wmw999 2,589 #26 January 6, 2006 I'm OK with some progressive nature, for exactly the reasons that hopefully come across in my post. It's harder to get up the stairs if you have short legs than if you have long legs, even if the stairs are exactly the same size. That's life, to some extent. But when we place such a value on being able to live comfortably, not recognizing that does give the impression of making it relatively harder for poorer people. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #27 January 6, 2006 I could see big problems with this. The question being will gifts and swaps be taxed? The Schedule D, C, B, F source earners of today will be able to swap their manufactured goods services and products among each other in private trade rings defeating taxation while the W2 (Paycheck earners) crowd will not be able to since they only provide work as a product. The expense and manning of watching the other-than-W2 crowd's Account Cycle would be as much, if not more, than the cost of the IRS today. edit: Maybe might not be really big at all as corporation to sole-proprietor exchange would not fall into this easily._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dan_iv 0 #28 January 6, 2006 that's laughable... like you can't go to the local flea market and buy goods and services tax free today? there are plenty of people working for cash under the table today as well... meaning people that are legal and pay taxes and pickup side cash jobs, as well as those that get picked up in the morning from a contractor who doesn't give a shit about employing non legal workers... EDIT: i've kinda got a hair up my arse right now, i think it's time for a beer... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #29 January 6, 2006 Quotethat's laughable... like you can't go to the local flea market and buy goods and services tax free today? there are plenty of people working for cash under the table today as well... meaning people that are legal and pay taxes and pickup side cash jobs, as well as those that get picked up in the morning from a contractor who doesn't give a shit about employing non legal workers... EDIT: i've kinda got a hair up my arse right now, i think it's time for a beer... Not laughable, situational. People work for cash under the table and pick up illegals because it is one way to circumvent the system as it currently is. If the system changes, the ways we circumvent it will also change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #30 January 6, 2006 Quote there are plenty of people working for cash under the table today as well... meaning people that are legal and pay taxes and pickup side cash jobs, as well as those that get picked up in the morning from a contractor who doesn't give a shit about employing non legal workers... You're right. except now it wouldn't be under the table anymore because of no income tax. It would be legal (and a hell lot more of it) if there's no rules restricting "trading" and "gifting". Quotei've kinda got a hair up my arse right now, i think it's time for a beer.. Beer-thirty already? Lucky you. I've got another five hours._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #31 January 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote[so don't attack me but feel free to attack the ideas.... (Arther Dent?) You're a wanker. A real knee biter. (makes a check on a clipboard and goes back to his ship) I am not sure if i understand you? you are angry at me for wanting to hear peoples opions? Thats a little ridiculous don't you think? [Hint: it's a quote from a very famous book ... he's just messin with ya] This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #32 January 7, 2006 It's their money, they may spend it as they desire. I personally support saving. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #33 January 7, 2006 QuoteIt's their money, they may spend it as they desire. I personally support saving. When you make very little, saving is not an option unless you want to save to death. Personally though, I favor a flat tax.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #34 January 7, 2006 >It's their money, they may spend it as they desire. I personally support saving. I agree! Thus, the rich will be taxed at a considerably lower percentage than the poor. And although the well-off might consider this a good thing, it results in a very non-flat tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #35 January 7, 2006 Quotehttp://www.fairtax.org/ QuoteSimply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary “consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes. It's simple. Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes. It's simple. i'm just quoting ... don't know what it's really about It would be easy to fear that such a tax would drive consumer spending down through the earth, with resulting skyrocketing unemployment. Why the idea of a simplified tax code, with a FLAT, FAIR PERCENTAGE of income taxed, is not preferable to a "who-knows-what'll-happen-if-we-try-this" idea like this proposal is beyond me. Who here believes that the GNP and unemployment rates would not suffer harm if people were taxed more heavily the more they bought consumer goods? If people stopped indulging in a new car every five years because they'd be taxed more than if they waited til their car was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, how could you not believe that auto manufacturing companies would start closing down jobs and plants MORE than they've done already?? I thought of this, and I am by NO means an economist, nor am I even interested much in the subject. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #36 January 7, 2006 "Fair Tax" is a misnomer. When it comes to taxes, fairness lies in the eye of the beholder, there is no objective definition. Giving a proposal such a name strongly suggests that the proposers are being "fair" only to the benefit of themselves or their cronies. Thus I oppose any proposal labeling itself "Fair Tax", regardless of the details.