Fair Tax...yea, nea, or other

If the financial sector's gains were to be subjected to the same tax rates of say, manufacturers' capital gains, the tax rate needed to balance the budget would be in the single digits, actually.

 

Re the thread title, well, gee, who could argue against 'fair taxes'? Nobody really. They can however argue strenuously against the last dozen or so bills that have 'Fair Tax' in their titles, since they are anything but 'fair', and are merely vehicles for fraud and shifting the tax burden entirely on low income working people for the most part, and not even remotely 'fair tax' bills. Only an idiot would call them 'Fair Tax' bills, or of course blatant liars; considering those naming these bills are political hacks, it's probably the latter.

 

Gambling on a rigged system and winning is not 'putting' something into the economy, especially if there is nothing to be lost if you lose from time to time. It isn't so much about the winners as it is about the system being rigged to insure a preferred demographic never loses, and generalizing doesn't help distinguish the cronyism that is taking place, if anything it only enables it's success.

 

You're starting with the assumption that some system is rigged (setup). I'm not sure what you mean by that. An economy is the net result of people in some group trading value for value. It's less a system than a consequence.

Our system is the idea that some of the things that exist in this country are privately owned. They're not America's, they're yours or mine. That seems fair to me.

We limit how folks can acquire those things. We say you can own what you're freely given by the owner of those things, in trade or charity, and you can own what you build yourself. That seems fair to me.

We are each responsible for determining the fairness of any trades we choose to participate in. If one of those trades wasn't done according to the terms agreed upon by the participants there is legal recourse — which should be exercised. That also seems fair.



​

 

If possible, I'd prefer a system that had many taxes which were low. A low income tax, a low sales tax, a low corporate tax, a low estate tax, etc. etc., but the problem is that once you've got them, it's pretty hard to stop the politicians from raising them above a desirable low rate.

 

There is no assumption, it is reality.

Yes and the country's current economic situation "IS" the consequences of corruption.

Why do I feel like I'm in a conversation with a super villain, just before the final climax, as he sets the clock in motion on the bomb strapped to my ass?

That is the theory, unfortunately it isn't the truth. In reality the government, the people's government, is not the people's government. This government, all three branches of it, is the best government wealth, influence, and power can buy. Wealth and influence equate power, and it can buy influence, preferential treatment, and even justice is for sale to the highest bidder, with little to no deterrent or legitimate consequences. That my friend is neither right or fair.​

 

The problem is the corporate owned politicians who run the show for a small minority of rich/elitists, and the rest who either ignore their oath or just don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about it.

 

I've come to really think most taxes that a "simplified" by focusing on only one things are a bad idea. Our current policy is to put taxes everywhere. There are a huge number of them. This makes them both hard to avoid and they don't punish any single thing to excess.

When you put all that on one item behavior just gets weird. The idea is that a 30% or so sales tax rate on top of the state sales tax rate will work out. However I think that's more going to alter people's behavior. People will buy used. People will make much greater use of craiglist and online trasactions that don't tend to charge a sales tax. People will prefer to take their vacations abroad so their money goes further. People will repair instead of buying new. And of course there will be plenty of less than legal transactions to avoid it.

Besides some of those being bad for the economy in general directly, what they all mean is that there will be a massive shortfall in tax dollars compared to if people had the exact same spending patterns as before. Jacking up the sales tax rate to try and meet the shortfall only makes the problem worse and the behaviors increasingly bizzarre.

 

You're welcome to assume what ever you like about reality. If you'd like others to accept your assumption you might need to demonstrate it. ... and I can't speak to why you feel a certain way about your ass.

But you have hit on an unfairness. Doing something for someone else can influence that person to prefer you. Fairness means without bias. It's not fair that Bob likes you better than me, whatever the reason. By definition.

Bob's prohibited from letting that bias get into our government, our system. If you see examples to the contrary you're welcome to exercise the legal recourse that exists to deal with that. Our system tries very hard to not let that unfairness become part of our system. And it's the job of the partners, of which you are one, to police the system.

But when it comes to the free choices Bob can make in his personal life ... who he takes to dinner, who he decides to work with, who he gives a holiday gift to, who he chooses to play basketball with or invest in ... he's not obliged to be fair. Those aren't choices our system regulates, the decisions in his personal life are not part of our system. And life my friend, is not fair.



​

 

You are in denial. The world doesn't work like that. Did you read the article about the bankers who plead guilty to manipulating the market? They made tens/hundreds of billion dollars, in fraud schemes that have gone on for near a decade and they are just fined an extremely small percentage of what they stole.

Nobody held accountable, nobody going to jail.

The way things are supposed to be and the way they are, doesn't fit your scenario.

 

The person who put something into the economy and extracted IOUs as an individual is already a false premise. That one person represents lots of other human beings, who are doing the work, making the goods or supplying the services, and this is where the disparity in income raises its head. For the one person you referenced is showing a bias towards the idea that these single people are lone wolves, putting into the economy all by their lonesome. What they have done, their contribution in those IOUs, was supplying the money to get the operation going. For this, they demand a share of that pie, that can make themselves well off, or even rich, which is great, no problem with that at all. But when these owners are keeping more of those IOUs as they will not pay the creators of the IOUs a living wage, then income disparity becomes a problem. It grows welfare spending, and the solution is not to cut welfare spending so not as to subsidize corporations, but to force them to pay a living wage. If they cannot do that and stay in business, then they go out, and the vacuum created by the loss of the business, will create another business, who will then pay living wages, for the demand will pay the price needed to supply living wages. Then only the unemployed poor will need welfare. So the disparity in income has great effect upon a society. And they are all negative effects. We should not invite them by allowing the disparity to remain where it is. It makes for a sick society. And we are looking to be real sick.

