JPR
Green Belt
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 123
- Reaction score
- 7
I came across this website www.fairtax.org . Read the research area. Do you think this would work?
JPR
JPR
Fair Tax?
- Thread starter JPR
- Start date
Flatlander
Grandmaster
I don't understand this, from the website:
-US export companies now would no longer need to build in the cost of their taxation in order to attain a specific profit margin...but do they not need to build in the increased cost of goods, materials, and supplies used due to sales tax increases?
-Given that the end result should be that the Government generates an equal amount of revenue under each tax regime, and this plan touts lowered income tax burdens for business, where does the offsetting revenue come from? If a business previously spent "X" on income taxes, they must now spend "X" on sales taxes under the new regime, otherwise the burden is being shifted to the consumers. So either the burden is shifted to consumers, or business spends the same amount on tax either way. If business spends the same either way, what's the point of changing the way taxes are paid?
Ok, so
-US export companies now would no longer need to build in the cost of their taxation in order to attain a specific profit margin...but do they not need to build in the increased cost of goods, materials, and supplies used due to sales tax increases?
-Given that the end result should be that the Government generates an equal amount of revenue under each tax regime, and this plan touts lowered income tax burdens for business, where does the offsetting revenue come from? If a business previously spent "X" on income taxes, they must now spend "X" on sales taxes under the new regime, otherwise the burden is being shifted to the consumers. So either the burden is shifted to consumers, or business spends the same amount on tax either way. If business spends the same either way, what's the point of changing the way taxes are paid?
T
TonyM.
Guest
No. I absolutely do not think that tax plan would be fair or a good idea.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Places 100% of the burden of taxation on citizens.
Corporations have many of the same rights as citizens, but are exempt from taxation under this plan.
All rights and privleges but no taxes ... gee, I wonder who wrote this bill? Do you think it might be Corporations? Naaa .. that would be cynical.
Corporations have many of the same rights as citizens, but are exempt from taxation under this plan.
All rights and privleges but no taxes ... gee, I wonder who wrote this bill? Do you think it might be Corporations? Naaa .. that would be cynical.
Xequat
Black Belt
See, I think this is the only truly fair way to tax. Although, in some ways, it makes sense to tax the rich more, it really isn't fair by definition, because fair is synonymous with equal.
If you tax goods and services, then the rich will pay more taxes because they will pay for more goods and services. Also, if you have a consumption tax like this, then the rich will have no loopholes which will allow them not to pay as much as they probably should. Also, if all taxes come from consumption of goods and services, then the corporations will not have to pay to hire accountants and tax lawyers to figure out their finances. They will pay their taxes when they buy their goods for production, as I see it.
Government spending would drop, too because there would be no need for the IRS, really.
Come to think of it, taxing business is unfair. It's double taxatin, which the Constitution is strongly against. Think about it...corporations are run by citizens. Citizens pay taxes on their income, but the profits from business go to citizens in paychecks or shareholders dividends or whatever. If you tax a business, then again tax the take-home pay from the business then goes to the citizens, you are taxing the same money twice.
A consumption tax would do away with all of the loopholes an complications of our current tax system in a fair and consistent way. I know that some political extremists maintain an "eat the rich" mentality, and I wish I were rich enough to be affected by it, but this is a truly fair and efficient way of taxing.
If you tax goods and services, then the rich will pay more taxes because they will pay for more goods and services. Also, if you have a consumption tax like this, then the rich will have no loopholes which will allow them not to pay as much as they probably should. Also, if all taxes come from consumption of goods and services, then the corporations will not have to pay to hire accountants and tax lawyers to figure out their finances. They will pay their taxes when they buy their goods for production, as I see it.
Government spending would drop, too because there would be no need for the IRS, really.
Come to think of it, taxing business is unfair. It's double taxatin, which the Constitution is strongly against. Think about it...corporations are run by citizens. Citizens pay taxes on their income, but the profits from business go to citizens in paychecks or shareholders dividends or whatever. If you tax a business, then again tax the take-home pay from the business then goes to the citizens, you are taxing the same money twice.
A consumption tax would do away with all of the loopholes an complications of our current tax system in a fair and consistent way. I know that some political extremists maintain an "eat the rich" mentality, and I wish I were rich enough to be affected by it, but this is a truly fair and efficient way of taxing.
A
AaronLucia
Guest
How about we just drop taxes all together? 
Xequat
Black Belt
Hehe, that's a better idea.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
When discussing this thread ... try changing the word 'TAX' to 'SERVICE'.
You know, if we weren't spending more than a BILLION DOLLARS A DAY on the military, we might be able to cut some taxes a bit .... how about that ?
You know, if we weren't spending more than a BILLION DOLLARS A DAY on the military, we might be able to cut some taxes a bit .... how about that ?
