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.
No Clinton did not, but lets not let facts stand in your way, it would turn into some big long 836 page thread about how Clinton pretended to have a surplus again..
You don't need any pages. You could just look it up. The surpluses are plainly shown in every budget reference there is.
Speaking of that mortgage, all of the interest arising from the portion of a rate that is above the yield of 10-year Treasuries (closed today at 3.57%) will be subject to the 30% Fair Tax as purchases of new financial services. Could put quite a hit onto anyone who has almost everything hocked to the hilt...
Thinking back to that very good thread discussion we had a year or so ago, primarily with Brian.Pearson and AmazingJohn, I recall that rental and utilities payments were subject to the tax too.
I'm always glad to see someone try to propose new ideas pgh. My problem with your example is that it has an exaggerated tax effect by expanding the taxable income within the year. I think it would result in many investors staggering their payouts/withdrawals, to game the system.
A fixed deductible discourages this behavior, it provides no advantage to game the timing of income.
If an investor delays their taxable rate a few years, it actually increases their tax liability because profits compound and therefore it would expand them into a higher tax bracket..
And yes, the example is a litle exaggerated because it was just thrown together, we'll have sag come along and give us a CBO projection on the results and correct the figures..
You don't need any pages. You could just look it up. The surpluses are plainly shown in every budget reference there is.
You only get a surplus if you compare the spending as a percentage of the GDP, in real dollars its a deficit. But you of course know that just by looking at the deficit numbers which continued to increase through the Clinton term, even during the pretend surplus years..
btw, if I see my tax revamp proposal in front of Congress, I EXPECT the bill to be named after me I dont want some hairbrain Congress member claiming it as their own..
Speaking of that mortgage, all of the interest arising from the portion of a rate that is above the yield of 10-year Treasuries (closed today at 3.57%) will be subject to the 30% Fair Tax as purchases of new financial services. Could put quite a hit onto anyone who has almost everything hocked to the hilt...
It would take FOREVER for someone to pay down a new home mortgage, and almost impossible for someone to "profit" from buying a new home vs used home. The job market would tank for home constructions, and the only way to "cure" the problem is to then start making exemptions for homes, cars, etc, leading us back to the current problem..
The "government" wasnt convinced those who get "bought" were. Its the old..
"Save me $1,000,000 in taxes by passing this bill, and I'll give you $50,000 for your next campaign"... And of course when you leave office, I'll continue to profit...
I can name at least one example of income that is exempt from federal income tax - interest from municipal bonds. There are more, but the point is that income is exempt not because someone was 'bought off', but because it benefits municipalities that need low-cost funding for capital improvement projects, etc.
Quote:
At some point these "profits" would go to Buffet and/or the estate, where they would be taxed, and THEN Buffet/estate can decide if it should be donated to charities, after the taxes are paid. If Buffet truly believes that his money should go to the public good (and I believe him and Gates at their word), the money would continue to be donated, just taxed first as "income" before its disbursed.
Which means the charity gets less money. Doesn't make sense to strip money from a charity that fills a role government doesn't, just to give the government more money.
You say that the Fair Tax would create a huge incentive for corruption, fraud and abuse. Please tell me how that part of your objection works since I just don't manage to look that far into it.
Two things to consider: First, European VAT's have significant fraud rates that are manageable only because taxation applies at each level in the production chain. By splitting the tax into half a dozen or so pieces, it becomes more difficult to evade a substantial part of it. Meanwhile, 100% of the Fair Tax is collected at a single point in the production chain -- the point of final sale. This creates a huge incentives toward fraud. Then think about this new/used thing. There is no tax on used goods. Why don't I order a dozen laptops, open them all, decide I don't want them, and send them back to the manufacturer, Can't be sold as new anymore. They are "refurbished" (i.e., used) goods. Why would not a whole new cottage industry centered around turning new goods into used goods not spring up with "users" splitting the difference with manufacturers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Could you explain to me how the price of gasoline would be higher without the fuel tax we now pay?
The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents a gallon. If you currently paid 2.679 per gallon, the price would drop to 2.495 due to elimination of the excise tax, then rise to 3.244 due to imposition of the Fair Tax.
I can name at least one example of income that is exempt from federal income tax - interest from municipal bonds. There are more, but the point is that income is exempt not because someone was 'bought off', but because it benefits municipalities that need low-cost funding for capital improvement projects, etc.
Which means the charity gets less money. Doesn't make sense to strip money from a charity that fills a role government doesn't, just to give the government more money.
Muni bonds are tax exempt, without any good reason for it. If you paid taxes on them, you would need a slighly increased interest rate to compensate for the taxes, but you loan the govt money to pay them more in taxes, where is the problem with taxing it? If you think people would all of a sudden stop buying muni bonds you are mistaken. Some bonds recently have been selling for NEGATIVE rates due to the security of the investment.
How would "charities" get less money? You give for the tax write offs? How heartless of you, I give because I want to help others..
Two things to consider: First, European VAT's have significant fraud rates that are manageable only because taxation applies at each level in the production chain. By splitting the tax into half a dozen or so pieces, it becomes more difficult to evade a substantial part of it. Meanwhile, 100% of the Fair Tax is collected at a single point in the production chain -- the point of final sale. This creates a huge incentives toward fraud
Oh my god we agree again..
I can only imagine the number of small local mom/pop stores that would charge the taxes at the sales point and then not turn them into the government..
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.
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.
