100, I get to keep £48 of it.
but you already kept 100% of the "extra" money from the bracket that that other "someone" didn't earn enough to break out of. right?
No, I earn over the upper threshold, so pay 40% on that, plus 12% National Insurance, thus losing 52% of any more money I earn.
------------------------------------ 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[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
Dont forget some products are alreay VAT exempt because they are basics.
Not o'er here, lowest VAT is 6%, and that goes for basic stuff. The proposed plan was to abandon the lower rates and put a 19% on everything.
fat_boy wrote:
All that needs to be done to keep the tax fair ist to set the goods that are exempt at a reasonable level. Basic food stufs, medcines, hygene products and so on.
..you might also want to explain how you think that's more fair than the current system. Next, I'd like to see you talk your way out of inflation.
fat_boy wrote:
The rich wont be let off either sicne the products they buy, big cars, boats, big houses, eating out and so on are going to get a big increase in price.
However, because of the self collecting nature of the tax there will be no more tax evasion.
You're certainly not Dutch! You can build a career on tax-evasion here :)
fat_boy wrote:
Its a good system, do the maths, set the figures as required and everyones happy.
Yes, for a while - until the worker notices that the rich man doesn't pay the taxes when buying that yacht - it's simply leased and billed to the wifes' company. ..and that's when the guillotines come out :)
I are Troll :suss:
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
..you might also want to explain how you think that's more fair than the current system. Next, I'd like to see you talk your way out of inflation.
I am not saying its fairer, I am saying its cheaper. One tax, one agency, 95% less paperwork and staff involved. You can see the obvious saving here. As for inflation another idea I have is to have a compulsory payment into a personal pension scheme, owned by you, that cant be taken away. The amount paid is variable, set by the government, and is a way of absorbing excess M3 (money in peoples pockets) that leads to inflation. Current thatcherits, Reganite ecconomics uses interest rates to do thi, but that is stupid because it needs an indebted public.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, for a while - until the worker notices that the rich man doesn't pay the taxes when buying that yacht - it's simply leased and billed to the wifes' company.
Not so, you cant buy the yacht without paying VAT on it. Whether it is a company that buys it or the man himself it makes no difference (because the company could pay the man a dividend, which would be tax exempt under the new scheme). Also paying tax or not is voluntary. If you choose to live frugally, you dont pay tax, if you chose to live luxuriously, you do. How much more fair can you get than that?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
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[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Someone earns an extra £100 a year and gets to keep all of it support himself and his family on less than you have to live on.
I earn an extra £100, I get to keep £48 of it yet another £48 more than the other poor sucker and his family.Dalek Dave wrote:
If there is to be fairness, then tax all at the same level.
Which means that the lower wages will have to rise, to prevent poverty and starvation, so prices will rise dramatically (and disproportionately, because prices greedy w@nkers will always put prices up more than they need to -- because they deserve the extra, free money, obviously), and you will end up paying a lot more for goods and services than you do now. For an accountant and politician, you're pretty piss poor at basic economics.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
No, I earn over the upper threshold, so pay 40% on that, plus 12% National Insurance, thus losing 52% of any more money I earn.
------------------------------------ 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:
losing 52% of any more money I earn
Paying taxes != losing money. Taxes pay for the roads, the schools you send your children to, the soldiers that defend your freedom, the courts that defend your rights, etc. Tax is an investment in society, not a loss.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
losing 52% of any more money I earn
Paying taxes != losing money. Taxes pay for the roads, the schools you send your children to, the soldiers that defend your freedom, the courts that defend your rights, etc. Tax is an investment in society, not a loss.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I have no problem at all with paying for Policemen, Firemen, Doctors and Nurses, Soldiers and the Legal system. I object to BILLIONS being given to countries that have nuclear weapons or space programs, BILLIONS being given to the EU so that they can compete against us, BILLIONS being pissed away on social security whilst there are still job vacancies for the indolent, supine masses. If you like giving to these people, then do so from a charitable standpoint, do not have the money stolen from my pocket to give to those that cannot be arsed to do something to help themselves.
------------------------------------ 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:
Someone earns an extra £100 a year and gets to keep all of it support himself and his family on less than you have to live on.
I earn an extra £100, I get to keep £48 of it yet another £48 more than the other poor sucker and his family.Dalek Dave wrote:
If there is to be fairness, then tax all at the same level.