Xequat
Black Belt
Well, michaeledward, the only thing worse than being the police of the world is having a world with no police. We have the capability to make the world a better place and therefore we have some responsibilty to do so.
Whatever we are currently spending on military is worth it because we are keeping the bad guys there and not here. Besides, the $300 tax cut Bush gave everyone was a good start and by doing that, he improved the economy. That 300 went back into people's pockets, increasing demand for products, thus increasing jobs. Besides that, let's look at what Kerry wants to do. Cut military spending AND reverse the Bush tax cuts. Think of how much money we'd spend on reconstruction and how much we'd lose in consumer confidence, not to mention foreigh countries' US investments if the terrorists spent more time in the US and less time in the Middle East because we cut military spending.
I'm actually quite moderate...I'd vote for Lieberman over most Republicans. But in this election, the military and the economy are too important to vote for Kerry.
Whatever we are currently spending on military is worth it because we are keeping the bad guys there and not here. Besides, the $300 tax cut Bush gave everyone was a good start and by doing that, he improved the economy. That 300 went back into people's pockets, increasing demand for products, thus increasing jobs. Besides that, let's look at what Kerry wants to do. Cut military spending AND reverse the Bush tax cuts. Think of how much money we'd spend on reconstruction and how much we'd lose in consumer confidence, not to mention foreigh countries' US investments if the terrorists spent more time in the US and less time in the Middle East because we cut military spending.
I'm actually quite moderate...I'd vote for Lieberman over most Republicans. But in this election, the military and the economy are too important to vote for Kerry.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I think that most conservatives would have a serious dispute with you about whether the United States has a responsibility to make the world a better place.Xequat said:
I think we have a moral obligation to not make the world a worse place, but even I, don't think we have a responsibility.
There is absolutely no evidence that this statement is true. Certainly, we know that there are 'bad guys' over there, fighting to protect their homeland, but we really don't know if this is keeping any bad guys out of our country or not. We can assume that because there have been no attacks since 9/11 that what we are doing is working ... but that is almost like assuming that Saddam Hussein has 'massive stockpiles' of chemical and biological weapons, and therefore starting a war with Iraq to 'disarm' the country. The truth has turned out to be that we really didn't know. And now we have 979 dead US Service men. (Not to mention 16,000 dead Iraqi's, (how many of these were innocent bystanders?)Xequat said:
I am assuming you are referring to the 400 dollar per child tax credit the President & Congress distrubuted. First, it did not go to everyone, it went to those with children. Second, there is very little evidence that this had any impact in the economy at all. I know the check I received ($800.00)is sitting in a savings account.Xequat said:
Wow .. here you are just travelling in Fantasy land.Xequat said:
John Kerry has proposed expanding the U.S. Military Active Duty Forces by 40,000.
John Kerry has proposed doubling the U.S. Military Special Forces Capability.
John Kerry has proposed increasing the tax cuts to 'middle Americans', those making less than $200,000.00 per year.
John Kerry has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those Americans who have an income greater than $200,000.00 per year (does this affect you?)
In case you have't noticed, consumer confidence is already suffering quite a bit.
But again, you are assuming that terrorist are unable to make any attacks in this country. I propose this is a falacy. Since September 11, 2001, the numbers of deaths by terrorism is rising. Bali, Russia. There are too many uncertainties.
You apparently haven't read any of Kerry's proposals ... which kind of doesn't surprise me .... but perhaps you should.Xequat said:
Mike
Xequat
Black Belt
*sigh* Well, now we are way off topic for this thread...sorry about that. But here we go again.
First, what was World War II about? Vengence for Pearl Harbor? Hardly...it was to stop tyranny in Europe and Asia. I think most Americans would agree that if we can make the world better, we should. Hussein killed a ridiculous number of people, so we took him out. Yes, oil money may have been involved, but we can not sit back and watch tyrants go crazy. Iraq and Afghanistan had extra purposes, like money and bin Laden, but the end results of removing the Taliban and Hussein was just and good. I don't care what most conservvatives OR most liberals think of what I said, because like I said, I'm pretty much in the middle.
Wow, you're right there is no proof that we are keeping them there and not here. Except maybe the fact that there have been several attempts here, but none successful since 9/11. But there's no proof the other way, either. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if anything blows up here any time soon. Obviously, we aren't keeping them all over there because of Clinton's intelligence failings and Bush's immigration policy is pathetic in an attempt to cater to the Mexican voters. But the thing is, it's easier now to keep them there than it is to get the ones that are already here out. Does out military endeavor do it? I think marginally, but like you said, there's no way to prove it either way until something happens.