 

Your point is somebody did something contrary to the system and therefore the system is bad? ... not sure I agree with your logic, but I'd agree what those folks did is a problem. What's your solution to this problem?





​

 

They probably do need to be 'punished' by this country because they couldn't have done it anywhere else.

 

I disagree. When a man shows up for work, he trades the value of his work for value he expects to receive -- according to his employment agreement. It's presumptuous to assume he's doing that on behalf of others or that others have some right to what he earned by that trade.




​

 

As long as bribery is not illegal politicians will take them and those with bucks will offer them in profusion, just to name one factor. Citizens United lifted the ceilings so that assorted subterfuges aren't even necessary to get around the few weak and unenforced restrictions there were on it any more.​

 

Pretty sure it is.



​

 

No, it isn't; 'campaign contributions', junkets, speaking fees, jobs for relatives and their kids, insider trading perks, and other creative pastimes abound.

 

You entire argument is moot because the problems you complain about are a direct result of a progressive tax system. You demand that people with different income levels pay different amounts then you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and whine when shockingly the rich and wealthy find loopholes or buy enough influence to change the laws to suit their favor. If you want a progressive tax system then don't complain about people with means finding ways around it or manipulating it to suit their needs. A fair tax is the only way to ensure that everyone pays including the rich that you hate so much.

 

I would not want a consumption or flat tax system entirely. Create a line in the sand, like our current poverty line is, and have a lower tax rate set for that bracket and then, as FreshAir said, anything beyond that is taxed at the same rate no matter what your income.

It's not just about having an income or "paying your fair share", it's about making sure we're not taxing people out of the very money they need to make ends meet. That's why progressive systems are inherently better, because they are focused on what really matters, that being that people aren't giving away a larger chunk of their limited income just so that people who will never have to worry about affording their food, clothing, and housing can pay a little less.

Lets keep in mind that many of those people at the bottom of the bracket working for peanuts are what allow those people at the tops of the bracket to be at the tops of the bracket. If fair wages were paid and profits were shared with their workers, many of those rich folks wouldn't be as rich as they are and many of their workers would end up net tax payers too instead of having to supplement their meager incomes with tax breaks and credits.

- - - Updated - - -

That's completely silly. We need to close those loopholes and punish those people who dodge their taxes, not get rid of the tax system because they don't like it.

Is giving into those willing to scam the system how you would deal with, say, crime? Should we give in to criminals too because they won't follow the law?

 

Any tax that hurts anyone is a bad idea. I support less to no income taxation, so that all people have more to spend, which will help the economy when they're buying things. Sales tax is okay because it's optional, unlike income tax.

 

Campaign contributions aren't bribes. Bribes are illegal. It's not illegal to contribute to a political campaign. I agree we should consider more regulation of campaign contributions.




​

 

Maybe but not at a flat rate. I would want luxury taxes placed on big-ticket items, value added taxes, and tax or fee on stock transfer as well as part of the mix. I am not sure how some services could be taxed--say a medical bill in which diferent people end up paying different amounts for the same service.

 

Lot's of somebodies. The system is only bad if people like this are allowed to get away with it, and get away with it they did, and will again in the not so distant future. It's like having somebody rob a gas station of $500.00 and making them pay back $65.00 with no jail time attached. It is blatant organized crime, and should treated as such. Not only should the banks pay but every one of their executives should be treated like anyone participating in organized crime. But it won't happen, because the system has been compromised, and it isn't just an isolated incident, it is continuous because there isn't actual punishment, just bumps in the road, that essentially deter nothing.

 

I don't want a system that is so rigidly structured it's not even possible for someone to commit a crime. I don't want one so brutally enforced that no one can get away with a crime. Pretty sure you don't either. I'd rather a system lets some folks go, because the trade off would be punishing some folks who aren't guilty. I think the system we have is ok.

If we're failing to use the system we already have, that's another issue. That doesn't mean the system is broken. It means we're not doing our job in applying it. And you and I might agree on that one.

Your idea of applying the R.I.C.O act to explore organized crime might not be a bad one, provided we are talking about a crime. And if you give me some specific examples of the fraud you're worried about, you might even find I agree that there is room for improvement or addition to some of the applicable laws that define a crime in these situations.




​

 

IMO in any system people are going to get away with criminal activity, but when caught they should always be held accountable and held to the same standard. It doesn't make sense for someone smoking a joint/driving without a license, to do harder time than a baby rapist, or someone who physically abuses or assaults someone. It also doesn't make sense for pillars of the community to get off scot-free. Everybody should be treated the same, justice is supposed to be blind, not bias and subjective.

I do believe in punishment as in loss of freedom and time, but I believe part of the process is about rehabilitation. Would rather see more libraries and less TV, or weight machines in prison. Somewhere along the way our prisons have become a place to become a better criminal not a productive member of society.

If it is not applied appropriately due to a manipulation by those who's responsibility is to assure its success, it can't be anything but broken. The theory is still sound, it appears we both agree with that, it just isn't being applied properly or appropriately.

Fraud, confidence schemes, and blatant cons are all crimes since they are a more sophisticated form of theft. When you have corrupt entities like banks or governments involved how can it be anything but organized, planned, or arranged. There is obviously intent and foresight, and it is done with use of authority that is not supposed to be abused, as trust/honor are expected with that authority.

The legal definition of fraud; “any deceit, artifice, trick, or design involving direct and active operation of the mind, used to circumvent and cheat another--something said, done, or omitted with the design of perpetrating what is known to be a cheat or deception.”

Pretty much anything that falls in that description, especially when large amounts of money/wealth is involved, to cheat someone out of something or to enrich themselves by knowingly breaking the law, should be considered organized criminal activity. Do you have an example where this type of fraud should be acceptable? Surely you don't believe in the belief, it isn't what you steal but who you steal it from?