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.
The fair tax applies only to NEW goods. If you buy a NEW house from a developer, you pay tax. If you buy an existing house from a homeowner who is moving, you don't pay tax.
The fair tax also applies to SERVICES. Rent is a service. So if you can't buy a house and therefore you must rent, you pay tax. Let's say the land owner currently charges $1000 a month rent. Under the fair tax the land owner will have to charge enough for him to make $1000 after tax.
I think it boils down to lobbyists. People with tons of money to burn can hire armies of lobbyists and smooth talking prostitutes to ensure that they get their taxes cut. The prostitutes are also called Republican Legislators. They don't work for you.
Yes, and they spend all their money on prostitutes instead of paying taxes. That increases prostitute employment. But that is a good thing since the prostitutes spend that money on goods and services and create jobs. So these Republican Legislators are increasing jobs every day. In fact, they may have a bumper sticker that says "Fvck a prostitute and add a job".
So you see, it's better to buy prostitutes than pay taxes.
The Dems, on the other hand just screw people without paying them. Their bumper sticker reads "Fvck over somebody and make them believe you are on their side". And they are quite good at it.
Ok so for everyone lambasting me about something I already know about - effective vs. marginal tax rates... I just did the math. My effective tax rate based on my taxable income is 26.7%. Mitt Romney paid 13.9% and 15.4% in the last two years respectively. Warren Buffett's was somewhere around 11%. So it's still about half the rate I pay.
Ever hear about capital loss carry forward?
You could pay zero if you have enough losses in prior years.
1) A lot of my neighbors worked in state government or a nearby college, there were a lot of raises going around. Tenure is awesome for those who have it.
2) Since the college tuition was soaring, the students who lived in this town were considerably more affluent than the students who lived there in the 1970s.
Since I had a lowly private sector job and couldn't afford the soaring tuition, I missed the boat.
Millions have managed to prosper or at least advance their financial positions thru life without being tenured professors or state government workers. Everyone is given a certain starting point with some advantages or disadvantages compared to others, and given you seem like a intelligent person who communicates well one has to wonder if there are either some very poor choices being made or motivation issues related to you having never gotten past very low wages over a 25 year period.
ambient - the primary reason our tax code subsidizes Capital Gains is to support the privilege and exclusivity of the very top 1%. Another reason is they own the country and the government and can have you and I pay for it. The system is NOT set up to be FAIR. It is set up to prevent fairness of any form or function.
As I have said elsewhere I think all income from all sources from tag sales to drug profits to capital gains should be subject to income tax after a deductable set at the 90th percentile. That would make the owners of the country pay for their privilege.
AFAIAC - All increases in wealth are INCOME and should be taxed as INCOME! The entire idea of Capital Gains is just a way rich people avoid paying their fair share.
If people move their accounts "offshore" they would still be taxed on the profits. If they moved off shore they would lose their citizenship and have all their US assets confiscated. Try and cheat by hiding their money offshore and I would hunt down their money. Move themselves away and I would hunt them down. Either would cost them more than staying here and paying their fair share.
As I've stated, if you were ambitious and decided to by an income producing property, YOUR rate on that income would be 15%!
Because it is income that you RISK and has already been taxed.
Flat tax for anyone who makes over $400,000 a-year. I agree with that part, but flat taxes will only benefit the rich more. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think that's suitable number. Anyone who makes over $400,000 a-year which IS rich, should pay 50%.
How did you pick 50%? How did you decide that $400,000 is rich? Please explain your rationale. Or did you use a dart board?
A flatter, simplified tax code, reduces fraud, improves tax collection, reduces the government overhead required to process and validate taxes, and reduces the amount of time wasted by all taxpayers dealing with their taxes.
On your earlier post - do you want to see a national property tax?
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.
