POLL: Income Tax

[redivider]

Have you considered that the tax on income is an attack on economic and personal liberty? Why not replace the entire income tax code with a simple national sales tax? Consider this: In a truly free country, it is none of the government's business how much the citizen makes, how he/she makes it, or how he/she spends it, as long as the rights of another are not violated in the process.

Your retort is welcomed.

a flat sales tax is an incomplete idea. reason is b/c the percent of the share of income a poor person is likely to spend compared to the percent of their share of income a rich person is likely to spend is proportionately uneven. this would create an effective tax rate that ends up eating a chunk of income from the poor that is disproportionately larger in terms of their total share of income than that of the rich....

PHEW.... see if you can decipher that....lol.....

 

[londonfog]

I think Uncle Buck post #160 and redividers post pretty much covers way we can't do a national or flat rate tax idea..how could you evenly tax someone working at Mcdonalds making 390 a week with someone working as an engineer pulling 1050 a week...if we took out 78 dollars from both checks one worker would be force to pay 20% out of his check while the other would only pay 7.5%...That would not be right for the Mcdonalds guy

 

[sync0s]

I think Uncle Buck post #160 and redividers post pretty much covers way we can't do a national or flat rate tax idea..how could you evenly tax someone working at Mcdonalds making 390 a week with someone working as an engineer pulling 1050 a week...if we took out 78 dollars from both checks one worker would be force to pay 20% out of his check while the other would only pay 7.5%...That would not be right for the Mcdonalds guy

My idea of a flat rate is a flat percentage... don't know if this is the actual concept of a flat rate tax.

 

[redivider]

ok,
you have person A and person B. flat sales tax = 4%.

Person A earns 1,000,000 per year.

person B earns 13,000 per year.

person A spends 600,000 per year before tax. then the total sales tax he paid = 600,000 x .04 = 24,000. 24,000/1,000,000 x 100 = percentage of total income paid in taxes = 2.4%.

person B spends 9,000 per year. Total sales tax he earns = 9,000 x .04 = 360. 360/13,000 x 100 = 2.769 or almost 2.8%.

There’s a name for this principle, which invalidates the whole ‘flat sales tax is REALLY what’s fair’ argument. Forgot what it’s called or who discovered it but the way it works is that the more money you hold, the smaller the percentage of it you end up spending. a person at or below the poverty line spends almost all of their income trying to live. the ultra rich spend proportionately less of their available money. The rest goes unspent and builds up what is known as a family fortune... lol.... The effect is that the hardest hit by this tax policy are the poorest members of society….

 

[londonfog]

Fed buys Treasury debt, Treasury pays interest to Fed, and Fed pays its earnings to Treasury. Shell game?

part of our monetary system...pull this with capitalism and the greed that it also creates.. I would say we better find another way quick or you better find a way to get your pay and weight up so you can play in the game...any suggestions ?????

 

[NoDrama]

ok,
you have person A and person B. flat sales tax = 4%.

Person A earns 1,000,000 per year.

person B earns 13,000 per year.

person A spends 600,000 per year before tax. then the total sales tax he paid = 600,000 x .04 = 24,000. 24,000/1,000,000 x 100 = percentage of total income paid in taxes = 2.4%.

person B spends 9,000 per year. Total sales tax he earns = 9,000 x .04 = 360. 360/13,000 x 100 = 2.769 or almost 2.8%.

There’s a name for this principle, which invalidates the whole ‘flat sales tax is REALLY what’s fair’ argument. Forgot what it’s called or who discovered it but the way it works is that the more money you hold, the smaller the percentage of it you end up spending. a person at or below the poverty line spends almost all of their income trying to live. the ultra rich spend proportionately less of their available money. The rest goes unspent and builds up what is known as a family fortune... lol.... The effect is that the hardest hit by this tax policy are the poorest members of society….

Sync0s is talking about a flat income tax, not a sales tax.

 

[NoDrama]

part of our monetary system...pull this with capitalism and the greed that it also creates.. I would say we better find another way quick or you better find a way to get your pay and weight up so you can play in the game...any suggestions ?????

IMO Tangible assets will be worth far more than paper money within the next 10 years. The best of all would be a profitable business that grows with inflation ;your Laundromat qualifies if its profitable, people always need to wash their shit.

 

[Charlie Ventura]

There is a distinct difference between a flat tax on income and a sales tax on the end of every transaction. With a sales tax, everyone pays when they purchase a NEW item. Used items are not taxed. Therefore, when a rich person buys that new Porsche sedan for $120,000 they pay the sales tax. Conversely, when a person of more modest means buys a used Camery, they are not taxed. Same applies to all goods and services up and down the line. People of low income will get a yearly check to offset the sales taxes on necessities of life. For a comprehensive, detailed look at the F.A.I.R Tax, go here:

http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310932173&sr=1-1

The F.A.I.R. Tax would save over 500 BILLION dollars that the private sector spends every year just to comply with the current tax code. It would take government out of our economic lives and restore economic liberty. Come on all you progressives, you guys are supposed to be for liberty and economic rights, right? So, why are you so stuck in a 1913 Marxist mentality?

 

[londonfog]

do me a favor read my post number #162 and please explain to me how you can make a flat tax fair to all..Show me with numbers..People lie... numbers don't

 

[londonfog]

IMO Tangible assets will be worth far more than paper money within the next 10 years. The best of all would be a profitable business that grows with inflation ;your Laundromat qualifies if its profitable, people always need to wash their shit.

Finally we both can agree on something...Shit I'm throwing a damn party for this

 

[Carthoris]

ok,
you have person A and person B. flat sales tax = 4%.

Person A earns 1,000,000 per year.

person B earns 13,000 per year.

person A spends 600,000 per year before tax. then the total sales tax he paid = 600,000 x .04 = 24,000. 24,000/1,000,000 x 100 = percentage of total income paid in taxes = 2.4%.

person B spends 9,000 per year. Total sales tax he earns = 9,000 x .04 = 360. 360/13,000 x 100 = 2.769 or almost 2.8%.

There’s a name for this principle, which invalidates the whole ‘flat sales tax is REALLY what’s fair’ argument. Forgot what it’s called or who discovered it but the way it works is that the more money you hold, the smaller the percentage of it you end up spending. a person at or below the poverty line spends almost all of their income trying to live. the ultra rich spend proportionately less of their available money. The rest goes unspent and builds up what is known as a family fortune... lol.... The effect is that the hardest hit by this tax policy are the poorest members of society….

The rich don't pay taxes on money they invest into business now. Rich people don't have all their money sitting in a pile somewhere. They invest it. They buy land, they buy businesses, ect. They don't have a pool full of gold that they swim in every day like Scrooge McDuck.(Ducktales). If I am not mistaken they have multiple types of flat taxes. Your argument is the poor gets screwed on a flat tax, but many of the versions I have seen have rebates for the first set amount of income - which helps the very poor and still has a fair tax. I have also seen some which exempt food and other things.

Also, please keep in mind that the income tax is only 33% percent of our countries total intake of money. Why would more ad-valorem taxes be a bad thing? To top it off, If there were less programs to pay for there would be a need for less taxes, and a overall lower tax on the entire populace.


Either way, I fail to see how it could be any worse than our current tax structure. Where people with equal incomes get taxed wildly different depending on a set of laws which is so complicated and full of loopholes that it is almost impossible to navigate for people who don't have lawyers to do it for them.