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.
I beg to differ. You specifically stated, "A lifestyle that they don't deserve". One cannot make such a blanket statement without knowing the work, time, and money each person has invested to reach a particular level of lifestyle. "Many" is a much better word to use.
So life is unfair. Some people have to put in many hours in a job with occupational hazards that pays little (like me). Does that make it okay for me to live beyond my means and have rich people support me? Nope. Therefore I don't think the generality of the statement makes it false. Nobody deserves a lifestyle that they cannot afford and their bank account, along with how financially secure they feel will be the judge of that.
Sorry but I am one of those people who have no sympathy for others because I have been there and done it. Barring tragic accidents and disability of course.
a consumption tax will never work and will never gain any support, might as will give it up now.
the wealthy don't consume at the same rate as the working poor and middle class. by and large they are wealthy accumulators and take in far more than they spend, so a comsumption tax is just another way to dump the tax burden on the middle and poor.
how are you going to control "duty free" shopping? how you going to control black markets that spring up? you going to apply "tax stamps" to everything to prove the tax was paid. that's what I want on my new white tennis shoes, a big red tax label.
the only fair tax is a flat tax on all income above 3 times the poverty rate. lets EVERYONE earn and spend what they need to survive and taxes everything over that.
If I were to vote on the Fair Tax and seeing how it will effect my pocket book, my "yes" or "no" would come down to what the OASDI and Medicare rates are set at. I have calculated a rate that is acceptable to me and would garner my support. If they go forward with a vote with no rate set at all or the rate set above my acceptable rate, then I will oppose it.
My support or opposition is based solely on self interest. However, if Nike puts a big red tax label on the outside of a bright, white tennis shoe instead of on the inside, then it needs to be slapped.
So life is unfair. Some people have to put in many hours in a job with occupational hazards that pays little (like me). Does that make it okay for me to live beyond my means and have rich people support me? Nope. Therefore I don't think the generality of the statement makes it false. Nobody deserves a lifestyle that they cannot afford and their bank account, along with how financially secure they feel will be the judge of that.
Sorry but I am one of those people who have no sympathy for others because I have been there and done it. Barring tragic accidents and disability of course.
So you think that there aren't people working harder than you and making less, while struggling to get by? And you'd gladly blame them for a splurging lifestyle? The rich are the real victims, aren't they?
If you make 250,000 dollars a year, you'll get taxed x% on 220,000 dollars.
If you make 75,000 dollars a year, you'll get taxed x% on 45,000 dollars.
Fair taxes have to many loopholes. Saying "Oh we'll exempt food and housing" would only be exploited by businesses to pay no taxes. If you say "We won't have any exemptions", then you are unfairly taxing the poorest Americans because they have to spend all of their income just to get by. Paying taxes on 100% of their income. If someone makes 200,000 dollars a year, they can spend 100,000 a year, and not pay any taxes on 50% of their income at all. Thats not fair by any stretch.
VAT is just a fair tax with just a different name.
Progressive taxes don't work with all of the loopholes, and its hard to say that if you make 76,000 dollars, you have to pay 35% in taxes, but if you make 74,000 you have to pay 25%.
So you think that there aren't people working harder than you and making less, while struggling to get by? And you'd gladly blame them for a splurging lifestyle? The rich are the real victims, aren't they?
Don't put words in my mouth. Of course there are people who are working harder, making less and struggling. But they are the destitute class and they won't have to pay ANY taxes after standard deductions. They are certainly NOT in the "middle class" (the group that is most vocal about trying to raise taxes for the rich). And anyways, how is that the problem of anyone else? If they are struggling, they need to start a co-op with their family or friends to lessen their costs. Ever slept in one room with 4 other people? Oh wait... it's unAmerican.
Nobody said that the rich are "victims". But you can't realistically expect to increase taxes on the rich any more than what has already been done. People demonize the rich for having more but maybe they should look at themselves first and how much more they have than people who are truly poor.
Fair taxes have to many loopholes. Saying "Oh we'll exempt food and housing" would only be exploited by businesses to pay no taxes. If you say "We won't have any exemptions", then you are unfairly taxing the poorest Americans because they have to spend all of their income just to get by. Paying taxes on 100% of their income. If someone makes 200,000 dollars a year, they can spend 100,000 a year, and not pay any taxes on 50% of their income at all. Thats not fair by any stretch.
Where do you come up with the number of 30k? All your other points I think are fair but why draw the number at 30k? So for a couple it would be 60k = no tax? Sure seems extremely generous. The majority of taxpayers (60% going by income from 2005) would not have to pay anything at all.
Where do you come up with the number of 30k? All your other points I think are fair but why draw the number at 30k? So for a couple it would be 60k = no tax? Sure seems extremely generous. The majority of taxpayers would not have to pay anything at all.
I don't favor couples/married tax rates.
Each individual should be taxed based on their income separately.
30K a year is about enough money for anyone to make it anywhere. If you can't live on 30K a year where you are at, then you should move.
Right now people under 50,000 a year don't pay any federal income tax really, a 30K limit would mean they are paying something on it.
Honestly, I'm flexible on the number, its just a good argument starting point for me. Ultimately the tax rate, and the amount of income not taxed per individual would have to be negotiated.
i'd agree with you, if you linked this $30k to something that changed with family size, changes in inflation and economic conditions, say 3 times the poverty level based on family size. If the poverty level was set at $16k for a family of four, they wouldn't pay tax on anything under $48k. As the poverty rate changed their threshold would change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Flat tax on all income over 30K.
If you make 250,000 dollars a year, you'll get taxed x% on 220,000 dollars.
If you make 75,000 dollars a year, you'll get taxed x% on 45,000 dollars.
Fair taxes have to many loopholes. Saying "Oh we'll exempt food and housing" would only be exploited by businesses to pay no taxes. If you say "We won't have any exemptions", then you are unfairly taxing the poorest Americans because they have to spend all of their income just to get by. Paying taxes on 100% of their income. If someone makes 200,000 dollars a year, they can spend 100,000 a year, and not pay any taxes on 50% of their income at all. Thats not fair by any stretch.
VAT is just a fair tax with just a different name.
Progressive taxes don't work with all of the loopholes, and its hard to say that if you make 76,000 dollars, you have to pay 35% in taxes, but if you make 74,000 you have to pay 25%.
i'd agree with you, if you linked this $30k to something that changed with family size, changes in inflation and economic conditions, say 3 times the poverty level based on family size. If the poverty level was set at $16k for a family of four, they wouldn't pay tax on anything under $48k. As the poverty rate changed their threshold would change.
As I said before in the previous post, I'd be flexible on the 30K a year number.
I favor a flat income tax, period. Right now we have a bunch of complete morons crying about "tax the rich, they should pay their fair share" while 47% of Americans pay NO income tax whatsoever. How can people gripe about the rich not paying enough when 47% pay NOTHING?
You can't pay what you don't have.
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.