No, I was referring to the $300 check I got in the mail. All tax cuts in the history of tax cuts have been good. Probably every tax cut to come in the future will be good. Kerry voted against an 87 billion dollar bill to fund the troops with gear. That is what I meant by spending less on the military. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I mean, sure, now he's making all kinds of promises about expanding the military. He's also the same guy that said he'd create 10 million new jobs in his first term Since unemployment is 5.5%, he would bring unemployment to what? 2%? Never.
Yes, rolling back tax cuts on the rich affects me because ALL tax cuts affect EVERYONE. If the rich pay more in taxes, then they will spend less on goods and services. It's really quite simple. And no, I haven't noticed that consumer confidence is lacking. I might have been told that by someone in the media or a left-wing campaign commercial, but it was on the rise every month between April and August, where it dropped again. But for you to say that it is suffering "quite a bit" is hyperbole.
I obviously have read some of Kerry's proposals and some are good, others are ridiculous. You assume a lot, like that I haven't read his stuff and that everything negative you hear about the current situation is true. I'm not asking you to read up on anything; I'm asking people to think.
Every thing you listed is a separate debate, but...if Kerry doubles the special forces, then the special forces won't be so special anymore, heh.
First, what was World War II about? Vengence for Pearl Harbor? Hardly...it was to stop tyranny in Europe and Asia. I think most Americans would agree that if we can make the world better, we should. Hussein killed a ridiculous number of people, so we took him out. Yes, oil money may have been involved, but we can not sit back and watch tyrants go crazy. Iraq and Afghanistan had extra purposes, like money and bin Laden, but the end results of removing the Taliban and Hussein was just and good. I don't care what most conservvatives OR most liberals think of what I said, because like I said, I'm pretty much in the middle.
Wow, you're right there is no proof that we are keeping them there and not here. Except maybe the fact that there have been several attempts here, but none successful since 9/11. But there's no proof the other way, either. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if anything blows up here any time soon. Obviously, we aren't keeping them all over there because of Clinton's intelligence failings and Bush's immigration policy is pathetic in an attempt to cater to the Mexican voters. But the thing is, it's easier now to keep them there than it is to get the ones that are already here out. Does out military endeavor do it? I think marginally, but like you said, there's no way to prove it either way until something happens.
No, I was referring to the $300 check I got in the mail. All tax cuts in the history of tax cuts have been good. Probably every tax cut to come in the future will be good. Kerry voted against an 87 billion dollar bill to fund the troops with gear. That is what I meant by spending less on the military. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I mean, sure, now he's making all kinds of promises about expanding the military. He's also the same guy that said he'd create 10 million new jobs in his first term Since unemployment is 5.5%, he would bring unemployment to what? 2%? Never.
Yes, rolling back tax cuts on the rich affects me because ALL tax cuts affect EVERYONE. If the rich pay more in taxes, then they will spend less on goods and services. It's really quite simple. And no, I haven't noticed that consumer confidence is lacking. I might have been told that by someone in the media or a left-wing campaign commercial, but it was on the rise every month between April and August, where it dropped again. But for you to say that it is suffering "quite a bit" is hyperbole.
I obviously have read some of Kerry's proposals and some are good, others are ridiculous. You assume a lot, like that I haven't read his stuff and that everything negative you hear about the current situation is true. I'm not asking you to read up on anything; I'm asking people to think.
Every thing you listed is a separate debate, but...if Kerry doubles the special forces, then the special forces won't be so special anymore, heh.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
OK ... who is the next 'tyrant' that you think 'most Americans' would be pleased if we deposed because the world would be a better place?Xequat said:
Please tell me, what terrorists attempts have been made in this country in the last three years that were thwarted? Can you name any, other than Richard Reid? Can you show me evidence that we have done anything?
Stating that 'All Tax Cuts Are Good' means that you think the government shouldn't collect any taxes, therefore, should have any services, such as, the military which you think we should deploy around the world deposing 'tyrants' because 'most Americans' think we should make the world a better place. Can you exlain this dichotomy to me?
Senator Kerry's vote on the much mentioned 87 Billion dollars was actually two separate line items rolled into one bill. There was 67 Billion dollars to fund U.S. Military action, and 20 Billion dollars to fund Iraqi reconstruction. The Reconstruction funds did not have appropriate oversight (which is, after all, the Congress's responsibility). Many forget, that President Bush threatened to Veto a Senate amended bill for the 87 Billion Dollars because the Senate was trying to responsibly pay for some of this money by withholding one of your 'always good' tax cuts from millionaires.
Concerning Kerry and job creation ... just look at the last Democrat's numbers ... it is completely possible to create 10 million jobs in a term. And, while the Bush Administration has lost over 1 million jobs, why hasn't the unemployement rate gone up? ... the two numbers are not connected.
Can someone with military experience please explain to Xequat that special forces are special because there are a limited number of them. They are special because they receive training in a different skill set.
