Fair Tax...yea, nea, or other

No it isn't silly Who runs the political system? How do you think the 2008 crash happened? It happened because politicians became to cozy with the financial industry and changed laws to suit their needs.

Regarding your crime and law comparison that is precisely why we are moving towards legalizing pot. Lots of people use it and its no worse than alcohol which is legal. According to you we should ban it. How about bringing back those sodomy laws while were at it. Some laws are just stupid.

If you have separate tax rates for different people you are inviting abuse. If everyone paid either a national sales tax or a flat tax then you remove the ability to rig the system because if you want to raise taxes on one group you have to do it for everyone and vice versa.

 

Life ain't that simple. The guy smoking a joint driving without a license may have almost killed someone, the baby rapist might just be a 19 year old kid who "got lucky" with his 17 year old girlfriend.

... law enforcement isn't a video game where you just zap the bad guys. That said, I'm sure there's room to improve and I'm grateful to those who try to make intelligent and effective improvements.




​

 

First, you claim I hate the rich, which is ridiculous. I am rich by most standards.

Second, you don't think money in politics isn't the cause of your quote: "shockingly the rich and wealthy find loopholes or buy enough influence to change the laws to suit their favor." So you don't think the rich will continue to buy influence to change laws in their failure if their tax rate is just lower? It isn't the tax rate that is the problem, it is the money buying influence in politics. Like I said, I already pay a higher tax rate than many of the very wealthy... You think this has stopped them trying to influence politics with their money? That argument makes no sense and is demonstrably wrong.

 

Put a CEO in the middle of the desert in the Sudan and see how he fares without them. Some people are just better at utilizing them than others.

 

Do you even know what a fair tax is? It is a sales tax. Unless the rich manage to get a bill passed that exempts yachts and supercars it is going to effect everyone equally. In fact it will still end up being skewed in favor of the poor because food items are usually exempt from these proposals and poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on food. They also usually include an advance for low income families to put towards the tax although I disagree with that proposal. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Read your own language. You are whining about rich people and complain about people that say rich people create jobs. You sound just like one of those 99% nutters.

 

Some people are better at playing music. Doesn't change the price of guitar strings.




​

 

It is theoretically possible for communities all across America to print up their own local currencies.

These local currencies can play a huge role in taking some of the burden off the federal government for the financing of the social safety net for low income Americans.

"Could a …. State Dollar save the USA Dollar?"
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-could-utah-state-dollar-save-usa-dollar.html

 

Nope just some guy smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home watching cartoon channel, and a guy who lost his license but can't get to work unless he drives himself when the court will not allow him a work permit, but gives one to a public defender who has a bus stop in front of his home and the courthouse he works in. The examples were not riddled with hidden facts, just generic, and harmless when compared to someone who rapes a 6 year old for pleasure.

No life is complicated because people make it that way, unnecessarily.

There is always room for improvement, unfortunately we have politicians, and lawyers, and lawyers who are politicians, tossing a monkey wrench in the works regularly to keep them from happening in a realistic and reasonable manner.

 

So there is no such thing as a fair tax. Especially this 'sales tax scheme' masquerading under the monicker of the word 'fair'. Do you honestly think in this plutocracy if the rich wouldn't benefit more from the inappropriately named fair tax, that they wouldn't have already had their sock puppets in Washington implement it already?


Why is a percentage based on direct income not fair? The argument rich people pay more is irrelevant since they also make more. Anyone who has taken 3rd grade math should know that is a straw-man argument. The way this is irrationally presented implies the more they make the less they make, which couldn't further from the truth. In reality, the more they make the less they pay, percentage wise. That is the facts.

No person of extreme wealth in this country pays the maximum tax commitment, in fact the national average according to most tax returns show that the richest people in the country pay much closer to the half way mark (15-22%) than the max, and many of them pay zero taxes at all. If they are not benefiting from the tax code the way it is written (for the rich) then it is their own fault and they should hire a better accountant.

They actually benefit more, by having more money, not the other way around. "Oh the poor mistreated rich", is such a stupid argument to begin with it defies and sense of logic or common sense.

 

The only two taxes that are as close to fair as you can get are the national sales tax or a flat tax where the income tax rate and the capital gains (investment tax) rates are identical. Something like 10-15% for both of them.

That being said because of politics neither of them will be completely fair because no one is ever going to tax bread and milk with a national sales tax and any flat tax is always going to have some sort of minimum floor where people won't have to pay any. I personally like the income/capital gains flat tax myself but that has about as much chance of passing as me getting into heaven.

Whether you realize it or not you continue to make my point. We currently have a progressive tax structure. This is the structure that liberals say we should have and yet they turn around and complain when the system gets manipulated. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a system designed around exceptions and tons of rules and regulations and one that treats people differently is going to end up being manipulated to serve the interest of one group. If you want as fool proof system as you can get then get a flat tax/capital gains tax and set it at a fixed rate. If the politicians want to raise taxes they have to raise if for EVERYONE.

