Ok, I'm willing to listen more now. Someone talk about fair tax...

As men, we're the product of our work and the property we buy as a result of that work.

It's reasonable to recognize an amount of general welfare opportunities to maintain a secure country: defense, investigation & justice, and the like.

Currently, there are so many charitable programs and BS, well, it's dumb.

Taxation. Income tax. That's the slave part.

Next, if you save that money, your income is taxed. Corporations are super-taxed, so then their cost, and individual costs go up as a result. Sales tax.

So, one works to buy services and items. Work is taxed. That goes for individuals and corporations. Then sales are taxed. Just continual pulling of work out of the loop for poor ideology.

I can support more open immigration and lower overall taxes, but they would require that almost all of the social programs be scrapped from our governments. Does Paul have a better plan to get that all to happen?

 

During the Republican nomination campaign the candidates were asked if they favored a "flat" tax...Ron Paul responded.."Yes, Zero"

 

How about this: What if there were one tax, and one tax only: a Federal sales tax.

A flat sales tax set at a fixed percentage to be paid by end consumers, collected entirely by a designated Federal agency and then disemminated at the Federal, State and local levels according to whatever needs and formulas were deemed appropriate.

Set up properly, it would be the one tax that wasn't descriminatory. Say the flat tax was 25%. Buying a $10000 Hyundai? That'll be $12,500 to you. A $100k Benz? Cough up $125k, mister. A $1 hotdog? $1.25, please.

No more income tax, property tax, tolls, taxing of money already taxed, loopholes, writeoff's, etc. Abolish the tax code as it stands, forget filing by April 15, and maintain as much or as little wealth as you desire without additional penalties.

Just remember, the flat sales tax would be collected for all goods purchased in the United States - regardless of the buyers income, citizenship, political affiliation, or accumulated wealth.

Logistical concerns aside (including whether the sale of wholesale/supply goods between corporate entities would be included), it would be an entirely fair method of collecting revenue.

 

It would defintely be great for rich people. Think about it.

It would also discourage spending, particularly on big ticket items, like housing and autos.

Let's quickly look at 2 admittedly simplistic scenarios.

How much do you think the average single guy who regularly makes $500k a year "buys"?

Maybe he spends $4000/month on food, $6000/month on household goods/clothes/entertainment and $4000/month on other. He already owns a house and 2 cars. So he'd pay $42k year ($14k/month * .25) in taxes on the big stuff. That's 8 percent.

Let's look at a single guy who makes $72/k year, a guy similar to a lot of people on this BBS. He spends $1500/month on food, $2500/month on household goods/clothes/entertainment and and $1500/month on other. He already has a house and a car. He pays $16500/yr in tax ($5500/mo * .25). That's just less than 25% because middle class people typically spend damn near everything they earn.

Before you get all excited about this flat tax stuff, do the math and figure who will pay (much) less and who will pay more.

 

If flat tax came into effect, high level users of Turbo Tax would never
have a chance to blame the software for its "errors".

 

Federal only?

Fuck no. Sorry. As it is, we pay federal tax on fuel. The feds take it away, and it wasn't theirs in the first place, then they "give it back" based on conditions. 55MPH speed limit, 21YO drinking age, seat belt laws...and right now there is leverage for primary enforcement of seat belt laws.

I know there are some experts on this. Would love to hear from them. Maybe I'm just thinking out loud too much. Making everyone pay is good and moral. The way it is now? Mess.

 

Do you believe that an individual owns his work?

 

And given that you have claimed in the past that you make $250k a year, this would give you more money. Is this bad? Are you morally obligated to the fruit of your work or not?

 

By your math 72k a year guy only has is spending 82,500 with taxes and is living way above his means. And the 500k guy is spending 210,000 with taxes. So make sure your math works before you get excited.

 

Does the morality of liberty allow such things as choice?

 

Currently the middle class doesn't spend everything they earn as the Gov. takes 18-23% of it and spends it before they even get the check on Friday.

