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 08-09-2010, 08:52 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,205,540 times
Reputation: 5481

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I would agree, but ONLY if income tax were abolished. DO NOT add ANOTHER tax on top of what we already pay.
Agreed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2010, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,219,039 times
Reputation: 7373
Ferd, Fair Tax is a hell of a lot more complicated than you may think. Stuff like rent is taxed, as are portions of mortgage payments.

That is the tip of the iceburg. We had an extensive thread discussing Fair Tax a couple of years ago, and it really is a complicated process.


https://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...-not-fair.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2010, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldham of the sea View Post
yep, and a 16 yr old working part time at KFC gets a w2, even though he only earns less than 5k a year---so you would nab him too???


what about the kid who mows lawns, for $20 a lawn----

what about the handyman who works off the books

what about the poolboy----do they not earn an income

welfare is an income too

food stamps are also an income

what about the drug dealer---is he not earning an income

does the babysitter, who makes $5/hr for maybe 3 hours a week----will she get a w2 too??? is it not still income????

does that include income from places outside of the usa--not on a w2 or 1099?????


to sit here and say 'all income' and 'no exceptions' is really far reaching
Anyone under the age of 18 would be fine. I don't think we have a labor pool thats so large at 15 and 16 that its going to cause a national address.

Seems like taxing welfare and food stamps as federal income is stupid. Drop that.

Babysitters under the age of 18, that aren't using it as a profession. And yes, if you make 20 dollars a night babysitting while in college, you are expected to report that income. There are those that work under the table, but just like the 15 and 16 year old workers, I think you're focusing on such a small number, it isn't a deal breaker.

And yes, if income is made inside the United States, by foreign investors, or corporations, their income should be taxed as well.

The poster I was responding to "whats my definition of income" I gave him an example, anything on the W2. But if you read down a bit further, I said "any personal income".

Now, as I said, I would exempt anyone who is 16 working part time. Thats teaching them good work ethics, and I'd wager to bet less than 1% of the total taxable income in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2010, 08:54 AM
 
9,891 posts, read 10,823,821 times
Reputation: 3108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
What would that % of income be?
7% period. no deductions, government would have to start living on a budget.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2010, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,188 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The federal government taxes every item I listed. They also have TONS of hidden taxes, on things like cars etc...

Of course you would increase taxes on the poor and middle class.. If you go from not paying taxes, to paying taxes, thats an increase. Why should they not pay taxes like the rest of society?

The poor and middle class do pay taxes like the rest of society. This would DRASTICALLY increase taxes on the poor and the middle class in order to DRASTICALLY cut the taxes for the very wealthy. That would go over VERY badly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2010, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
I have always been for the progressive income tax structure we have had (with some adjustments) however I heard something the other day that might just change my mind.

There was a discussion of a national sales tax. (Called the Fair Tax)

Now my understanding of a sales tax is that it is the most regressive tax out there but this time there was a twist I had never heard (those that support FT may already know about this)

The guy was advocating a pre-bate where each person would receive a check at the start of the year equal to the tax rate times the top of the poverty level.

That basically means the poor would pay no effective tax rate, and the middle class would have mitigated rates and all other goods and services would be subject to the tax rate.

It would encourage savings and eliminate shenanigans by the congress and lobbyists. Plus it would cause every Americans to actually see what they were paying in taxes every year.
Fair tax is a stupid idea, and puts an undue burden on the lower and middle income Americans.

Generally, those who make below 30,000 a year have to spend almost 100% of their income just to make ends meet. Rent, food, everything costs them most if not all of their income.

So they would effectively be paying a tax rate of 100%, or close to it.

While someone making 250,000 a year can live quite comfortably on 100,000 dollars, and put the other 150,000 back in a off shore account, that does the US no good, and isn't taxed.

Bad jue jue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2010, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,188 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777 View Post
7% period. no deductions, government would have to start living on a budget.
Don't see anyway that could be don e without gutting Military spending, among other things. Not to mention that would still increase taxes on the poor and middle class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2010, 08:59 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,017 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Personally though, I doubt it will ever happen. There is so much corruption and random taxes and processes everywhere that allow the government to avoid being transparent in the current tax system. This would simplify it too much and leave them with their pants down for all to see. As much as I would love to see a simplified tax system, I honestly think we have a better chance of becoming a dictatorship than getting the tax system changed as such. That in and of itself is scary.
That observation is spot on.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Elmer T. Peterson paraphrasing Alexis de Tocqueville in the December 9th, 1951 edition of The Daily Oklahoman

Alexis de Tocqueville recognized the problem nearly two centuries ago. We're seeing it play out now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2010, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,740,494 times
Reputation: 9325
Actually, replacing our FIT with a national sales tax makes much more sense. No deductions. No credit for having babies. Etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2010, 09:07 AM
 
20,458 posts, read 12,381,706 times
Reputation: 10254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Fair tax is a stupid idea, and puts an undue burden on the lower and middle income Americans.

Generally, those who make below 30,000 a year have to spend almost 100% of their income just to make ends meet. Rent, food, everything costs them most if not all of their income.

So they would effectively be paying a tax rate of 100%, or close to it.

While someone making 250,000 a year can live quite comfortably on 100,000 dollars, and put the other 150,000 back in a off shore account, that does the US no good, and isn't taxed.

Bad jue jue.
I guess you read "fair tax" and stopped?

did you not see the part about the pre-bate?

EVERYONE gets the tax rate times some predetermined amount (like the upper limit of the poverty level) at the start of each year.

I agree with you that the traditional approach to the fair tax is bad for poor people, but this change, ends that issue.
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