 

Why is it "fair" in your view to increase taxes on a family struggling to get by on poverty levels of income so you can cut taxes for billionaires so they can get bigger mega-yachts?"

 

As the other guy posted the rich currently pay a lower rate now anyways. The current system is NOT working. Set the income rate and capital gains rate at 15% for everyone and you end those abuses. Although I am opposed to it, any flat tax is going to have a minimum floor built in where no one pays taxes in order to pass. There is literally no argument against flat taxes except to keep the current system which ends up serving the wealthy just fine.

 

If the problem is that the current system is too skewed in favor of the rich, the answer is not to adopt a tax plan that favors them even more.

 

If everyone is paying the same percentage how the heck is that favoring the rich more, you are by definition paying the exact same rate. Right now under the progressive tax system, the tax system that you and your fellow liberals advocate many wealthy people are paying a lower percentage then their middle income counterparts. This is your system. So long as you have loopholes and exceptions and treat people differently people of means will always find a way around it. And don't even try and claim that all we need to do is close the loopholes because both parties have been promising that for decades and very little has actually been done.

 

A family trying to get by on $20,000 already doesn't have enough to cover basic necessities like food, shelter, transportation, health care, and education. Taking away 20% of their income means they are going to do without basic necessities even more.

A guy making $100 million a year who sees his taxes increased to 40% may have to get by with a little smaller mega-yacht, but they are certainly not hurting for basic necessities.

Again, why is it "fair" in your view to increase taxes on a family struggling to get by on poverty levels of income so you can cut taxes for billionaires so they can get bigger mega-yachts?"

What? The tax system that *I* advocate is the current tax system? How did you possible come to that conclusion? You are sorely confused. Please cite any post of mine where I stated that.

I have advocated constantly to eliminate the loopholes and special privileges in our tax code that privilege the richest.

 

The progressive tax when applied to the richest Americans is a myth, it is only progressive on paper. None of the richest Americans pay the maximum, NONE! That is a fairy tale.

Rich people would not pay taxes on those items either. You do realize that right?

Right, that's because they can't pay anything, they have nothing to pay. Until they are productive members of society, they just are not.

So you believe that investments should be taxed, or the earnings from those investments should be taxed? (to be honest, income is income whether it is done with money earned gambling on the stock-market or from actual work/job.) Unfortunately, the rich will never allow it to be treated that way. They have invested decades inventing a tax code that gives them preferential treatment even if there are no results proving that their theories are sound or economically productive for the nation as a whole.

In any case the poor are not manipulating the system to get untaxed bread and milk, the rich/elites use their wealth, power, and influence (things poor people do not have, or the ability to obtain) to get preferential treatment through the tax code where their income either isn't taxed or it is taxed at a lower rate.

On paper, not in reality for those at the top of the financial food chain.

Republicans had absolute control of the government under Bush, and I don't remember them changing/eliminating the tax code, one iota. They changed it though, mostly to benefit the people who didn't need the help. Obviously it isn't just liberals who want that tax code.

Rich/elites. Absolutely. Rich/elites who control the government. They own each and every valid candidate, and if they are not on the payroll they never become valid candidates. If the party can't control them, either party, they will never get the country club nod that is necessary to obtain any of the higher offices in this country. If you don't get the nod, your chances of winning an election just dropped to, 'ain't gonna happen'.

I personally have no problem with a simplified, realistic, flat 'income' tax. I am a strong believer that if all income was taxed at 16%, 6 going to the federal government, and 10% going to the states, all other forms of taxes could/should become unnecessary. Unfortunately you need politicians take their oath seriously. People who are more concerned about eliminating fraud and waste, and not trying to figure out the sneakiest ways of catering to the rich that will allow them to line their own pockets. Government is only as good as the people running it, and if corruption was the goal of government, we by far, have the best government on the planet.

 

You advocate different rates for different income........that is a progressive tax system. That is the very definition of progressive taxation. The problem is that people living off investments have turned it around into a regressive tax system.

As I just said most flat tax proposals have a minimum floor before taxes are paid. If you make less than that amount then you don't pay taxes. I don't like this but to be politically feasible it would have to be included.

You are the one advocating treating people differently, not me. I am the only one being fair here. You want to separate people into classes, I want everyone treated the same under the law.

 

You basically just agreed to everything I said. The current progressive system has been manipulated in favor of those who live on investments. It has actually been made regressive.

Investments are already taxed, its called the capital gains tax. By tying both income and capital gains tax together and making them identical you make everyone, including those who live off of their investments pay equally.

You will never convince me or any sane person that any tax code that allows for exemptions and exception and differences is not going to be changed to suit the needs of one group or another. Whether you soak the rich and destroy the economy like they did in France or go the other way and end up benefitting the rich like they do here in the US you will NEVER have a fair system with anything other than a flat tax.

 

Exactly. So to say that I "advocate" the present system it complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Then they are not truly a "flat" tax where everyone pays the same rate. That is using a deductible so that people making less than the deductible pay a different tax rate. That is not a pure flat tax.

And why don't "flat" tax advocates call for a pure flat tax? Because it is self evident that a true flat tax is not even close to "fair" for reasons I have explained.