Good Grief. Mike
Xequat
Black Belt
The next tyrant? I don't know. I never claimed to know. But we'll know when he presents himself and since no other country in the world other than Israel (who's not exactly innocent themselves) and England seem to want to do anything about it, it's going to be up to US again. We saw Hitler come into power and we stopped him. We also watched Pol Pot in Cambodia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq kill their own people. Now we're doing something about it. I don't want to go out and start waging wars for the heck of it...I have too many friends in the military. And I never said that I wanted to or even implied it any way. Who's next? I don't know...but if we have Bush in power, then they had better be worried.
Off the top of my head, I know a few weeks back that they stopped some terrorists in Columbus, OH from blowing up a shopping mall. They didn't say which one. And why doesn't Richard Reid count?
I have to laugh at this one. Um, I said tax cuts are good, not tax elimination. There is no dichotomy. This whole thread is about a fair tax, which I have already supported, not a zero tax. I know that you are smarter than that and you know that I am too, so please stop insulting my intelligence and that of the people reading this thread. Seriously, you come to this thread with this condescending attitude and I haven't insulted you once that I know of until now. Let's keep it civil and maybe one of us can say something that might change our point of view. I have strong opinions about many things, but I'm open to the possibilty that I might be wrong about some of them. I just feel that terrorism has gone on for so long and nobody has ever gone on the offensive until now. It's time to try something new.
As for the above, I did not know how complicated the 87billion dollar bill was; I concede you that point. You are right, the Republicans are as shady with numbers as the Democrats and everyone else who has ever run...they make them say what they want said. I see your point.
Here's a good site I found...factcheck.com. It looks at political ads from both sides and points out the BS in each...Rep and Dem equally. Heh, it kinda makes me lose respect for them all.
Anyway, I brought up the 10 million jobs because I thought it was pretty widely accepted as a joke, ie a typical BS politician's campaign promise (not that Bush hasn't made any as well). Bush's unemployment rate is currently 5.5. I believe that Clinton's best was 5.4. A lot of jobs were lost as a result of the 9/11 attacks and technology. Yes, maybe a million jobs were lost, but that number isn't completely accurate because I've heard that it doesn't include people who started their own businesses, etc. I don't know if the unemployment number includes them or not. Figures lie and liars figure, heh. The thing is, we have about 300million Americans. 10 million jobs means 3.3 percent improvement, right? And that's assuming that all 300 million can work, which is obviously not true. There is absolutely, positively, no way that anyone but God could get the unemployment rate that low.
I was joking about the special force, Mike. Just trying to keep the discussion a little lighter. Get it? They're not so special if there are twice as many. It's a joke. If you want to discuss some of those other points, I'd start another thread, LOL, this one's already off the topic of consumption taxes.
Off the top of my head, I know a few weeks back that they stopped some terrorists in Columbus, OH from blowing up a shopping mall. They didn't say which one. And why doesn't Richard Reid count?
I have to laugh at this one. Um, I said tax cuts are good, not tax elimination. There is no dichotomy. This whole thread is about a fair tax, which I have already supported, not a zero tax. I know that you are smarter than that and you know that I am too, so please stop insulting my intelligence and that of the people reading this thread. Seriously, you come to this thread with this condescending attitude and I haven't insulted you once that I know of until now. Let's keep it civil and maybe one of us can say something that might change our point of view. I have strong opinions about many things, but I'm open to the possibilty that I might be wrong about some of them. I just feel that terrorism has gone on for so long and nobody has ever gone on the offensive until now. It's time to try something new.
As for the above, I did not know how complicated the 87billion dollar bill was; I concede you that point. You are right, the Republicans are as shady with numbers as the Democrats and everyone else who has ever run...they make them say what they want said. I see your point.
Here's a good site I found...factcheck.com. It looks at political ads from both sides and points out the BS in each...Rep and Dem equally. Heh, it kinda makes me lose respect for them all.
Anyway, I brought up the 10 million jobs because I thought it was pretty widely accepted as a joke, ie a typical BS politician's campaign promise (not that Bush hasn't made any as well). Bush's unemployment rate is currently 5.5. I believe that Clinton's best was 5.4. A lot of jobs were lost as a result of the 9/11 attacks and technology. Yes, maybe a million jobs were lost, but that number isn't completely accurate because I've heard that it doesn't include people who started their own businesses, etc. I don't know if the unemployment number includes them or not. Figures lie and liars figure, heh. The thing is, we have about 300million Americans. 10 million jobs means 3.3 percent improvement, right? And that's assuming that all 300 million can work, which is obviously not true. There is absolutely, positively, no way that anyone but God could get the unemployment rate that low.
I was joking about the special force, Mike. Just trying to keep the discussion a little lighter. Get it? They're not so special if there are twice as many. It's a joke. If you want to discuss some of those other points, I'd start another thread, LOL, this one's already off the topic of consumption taxes.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Attempting to stay on topic of taxes'
Riddle me this ... the dividend tax cut.
