Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2010, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,222,878 times
Reputation: 2536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
Well if you went to war you would have to have a declaration of war via congress.
Maybe we would be less likely to go to war knowing we need to tax to fund it.
Its 3% anything after that your going to make it difficult of which it should be. War is not easy and so should the funding to make sure its not a endless on and funded for a REASON!


natural disasters are unplanned events use the credit of the US and borrow some money but it wont break the bank if done correctly.
3% stays the same.
Leaving in FICA medicare and SS taxes, does 3% allow us to be revenue neutral?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2010, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,282,893 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
the poor buy more than the rich?????

where???


the poor and rich need shelter

the poor and rich need clothes

the poor and rich need food

the rich buy luxuries on top of that

think of the tax. on those broadway tickets, and the new lexus
But delu and co. believe that the rich live in 700 sqft apartments, cook all their meals themselves, and eat 80% lean ground meat for dinner just like the rest of the folks. Or, maybe "the poor buy more relative to income" is just a cover for another war cry for social justice?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2010, 12:57 PM
 
Location: PA
5,562 posts, read 5,682,859 times
Reputation: 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post
OP,

Sounds like a great plan but I think the tax rate would have to be somewhere around 16-25% to sustain us, not 3%. Isn't this what the "Fair Tax" inititive is all about?
Any new tax policy needs one element to be successful: no exemptions for specific items or behaviors. If the governemtn can use our own taxes to bribe us then we are surrendering a huge amount of power to them. Do this and you won't pay taxes on it. Buy this and you will pay extra taxes. A flat sales tax takes power out of government's hands and returns it to ours, where it belongs.
Maybe even better would be to eliminate Federal taxes completely and simply require the states to pay into a Federal fund based on their percent of the population. Let the states provide most of the services and limit the Federal goverment to only doing a few things like Defense and international relations. That would return power to the sttes as it is supposed to be. Then we would have a truely FEDERAL government and not a NATIONAL one like we seem to have now.

A fair tax is based on a number on incomes and the idea to keep the government going at 16-25 is to high and efffects everyone still at a high rate. We are looking at the GDP on sales of which would increase so high if the income tax was removed remember will most of their paycheck people would spend it. In doing this it creates more revenue for the govenrment and probably more then they have now.
It must be low to promote investment and spending of which money people have in their paychecks. The income tax currently is paying most of the interest on the debt and doesn't really serve a good function. I can not continue to aruge with liberals and conservatives over what the money is for take the 3% and continue as you were either way a balanced budget is needed. Since the govenrment is not interested in controlling its spending the people should spend on what they want and need.

Last edited by LibertyandJusticeforAll; 09-10-2010 at 01:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2010, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,282,893 times
Reputation: 3826
A fair tax also repatriates money. If you can't tax income anymore, the rich have no reason to successfully hide it from the IRS anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2010, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,222,878 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
A fair tax is based on a number on incomes and the idea to keep the government going at 16-25 is to high and efffects everyone still at a high rate. We are looking at the GDP on sales of which would increase so high if the income tax was removed remember will most of their paycheck people would spend it. In doing this it creates more revenue for the govenrment and probably more then they have now.
It must be low to promote investment and spending of which money people have in their paychecks. The income tax currently is paying most of the interest on the debt and does really serve a good function. I can not continue to aruge with liberals and conservatives over what the money is for take the 3% and continue as you were either way a balanced budget is needed. Since the govenrment is not interested in controlling its spending the people should spend on what they want and need.
the fair tax at 23% also includes eliminating SS Medicaid, FICA taxes as well as all federal taxes, including gas. Studies show its revenue neutral.
Is 3% revenue neutral. I like your idea but am not sure how much revenue it will bring to how much we would need to cut to make it work
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2010, 01:04 PM
 
Location: PA
5,562 posts, read 5,682,859 times
Reputation: 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Leaving in FICA medicare and SS taxes, does 3% allow us to be revenue neutral?

Until these systems can be addressed in congress and are seperate to the income tax the 3% must be revenue choice. Not to effect the programs in place only to remove the federal "tax" from paychecks or general personal income tax. Every working person is paying into these systems would remain etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2010, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,222,878 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
Until these systems can be addressed in congress and are seperate to the income tax the 3% must be revenue choice. Not to effect the programs in place only to remove the federal "tax" from paychecks or general personal income tax. Every working person is paying into these systems would remain etc.
So does the 3% eliminate federal income tax?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2010, 01:13 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,154,953 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
If the poor have no money how are they buying more stuff?
Are you serious?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2010, 01:15 PM
 
Location: PA
5,562 posts, read 5,682,859 times
Reputation: 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
the fair tax at 23% also includes eliminating SS Medicaid, FICA taxes as well as all federal taxes, including gas. Studies show its revenue neutral.
Is 3% revenue neutral. I like your idea but am not sure how much revenue it will bring to how much we would need to cut to make it work

SS medicaid, and fica is in most paychecks which would not go away on the federal tax after that. The govenrment doesnt have a balanced budget and they would also have to make adjustments from year to year based on trends of people spending and GDP. Freedom and lowering it to 3% puts the money in the hands of the people but also doesnt destory the peoples purchasing power. The amount of money people will have back in their paycheck week to week will stir the economy and generate more revenue to the people and government. I think the 3% could be higher and or lower but if its higher it effects the economics of everyone which is counter active to the reason to remove the income tax. Someone who would want it higher would destroy the idea of giving people economic freedom and expanding government spending. Our current debt is approaching our GDP which is like 14 trillion that means people are spending alot of money to move the revenue to buying items and not to income taxes. Considering all the loop holes in the tax code, the irs system etc the income tax also seems broken and doesnt allow for collection and revenue correcting in bad and good economic times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2010, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,222,878 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
SS medicaid, and fica is in most paychecks which would not go away on the federal tax after that. The govenrment doesnt have a balanced budget and they would also have to make adjustments from year to year based on trends of people spending and GDP. Freedom and lowering it to 3% puts the money in the hands of the people but also doesnt destory the peoples purchasing power. The amount of money people will have back in their paycheck week to week will stir the economy and generate more revenue to the people and government. I think the 3% could be higher and or lower but if its higher it effects the economics of everyone which is counter active to the reason to remove the income tax. Someone who would want it higher would destroy the idea of giving people economic freedom and expanding government spending. Our current debt is approaching our GDP which is like 14 trillion that means people are spending alot of money to move the revenue to buying items and not to income taxes. Considering all the loop holes in the tax code, the irs system etc the income tax also seems broken and doesnt allow for collection and revenue correcting in bad and good economic times.
so most likey at 3% the country will have to make pretty drastic cuts. I do not have a problem with that. How about capitial gains?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top