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)
 
Old 02-19-2008, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,068 posts, read 10,100,232 times
Reputation: 1651

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by burnt View Post
Um, there will always be lower-income people...


...unless, that is, you want to resort to a completely even redistribution of wealth.

Look, the point of a progressive tax is to keep from taxing the minimum amount of money needed to survive in the United States. Don't tax survival. Tax that which is above the survival threshold.
And under the FairTax, nobody making minimum incomes will pay taxes. Since the FairTax is pro-growth insofar as the country is concerned, then it would be superior to the income tax which is anti-growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2008, 07:39 PM
 
413 posts, read 907,163 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
And under the FairTax, nobody making minimum incomes will pay taxes. Since the FairTax is pro-growth insofar as the country is concerned, then it would be superior to the income tax which is anti-growth.
I was addressing the flat tax.

There are multiple versions of the "Fair Tax." Which version keeps minimum earners from paying taxes? Does it have an exemption on the first $20,000 spent or something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 07:46 PM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,666,886 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by burnt View Post
I was addressing the flat tax.

There are multiple versions of the "Fair Tax." Which version keeps minimum earners from paying taxes? Does it have an exemption on the first $20,000 spent or something?
Go to fairtax.org for all the answers to your questions. There is only one "Fair Tax Plan" in Congress to be debated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2008, 08:26 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,736,903 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac View Post
I don't believe that I said some people don't pay taxes... I may have correctly stated that some people get more in a refund of income taxes due to the EIC tha they paid into it.
Discounting of course, the money they paid into SS... leaving the argument as a partial truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac View Post
Again, that's completely moot. If you are not paying any more for an item under a fair tax plan, it's no worse off than your situation today. If you can't agree to that, I can't sit here and argue with you because you don't make any sense.
Yes you are. You are paying MORE taxes relative to your income than people who make twice, thrice and exponentially more than you. You are worse off. I'm sorry you don't understand this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac View Post
Extending your logic, people should be charged for an item based upon how much they make. Person A who earns five times as much as person B should pay $1.25 for an orange while person B should pay $0.25.
No, the logical extension of my point is that sales taxes are not the way to go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2008, 08:29 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,736,903 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac View Post
According to CATO, it's roughly 5 million people who have opted out of SS.
Whatever. GreatDay asked me to cite figures that I did not have on the top of my head. I'm not going to cite figures that I haven't researched. And whether CATO, a partisan think-tank, has the numbers right or not, it isn't a very relavent considering the population of the US is far greater than 5 million people. (301 million which would make it less than 1% of the population.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2008, 08:31 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,736,903 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by burnt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
My thoughts exactly. Also, we have had a progressive tax forever now. Are the lower income people doing great

Look, the point of a progressive tax is to keep from taxing the minimum amount of money needed to survive in the United States. Don't tax survival. Tax that which is above the survival threshold.
The tax table isn't all that progressive if you add in the costs of social security. (It's actually rather flat.)

But yes, the point is, is that sales tax is a tax on survival.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2008, 08:32 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,736,903 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
And under the FairTax, nobody making minimum incomes will pay taxes. Since the FairTax is pro-growth insofar as the country is concerned, then it would be superior to the income tax which is anti-growth.
Except that people who make far more than the "minimum" are spending virtually every penny of their money on survival.

Taxing survival is regressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2008, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,068 posts, read 10,100,232 times
Reputation: 1651
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
Except that people who make far more than the "minimum" are spending virtually every penny of their money on survival.

Taxing survival is regressive.
There is no tax on people with low incomes.
This chart shows how people under a certain level of income are actually paying negative taxes:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 02:25 PM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,736,903 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
There is no tax on people with low incomes.
This chart shows how people under a certain level of income are actually paying negative taxes:

Your chart goes to $35K. What about the people who make between $50-$75K? They aren't exactly living high on the hog. And if they are living in NYC, San Fran, Seattle, LA, then they are paying EVERY PENNY to rent, food and utilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2008, 03:31 PM
 
372 posts, read 846,641 times
Reputation: 126
Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me, but it looks like that chart goes to 95k and that the intervals are 15k each.

5k, 20k, 35k, 50k, 65k, 80k, 95k
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.

© 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