I earn $50,000.00 per year in dividends from stock that I inherited. How much tax do I pay?
I earn $50,000.00 per year as wages as a trash pickup man for my town. How much tax do I pay?
Which contributes more to society? Who needs a tax break more?
Following the logic of this statement, you are proposing tax elimination. That may not be what you meant, but it is what you said.Xequat said:
While tax policies do, in fact, dictate behavior, I would demand some evidence that the rich spend all of their earnings on goods and services. In order for repeal of the tax cut on the rich to to negatively affect everyone, you need to show a correlation between the two. Of course, you are arguing two arguments in this quote .... Kerry's tax rollback on those earning more than 200 grand a year .. and the flat tax. So we can let this slide.Xequat said:
Riddle me this ... the dividend tax cut.
I earn $50,000.00 per year in dividends from stock that I inherited. How much tax do I pay?
I earn $50,000.00 per year as wages as a trash pickup man for my town. How much tax do I pay?
Which contributes more to society? Who needs a tax break more?
Xequat
Black Belt
Are you serious? I said tax cuts are good. I understand, and you know that I do, that the government needs money somehow to function. Taxes are it. I am not in any way proposing tax elimination, I am smiply stating that low taxes are good. Where does it say that I want to eliminate taxes? I said that probably all tax cuts in the furute will be good becuase everyone knows that they will not be cut to zero. I don't know how I could have been clearer.
You actually need some evidence to see that the rich spend their money on goods and services? What else would they do with it? How about every H2 and Lexus you see on the road. Of course they don't spend all of their money because most can afford to save some just in case. But they certainly spend more that I do because they obviously have more to spend.
OK, let's bring it back to the subject of flat tax. I don't care if you get 50K from an inheritance, your garbage collecting salary or selling crap on ebay. If there is a flat tax, everyone would pay the same 22 percent or whatever the number is. Who contributes more to society? Well, that depends on if the guy with the 50K in dividends has other income from, say his company which collects trash and hires a bunch of other people. Who cares who contributes more? That's why it's called a fair tax. With a consumption tax, we could eliminate taxes altogether for food and maybe non-name-brand clothing or something so that the people who can only afford necessities get a huge tax break while the rest of us pay for a little more luxury. Since it's based on a percentage, then the richer will pay more because they will spend 30K on a car where a middle-class person might spend 15K. Twice the car = twice the tax. Who needs a tax break more? The little guy. And he'd get it with a consumption tax.
You actually need some evidence to see that the rich spend their money on goods and services? What else would they do with it? How about every H2 and Lexus you see on the road. Of course they don't spend all of their money because most can afford to save some just in case. But they certainly spend more that I do because they obviously have more to spend.
OK, let's bring it back to the subject of flat tax. I don't care if you get 50K from an inheritance, your garbage collecting salary or selling crap on ebay. If there is a flat tax, everyone would pay the same 22 percent or whatever the number is. Who contributes more to society? Well, that depends on if the guy with the 50K in dividends has other income from, say his company which collects trash and hires a bunch of other people. Who cares who contributes more? That's why it's called a fair tax. With a consumption tax, we could eliminate taxes altogether for food and maybe non-name-brand clothing or something so that the people who can only afford necessities get a huge tax break while the rest of us pay for a little more luxury. Since it's based on a percentage, then the richer will pay more because they will spend 30K on a car where a middle-class person might spend 15K. Twice the car = twice the tax. Who needs a tax break more? The little guy. And he'd get it with a consumption tax.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Yes, I am absolutely serious. As you well know, I can't point to where you said you want to 'eliminate all taxes'; which is why I said 'following the logic of your statement'.
I don't know anything about what 'everyone knows', and how this thread has become a discussion between you and I, we need to deal with what we know, and what we are saying. Regardless, I do not accept the premise that 'everyone knows that taxes will not be cut to zero'. If you examine the proposals of the Bush administration, you will se that they have attempted to cut the taxes on some sectors of income to zero. Sure, they called it a 'dividend' tax, or a 'death' tax. But if you get rid of the name and the argument, the rate they are proposing is ZERO. So, how does 'everyone know' that zero is unrealistic?
Speaking of Hummer H2 vehicles on the road. Are you aware that small business owners (dentists, realtors, etc) were granted a new cap on Rule 179 tax cuts. This means that small business owners could 'write off' the entire purchase price of that vehicle (provided the vehicle is over 6,000 pounds GVWR). Again, a tax cut .... follow this.
I have a business in which I am the sole proprietor. For this business, I need a vehicle to transport clients. Over the course of the year, I earn let's say $72,000.00. I purchase a $62,000.00 Chevrolet Suburban. I write off, using IRS Rule 179 the 62k purchase price from my 72k income. For the year, I earned 10,000 dollars in my business. Want to guess how much tax I pay for the year ... ZERO.