Go to a sales tax and the Middle class gets to take that 18-23% home every Friday and then "they" not the "Gov" gets to decide on what to spend it.

 

How can you have a flat tax when there isn't a flat income???

Income varies, and as such, so should the tax, the more you make the more you should get taxed, fairly simple.

There's essentially 2 views to this taxation fiasco. 1 is, tax the poor and middle class, don't tax the rich as much, and they in turn will invest that money in our infrastructure, business, etc etc and thus our economy will profit ... that's how the tax code is now (or during Bush). They (the rich) have not lived up to their end ... there comes the other side ... tax the rich, free up more funds for the middle class, and thereby increasing funds for them to spend.

I'm not an economics major, someone can clear it up, but one is demand side economics the other is supply side.

 

Your not getting it. Currently you are taxed at whatever rate based on your income. You get little to no say in spending that money. Some crooked politician gets to use it to create little programs to buy himself votes for the next round of elections.

Now go to a sales tax where "you" are taxed on what "you wnat to buy as part of your lifestyle. The taxes collected on what "you" choose to buy goes to some government entity for them to spend as they see fit.

Now your hard earned money isn't being spent by anyone other than you on things you want to have. You want to get taxed less then buy fewer things or less expensive things.

It's not about who should pay more or less as much as it is about you getting to decide how much you want to pay.

 

You're looking at it in a curious way. If a person makes twenty thousand or twenty million per year it matters not as to how much total "tax" he pays. If both people buy the same items then they both pay the same amount of tax. Is it better for the rich guy? Obviously, the rich guy can buy more if he wants to, but he gets to pay that same percentage in tax on those other purchases too.

Is it unfair to people that don't make much money? I guess you could look at it in the sense that that person might pay a larger part of his income in taxes, but you can also look at it in the sense that he will pay some income tax where under the present system he pays very little, if any.

I suspect that you're more interested in taxing the wealthy more for no other reason than that they're rich. It's that Robin Hood streak in you that's showing.

 

You might be misunderstanding the proposed system. If a person buys anything then that person will pay "tax" on that item based on whatever the rate is set at. (Say 25%) The wealthy will still pay the bulk of the income tax taken in by the Government since the wealthy will be buying more than the less wealthy. In fact, if a person doesn't want to pay any income tax at all then all he has to do is not purchase anything. Build it, grow it, whatever, don't buy it.

How many poor people do you know that hires people. If we raise taxes too much on the wealthy, just so we can give the less wealthy more to spend, who's going to pay the less wealthy that money that they're going to spend? When the wealthy, (business owners etc.) have their taxes go up that adds to their overhead therefore eliminating jobs. There's a fair way to balance how much tax a person pays so all we have to do is find out how to do that. Presently it isn't fair that so many working people don't pay any income tax at all.

 

The FAIR TAX is the best thing I've ever seen. If you havent read the book, you should.

Not only does it give "poor" people money to cover basic living expenses (called a prebate), it resupplies the Social Security program, AND illegals pay into the system as well.

Think of it like this... would you rather be taxed 30% on what you EARN or 23% of what you spend?

 

Career Politicians HATE this idea, because it takes away the power they lust after.

 

Excuse me?

 

It may be curious, and it is obvously simplistic.

All I'm sayin' is that this thing is getting alot of support from people whose income group is going to take it up the ass with this type of deal.

Even the densest member of the dungeon can see that the very high income types already own just about every big ticket item that they would ever need, and that their overall tax bill (if based on consumption) would be a fraction of what it is now. Right? And if the Top 5% pay less who pays more? Well... most of us do.

A couple questions >
Does this plan tax corporate income?
What about capital gains?
Inheritance?
Would real estate taxes be abolished?

If the answer is "yes" to any of those things, chalk up another dose of tax burden for the middle class.

 

Tonight is the first time I ever heard of that link, and I'm glad you posted it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the proposed changes, imo.

Fair and equitable. That is what our nation should be.