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #37 January 7, 2006 Quote "Fair Tax" is a misnomer. When it comes to taxes, fairness lies in the eye of the beholder, there is no objective definition. That's why some say "gun control" means " 'sensible laws' like banning handguns and 'assault weapons,' " and I say it's "hitting your target." -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #38 January 7, 2006 Bill, your grasp of the spending patterns of the rich truly astounds me. I think you're 180 out from reality on that. Some rich people live frugally - most do not. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #39 January 7, 2006 I've been doing the math here on my diamond-and-ruby-studded Louis Vuitton calculator, and danged if the Anvil isn't right! -Jeffrey edit: How did I spell "calculator" wrong?!-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #40 January 7, 2006 QuoteI also feel there should be an estate tax In many states, there is. I know people who live on investments. The corporation makes a profit, pays taxes, then pays dividends. The dividends are then income, and someone pays taxes again. Then, if the person saved the dividends and passes them on as an estate, they get taxed again. The savings penalty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #41 January 7, 2006 QuoteBill, your grasp of the spending patterns of the rich truly astounds me. I think you're 180 out from reality on that. Some rich people live frugally - most do not. So you recon rich people spend a larger percentage of their annual income than poor people do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
druvaughn 0 #42 January 7, 2006 The book is a remarkably easy read -- written for "everyone" to be able to understand. I got through it in a few hours. All of the issues that are being addressed in this thread are answered in the book. 1) Basic necessities such as food and household goods aren't taxed (living below the poverty line) 2) taxes are only levied on first time purchases (if you never buy new items you will never have to pay tax -- if that is the road you choose, best of luck) 3) an objective is to get more people to save money (from the rich to the poor) -- we want Warren Buffet to put more money in the bank as well as bring vast sums of money back into the US from offshore accounts -- money in the banks spurs investment... I could try to go on, but the book does a much better job. Personally, I think it could work out great, as long as there aren't "special exceptions" made for people.- - "Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #43 January 7, 2006 I don't really care, truth be told. I would say they spend roughly the same. Perhaps a bit less with the difference made up by % income invested. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #44 January 8, 2006 Not entierly related to this thread but I just read in Consumer Reports that the average savings rate for Americans was -1.5% (Yes, negetive 1.5%) Scaryillegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #45 January 8, 2006 Yeah, dude, that is scary as hell. I think I heard the average credit card debt per household was about US$8K. I really think our borrowing as a nation is scary as hell. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #46 January 8, 2006 What does the book say about the loss of govt income this would cause? Wil the taxes be a lot more on goods than they are now? What about goods or services bought on the internet from other countries? I get a feeling with this new way of taxing. There seems to be a huge hole in the plot. Seems like this is the "Atkins Diet" of tax codes. A fad developed with a motive that is not helpful to taxation itself._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #47 January 8, 2006 >Perhaps a bit less with the difference made up by % income invested. So you agree with me? But I'm 180 degrees out from reality? Does that mean you are 180 degrees out from reality as well? I'm so confused! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #48 January 8, 2006 QuoteDoes that mean you are 180 degrees out from reality as well? I'm so confused! This thread has caused me to do a complete 360 from what I was thinking before about taxation! . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #49 January 8, 2006 I don't know the specifics of this "Fair Tax" proposal, but it sounds like it's simply a flat tax on consumption. QuoteThe fair tax will disproportionately penalize people who have to spend a larger percentage of their income simply to survive. A flat tax can address the issues you raise very easily, in several different ways. For example, you could exempt "essential" goods and services (defined however you like, but for example food and housing), either altogether or up to a certain amount. Or you could allow people with an income below a certain level to receive tax exemptions (for example, you could hand out "food stamp" type vouchers that allowed you to purchase tax free essentials). Alternately, you could allow everyone to make subsistence level "essential" purchases in a tax free manner (so, everyone would get the "tax exemption vouchers" good for not paying taxes on their first $25,000 per year of "essential" stuff, or exempting $10,000 worth of food, $10,000 worth of housing and $5,000 worth of gas, or whatever else you decided was "essential.") You could even adjust the basket of "essential" services, depending on your personal views, to include (or not) things like child care, education, or skydives.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #50 January 9, 2006 QuoteQuote An exemption on the First x thousand dollars of income or spending makes a progressive rate tax structure by definition. Only if you assume that all people are going to spend every dollar they make. In reality, they will not. This is a horribly regressive tax structure. Percentage wise, as your income increases the percentage of it you will pay in tax decreases. Wendy's example was a good one. People who would be able would drastically change their spending habits under that system. I know I would. I've always pitched this structure (big exemption up front, constant rate above that point) against income tax, not sales tax. Your point is well put in terms of sales tax. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