So please, tell me again .... Why do you think 'everyone knows' the tax rate won't go to zero. As long as 'they' keep you distracted, you may not realize the rich cats are already getting their taxes cut to zero.
Now, to answer my question, which you choose not to.
Compare these two individuals:
http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/single/
I don't know anything about what 'everyone knows', and how this thread has become a discussion between you and I, we need to deal with what we know, and what we are saying. Regardless, I do not accept the premise that 'everyone knows that taxes will not be cut to zero'. If you examine the proposals of the Bush administration, you will se that they have attempted to cut the taxes on some sectors of income to zero. Sure, they called it a 'dividend' tax, or a 'death' tax. But if you get rid of the name and the argument, the rate they are proposing is ZERO. So, how does 'everyone know' that zero is unrealistic?
Speaking of Hummer H2 vehicles on the road. Are you aware that small business owners (dentists, realtors, etc) were granted a new cap on Rule 179 tax cuts. This means that small business owners could 'write off' the entire purchase price of that vehicle (provided the vehicle is over 6,000 pounds GVWR). Again, a tax cut .... follow this.
I have a business in which I am the sole proprietor. For this business, I need a vehicle to transport clients. Over the course of the year, I earn let's say $72,000.00. I purchase a $62,000.00 Chevrolet Suburban. I write off, using IRS Rule 179 the 62k purchase price from my 72k income. For the year, I earned 10,000 dollars in my business. Want to guess how much tax I pay for the year ... ZERO.
So please, tell me again .... Why do you think 'everyone knows' the tax rate won't go to zero. As long as 'they' keep you distracted, you may not realize the rich cats are already getting their taxes cut to zero.
Now, to answer my question, which you choose not to.
If I earn 50,000 in dividends, currently, I would pay 15% in taxes.
Assuming there are no deductions or tax shelters the tax would total = $7,124.50
If I earn 50,000 in wages, currently, I would pay 27% in taxes.
Assuming there are no deductions or tax shelters the tax would total = $7,915.00
These numbers work out this way because the first $26,250 dollars in both cases requires $3637.50 in taxes. But the person with wealth (stock) pays less taxes on the remaining $23,250.
http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/single/
Now .. to your argument about the little guy paying less tax on consumption .... you are working from the assumption that all dollars are created equal. While this seems logical, you have to be rich to understand that they aren't.Assuming there are no deductions or tax shelters the tax would total = $7,124.50
If I earn 50,000 in wages, currently, I would pay 27% in taxes.
Assuming there are no deductions or tax shelters the tax would total = $7,915.00
These numbers work out this way because the first $26,250 dollars in both cases requires $3637.50 in taxes. But the person with wealth (stock) pays less taxes on the remaining $23,250.
http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/single/
Compare these two individuals:
Person A has a bank account balance of 10,000,000.00.
Person B does not have a bank account balance but earns 50,000 per year.
Both people buy a car for $30,000.00. Both pay the same tax.
For this discussion let's say 10% or $3,000.00 consuption tax.
How much does this tax affect each?
Person A, 3,000 is how much of 10,000,000? = 0.0003
That's 3 one thousandths of their wealth. That's right ZERO point ZERO ZERO ZERO THREE. (There's that pesky zero percent tax again)
Person B, 3,000 is how much of his 50,000 per year? 0.06
This is 6 tenths of their wealth.
So, person B is effectively paying 200 % more in taxes (as a percentage of their dollars) in taxes than person A.
Surely, you can see that not all 3,000 dollar tax burdens are created equal.Person B does not have a bank account balance but earns 50,000 per year.
Both people buy a car for $30,000.00. Both pay the same tax.
For this discussion let's say 10% or $3,000.00 consuption tax.
How much does this tax affect each?
Person A, 3,000 is how much of 10,000,000? = 0.0003
That's 3 one thousandths of their wealth. That's right ZERO point ZERO ZERO ZERO THREE. (There's that pesky zero percent tax again)
Person B, 3,000 is how much of his 50,000 per year? 0.06
This is 6 tenths of their wealth.
So, person B is effectively paying 200 % more in taxes (as a percentage of their dollars) in taxes than person A.
http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/single/
G
Gary Crawford
Guest
I don't this consumption tax will ever fly because it would have an adverse effect on consumer spending which is the heart of our econemy.It is a good thing to discuss it though.In depth discussion on the tax U.S. tax code(which has five times as many words as the Bible) helps point out how flawed and unfair it is.I personally like the flat tax idea,but that one will never make it either.Here is why-The current system is a graduated system which relies mostly on the top 50% wage earners(96.03% of all federal taxes) and rewards the lowest incomes with little to no tax to A big check every years due to Earned Income Credit.I flat tax or a consuption tax would hurt the lowest to middle class because everyone would pay the same rate.There has been discussion about making the consumption tax progressive,but that would create another BIG buerocracy like the one we are tying to get rid of.I think it's humerous that some of the same people who complain about the current tax cut's "on the rich"(people forget that those uf us who have children of all income levels benifit from a higher child tax credit) are some of the same people who think the consumption tax would be a good idea.