How do you figure that under your bastardized "flat" tax a person making less than the deductible, and pays a 0% rate of tax, is being treated the same as someone who makes $200,000, and pays almost the full rate of tax?

Even you cannot defend a system that "treats people the same" because of its inherent unfairness.

No, you recognize that it is unfair to tax people at the same rate. You just do it with a deduction as opposed to increasing rate, though the effect is similar.

The only system that truly "treats people the same" would be one were everyone paid the exact same dollar amount of tax. Which of course no one could defend.

 

Did you fail math? How is paying the exact same dollar amount fair or equitable? I suspect you are losing and know it and are now trying to bring up absolute values as a distraction. If everyone pays the same percentage then it is in fact fair by definition. Everyone is giving up the exact same portion of their wealth as the next guy. You do support the current system because it is a progressive tax system. Anyone with a brain can see that it is impossible to keep that kind of system from being manipulated and abuses. There is a reason that the tax code is big enough to fill a small library and its why people living off investments pay less. You CANNOT have a system with different classes and expect it to not end up being manipulated. Only removing classes entirely and making everyone pay the same percentage with no exception or loopholes at all will remove that. Income and capital gains at 15% and be done with it.

 

Yes we agree, I am just clarifying what we are agreeing too. My first reply was to you defending the so-called 'fair tax, but now you are saying you want a flat tax across the board, so this is confusing. From the last reply, I was just trying to make sure we were agreeing, the only thing I was not sure of is the way you think investments should be taxed.

1. Some people believe if they invest their income, it should be tax exempt, as an initial investment, and only be taxed at a low rate when they pull the money from investments (as the capital gains is set up) to use as income on their personal needs/wants.

2. Some people believe all income should be taxed, and if you decide to invest it is free to be used for that or anything else. So at that point if you lose, your loss, but if you win, all excess earnings should be taxed as you earn it at a lower rate because it is helping the economy. Then it is yours to reinvest or use for personal needs/wants.

Now the way I understand it you want a flat tax and you want investments to be taxed at the same rate as regular income. So you are saying it should be taxed as income first and as a person invests it, if they win, anything they make above the initial investment should be taxed again at the same rate as regular income, and if they lose, oh well their loss? Again just clarifying.

 

Did you fail reading comprehension? Where did I ever claim that paying the exact same dollar amount fair or equitable?

It would, however, be the only true way to "treat everyone the same".

No, I'm pointing out the obvious: Despite your rhetoric, even you can't support a system that "truly treats people the same"

False. That may be your idea of "fair". IMO it is not fair at all for a poverty level family to pay more taxes so billionaires can get bigger mega-yachts, as I've explained.

Fabricating another's position is a sure sign of someone who is losing.

Even you recognize that the current system is not progressive in many ways.

No it's not. Eliminate the loopholes and privileges in the code. They same loopholes and privileges can be put in any tax system, whatever you call it.

So why can't they manipulate that system to give bigger deductions or lower rates on investment income? Or have different taxes for things like FICA. Or have big writes offs for businesses?

 

I don't mind a fair tax I just prefer flat tax because in order to allow for people with low incomes to afford stuff you would need to give them advances. A national sales tax is going going increase prices on a great many things all at once. So either you give people some sort of exemption card or you give them an allowance to compensate for it. To me it seems a bit convoluted. A flat tax would just be simpler to implement and then you would have a floor of the first $15,000 or so not being taxed in order to make it politically feasible. If it were something small like only 1% or 2% sales tax then I wouldn't mind it at all but I have a suspicion that it would be much higher. Cain was advocating a combination of 9% along side other taxes.

Yes, capital gains and flat tax should be at the same rate so that whether you live on actual income from a job or income from investments everyone pays the same portion. Regarding how they do it already as I understand it you are taxed for you income but if you decide to invest it all instead you can delay paying the taxes until it is liquidated. I find this fair as I am against double taxation schemes like estate taxes. The government gets to put their hands in the cookie jar just once and that is all. By making both the same rate you remove any incentive to game the system. The only thing you gain by putting your money into investments is delaying taxes and obviously growing your wealth......or shrinking it depending on the market, but at the same time since its invested you can't use it yourself.

 

No, that is wrong. For example a system that has a 20% tax on incomes less than $100k and a 10% tax on incomes over $100k would have different rates for different income. But that would not be a progressive tax system. It would be a regressive tax system.

 

Well I still prefer the flat tax. But I rarely get my way. I also don't agree with the double taxing but it isn't really double taxing. If you pay taxes on it and invest it, you are not taxed on it again, only the extra income made from the initial investment. The bad part/good part depending on how you look at it, is if you lose it in a bad investment it never gets taxed. The only reason some people want it not taxed until you pull it out is because if you never lose any all the untaxed money stays in the system to be profited from. To be fair, it should be taxed when earned, and the excess/profits drawn out should be taxed above that initial amount.

Again it takes government "employees", who understand and follow their oath of office, and who are held responsible when they don't, not run by corporate sock puppets to work.