Which means that the lower wages will have to rise, to prevent poverty and starvation, so prices will rise dramatically (and disproportionately, because prices greedy w@nkers will always put prices up more than they need to -- because they deserve the extra, free money, obviously), and you will end up paying a lot more for goods and services than you do now. For an accountant and politician, you're pretty piss poor at basic economics.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
So if all the business men think it is not worth the effort, who will employ these wonderful magic people at the bottom, the salts of the earth, the generators of so much wealth for the country? Oh yes, no-one. So then who will pay for them? It is cheaper to have them working than doled.
------------------------------------ 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[^]
-
So if all the business men think it is not worth the effort, who will employ these wonderful magic people at the bottom, the salts of the earth, the generators of so much wealth for the country? Oh yes, no-one. So then who will pay for them? It is cheaper to have them working than doled.
------------------------------------ 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[^]
For me, anyone whose credo is "What's mine is mine, and **** everyone else" has no place in civilised society. The right wing should buy their own planet, somewhere else, where they can steal from each other, sh1t on each other, and stab each other in the back to their hearts' content.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
For me, anyone whose credo is "What's mine is mine, and **** everyone else" has no place in civilised society. The right wing should buy their own planet, somewhere else, where they can steal from each other, sh1t on each other, and stab each other in the back to their hearts' content.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Despite your politics, you should still learn to use maths. Employing people is still better for the country than havin them on the dole. Firstly, there is the not paying them the dole and other benefits, secondly there is the direct tax from their salary and thirdly there is the indirect taxation arising from their purchases and provision of others salaries. This more than offsets any small percentage increase in the salary of those who can employ them.
------------------------------------ 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[^]
-
Despite your politics, you should still learn to use maths. Employing people is still better for the country than havin them on the dole. Firstly, there is the not paying them the dole and other benefits, secondly there is the direct tax from their salary and thirdly there is the indirect taxation arising from their purchases and provision of others salaries. This more than offsets any small percentage increase in the salary of those who can employ them.
------------------------------------ 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:
Employing people is still better for the country than havin them on the dole.
So if you pay five million low-paid people 100 more per year, you can almost certainly guarantee that they will spend their money in this country and pay taxes on it, whereas if you instead give all that money in huge amounts to fifty people who are already stinking rich, you can absolutely guarantee that they will hide as much of it as possible from the tax-man, off-shore huge chunks of it, and spend the bulk of it on foreign goods and services. Lots of people buying lots of products is what makes an economy strong. Maintaining huge gaps between the rich and poor, and large numbers of poor, impoverishes not only the ethics and morality of the society, but screws up its economy and makes it a less safe place to live -- the worst crimes are committed by people who have nothing to lose. Of course, you only ever hear the tory side of things, so you probably actually believe the cr@p you're spouting, but that doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it make sense.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Employing people is still better for the country than havin them on the dole.
So if you pay five million low-paid people 100 more per year, you can almost certainly guarantee that they will spend their money in this country and pay taxes on it, whereas if you instead give all that money in huge amounts to fifty people who are already stinking rich, you can absolutely guarantee that they will hide as much of it as possible from the tax-man, off-shore huge chunks of it, and spend the bulk of it on foreign goods and services. Lots of people buying lots of products is what makes an economy strong. Maintaining huge gaps between the rich and poor, and large numbers of poor, impoverishes not only the ethics and morality of the society, but screws up its economy and makes it a less safe place to live -- the worst crimes are committed by people who have nothing to lose. Of course, you only ever hear the tory side of things, so you probably actually believe the cr@p you're spouting, but that doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it make sense.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Without the people employing them, they won't be getting the £100 per year more, will they? Despite what your communist brain-washers have told you, high earners create jobs and wealth. What happens when they are over taxed? Look what happened in the 70's when Labour once more went on the Tax-Theft spree, the brain drain, money moving out of UK, tax take reduced, unemployment, and Britain runs to the IMF. Low taxation is the key to a successful economy. People get their education for free, some work hard, some doss about and act like wankers. It is their choice, so at the end of it some people will earn more and some will earn less. Like all things in life, the harder you work, the more you get. To sit on one's arse and expect society to pay for your wastrel lifestyle is wrong. I wasn't born into money, I had to earn it, but by hard work and dedication I have. If others don't wish to do that, so be it, but why should I pay for it?
------------------------------------ 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[^]