Xequat
Black Belt
Unbelievable. Why do you insist on trying to convice me that I said something I didn't? Just becuase some particular types of taxes are eliminated on certain things does not mean that I want to eliminate taxation. I'm sorry, Mike, but your "logic" does not follow. Your reasoning is one big logical fallacy. I said that all tax cuts are good. That is because it puts more money into the economy. I never said that that we should eliminate all of them. It's really quite simple.
"If you get rid of the name and the argument, the rate they are proposing is ZERO." Wow. If you get rid of the name and the argument? If you do that, then you are completely manipulating the argument to make it seems like something it isn't. Convenient. The fact is, the dividend tax is on money that has already been taxed. That's the point. Why should I pay taxes once on what I earn and then have my children pay taxes on it again when I leave it to them in an inheritance. What's funny is, with a consumption tax, it would all get taxed anyway when it is spent. Same argument for the H2. The guy that pays zero percent tax on the H2 would not be able to find any tax loopholes or writeoffs (lkike I've already said a few times); therefore, the people who are getting away with not paying certain taxes would not be able to do so. It makes things fair. With a consumption tax, there would be no rule 179 or even rule 1-178. Everyong would pay their taxes as they consume goods and services. It makes the system more efficient. It cuts government costs for the IRS. The only way a person could pay ZERO tax is if they don't buy anything at all. Ever. Won't happen.
"Everyone knows," including you, the the tax code won't go to zero because we need taxes to operate the government. Simple.
"Now, to answer my question which you choose not to." I did answer it. Scroll up. You are pointing out my exact reasons for the consumption tax! If a person with dividends pays only 15% and another regular person pays 27% on their income, that is entirely not fair. That's the point. A consumption tax would equal the amount paid. I'm talking about making the sytem fair and you are using the fact that it is unfair, favoring the rich, to argue against it. Talk about logic.
And finally, the same argument still applies to you last math homework assignment. Yes, $3000 is a higher percentage of the income of the little guy than the millionaire. But do you think that this will be the only purchase either of them ever makes? The millionaire will buy a 30K car and the little guy will buy one for 15K. I've already explained this, but this thread is getting hard to follow. Twice the car = twice the tax. If that were the only purchase either person made, then I would agree with you, but the millionaire will probably buy a 2 million dollar house, while the other guy buys a 200K house. On that item, the millionare pays ten times the tax. This millionaire might eat at a super nice steak house for dinner and spend $100 on wine and desserts, while the little guy spends $10 on McDonald's. Again, ten times the cost = ten times the tax.
The reason that this probably won't come to be is that the tax system is so complicated with rules. It's easy for the government to tax you and you not even notice unless you pay close attention. Death taxes, business taxes, etc...there's a bunch of taxes on money that's already been taxed. It's a good idea, but the government seems to like things the way they are.
"If you get rid of the name and the argument, the rate they are proposing is ZERO." Wow. If you get rid of the name and the argument? If you do that, then you are completely manipulating the argument to make it seems like something it isn't. Convenient. The fact is, the dividend tax is on money that has already been taxed. That's the point. Why should I pay taxes once on what I earn and then have my children pay taxes on it again when I leave it to them in an inheritance. What's funny is, with a consumption tax, it would all get taxed anyway when it is spent. Same argument for the H2. The guy that pays zero percent tax on the H2 would not be able to find any tax loopholes or writeoffs (lkike I've already said a few times); therefore, the people who are getting away with not paying certain taxes would not be able to do so. It makes things fair. With a consumption tax, there would be no rule 179 or even rule 1-178. Everyong would pay their taxes as they consume goods and services. It makes the system more efficient. It cuts government costs for the IRS. The only way a person could pay ZERO tax is if they don't buy anything at all. Ever. Won't happen.
"Everyone knows," including you, the the tax code won't go to zero because we need taxes to operate the government. Simple.
"Now, to answer my question which you choose not to." I did answer it. Scroll up. You are pointing out my exact reasons for the consumption tax! If a person with dividends pays only 15% and another regular person pays 27% on their income, that is entirely not fair. That's the point. A consumption tax would equal the amount paid. I'm talking about making the sytem fair and you are using the fact that it is unfair, favoring the rich, to argue against it. Talk about logic.
And finally, the same argument still applies to you last math homework assignment. Yes, $3000 is a higher percentage of the income of the little guy than the millionaire. But do you think that this will be the only purchase either of them ever makes? The millionaire will buy a 30K car and the little guy will buy one for 15K. I've already explained this, but this thread is getting hard to follow. Twice the car = twice the tax. If that were the only purchase either person made, then I would agree with you, but the millionaire will probably buy a 2 million dollar house, while the other guy buys a 200K house. On that item, the millionare pays ten times the tax. This millionaire might eat at a super nice steak house for dinner and spend $100 on wine and desserts, while the little guy spends $10 on McDonald's. Again, ten times the cost = ten times the tax.
The reason that this probably won't come to be is that the tax system is so complicated with rules. It's easy for the government to tax you and you not even notice unless you pay close attention. Death taxes, business taxes, etc...there's a bunch of taxes on money that's already been taxed. It's a good idea, but the government seems to like things the way they are.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I don't propose to offer any figures or rational arguments, because mr. Edwards tried that, and they appear to be a waste of time. So...
1. Americans pay less of their income in taxes than the citizens of any other industrialized country.
2. There seems to be no evidence whatsoever that cutting taxes on the wealthy, and their corporations, has any "trickle down," effect whatsoever...arguments for this are the same old thing that the first President Bush referred to, back in the 1980s, as, "voodoo economics."
3. The current President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy may very well have accelerated the pace of job export, the corporatization of family farms, etc., which is what's happening anyway.
4. People who claim to be, "in the middle," never are in the middle of any real political spectrum; they're simply trying to identify their positions with complete rationality and common sense, when in fact their positions reflect the ideological outlook of the upper middle class/WASPs.
5. The current tax cuts have left the country over 500 billion in debt--it's estimated that this will reach 1 trillion in the next four years (these, incidentally, are the Bush admin's own figures). Quite a swing, considering the balanced budget and paydown of the Debt under Clinton's last four years. Quite confusing, given the "financial conservatism," of the Republican Party. It seems likely that this debt will be used, soon enough, as an excuse to "privatize," (for which, read: "Turn over to groups like Enron and others in tight with me or my buddies") Social Security.
6. Mr. Edwards, I believe, was quite correct: consumption taxes such as a national VAT are regressive taxes (check England under Thatcher), and the logical end of the argument for them is to abolish all taxes on corporations.
7. The real point of what Bush is doing is to "liberate," corporations. It's advanced capitalism, Jake. That's what it does. It has nothing to do with--it has no interest in--helping the majority of people, or helping the American economy, or helping the country, or any of the other smoke-and-mirrors slogans often heard in these regards. It's about setting capitalism free. Marx, in many ways if not all, knew exactly what he was talking about.
8. Facts and reason and history and evidence will have no effect whatsoever on apologists for the development of advanced capitalism. Oh wait, there is the one effect: they create anger and abuse.
1. Americans pay less of their income in taxes than the citizens of any other industrialized country.
2. There seems to be no evidence whatsoever that cutting taxes on the wealthy, and their corporations, has any "trickle down," effect whatsoever...arguments for this are the same old thing that the first President Bush referred to, back in the 1980s, as, "voodoo economics."
3. The current President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy may very well have accelerated the pace of job export, the corporatization of family farms, etc., which is what's happening anyway.
4. People who claim to be, "in the middle," never are in the middle of any real political spectrum; they're simply trying to identify their positions with complete rationality and common sense, when in fact their positions reflect the ideological outlook of the upper middle class/WASPs.
5. The current tax cuts have left the country over 500 billion in debt--it's estimated that this will reach 1 trillion in the next four years (these, incidentally, are the Bush admin's own figures). Quite a swing, considering the balanced budget and paydown of the Debt under Clinton's last four years. Quite confusing, given the "financial conservatism," of the Republican Party. It seems likely that this debt will be used, soon enough, as an excuse to "privatize," (for which, read: "Turn over to groups like Enron and others in tight with me or my buddies") Social Security.
6. Mr. Edwards, I believe, was quite correct: consumption taxes such as a national VAT are regressive taxes (check England under Thatcher), and the logical end of the argument for them is to abolish all taxes on corporations.
7. The real point of what Bush is doing is to "liberate," corporations. It's advanced capitalism, Jake. That's what it does. It has nothing to do with--it has no interest in--helping the majority of people, or helping the American economy, or helping the country, or any of the other smoke-and-mirrors slogans often heard in these regards. It's about setting capitalism free. Marx, in many ways if not all, knew exactly what he was talking about.
8. Facts and reason and history and evidence will have no effect whatsoever on apologists for the development of advanced capitalism. Oh wait, there is the one effect: they create anger and abuse.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Robert, thank you.rmcrobertson said:
Xequat .... you have made up your mind concerning consumption tax and shut down your ability to reason about tax policy. This is sad. Please tell me what taxes should not be cut, so that the Government is still able to function?
Similar threads
