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.
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. You can read back on recent efforts like the bi-partisan deficit committee that was put together. The Democrats were offering 3/1 cuts to tax increases. Republicans ended up leaving as none of them wanted to break their tax pledge. Compromises don't have to be promises for things done later. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats right now are that the former are losing nominations for being rational adults who want to get things done. The latter are still willing to act like grown ups. You should read more before you post here.
Read about what happened there again. I have to think you are relying on what others said happened. Boehner agreed and then the deal was pulled off the table.
Quote:
In terms of your tax idea, you're just saying that we should do away with deductions. Basically you're just proposing the same tax system that we have now, but with no deductions. Other than making a tax form more simple for some people, it really doesn't get anyone anything. Deductions aren't necessarily a bad thing. Take them away and people have a hard time of doing things like going to college, taking care of special needs children, moving for a new job, etc.
Sure, this is why nothing will change. Too many like yourself that only asks what's in it for you.
The numbers need to be tweaked. But there only need to be 3 rates. Lower class, middle class, and wealthy class.
In regards to your consumption tax.... why would you tax as people invest? You want to create it as simple as possible for people to invest into the economy.
Personally I agree with you, however there is no chance at all of getting away with not taxing investments. In a perfect world, I would exclude investments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Eliminating the tax burden on the bottom 90% creates a LOT of potential investors and consumers.
My idea creates a FAIR tax on the basis of the rich that own the country pay for maintaining the country that creates their wealth.
Would the consumption tax also include sales of financial instruments as well as Cheerios? If not they it is a very UNFAIR tax.
In what world is a fair tax one that doesn't tax 90% of the population? A fair tax would tax every single American the same percentage. It seems like you might just be bitter/angry that you aren't rich, and want to get away with paying less than your fair share...
And yes, a consumption tax would tax the sale of financial instruments.
At the base of it all is the fact that the tax code can and should be made simple and easy to understand. Flat tax, a slightly progressive tax with steady tax brackets, a consumption tax, etc... At this point they are ALL better and more efficient than this swiss cheese tax code we have now that enables those that can afford it, to find suitable loopholes to get around paying (yes) their FAIR SHARE....
I don't care HOW we do it, but it needs to be done. I don't care if it renders Jackson Hewitt and thousands of accountants useless, it needs to be done. I don't care if it costs politicians farkin' political donations, it NEEDS TO BE DONE!!
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. You can read back on recent efforts like the bi-partisan deficit committee that was put together. The Democrats were offering 3/1 cuts to tax increases. Republicans ended up leaving as none of them wanted to break their tax pledge. Compromises don't have to be promises for things done later. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats right now are that the former are losing nominations for being rational adults who want to get things done. The latter are still willing to act like grown ups. You should read more before you post here.
In terms of your tax idea, you're just saying that we should do away with deductions. Basically you're just proposing the same tax system that we have now, but with no deductions. Other than making a tax form more simple for some people, it really doesn't get anyone anything. Deductions aren't necessarily a bad thing. Take them away and people have a hard time of doing things like going to college, taking care of special needs children, moving for a new job, etc.
"Compromises don't have to be promises for things done later."
Looks like a lot of "later" to me:
"Overview
We propose a six-part plan to put our nation back on a path to fiscal health, promote economic growth, and protect the most vulnerable among us. Taken as a whole, the plan will:
• Achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2020, more than any effort in the nation’s history.
• Reduce the deficit to 2.3% of GDP by 2015 (2.4% excluding Social Security reform), exceeding President’s goal of primary balance (about 3% of GDP).2
• Sharply reduce tax rates, abolish the AMT, and cut backdoor spending in the tax code.
• Cap revenue at 21% of GDP and get spending below 22% and eventually to 21%.
• Ensure lasting Social Security solvency, prevent the projected 22% cuts to come in 2037, reduce elderly poverty, and distribute the burden fairly.
• Stabilize debt by 2014 and reduce debt to 60% of GDP by 2023 and 40% by 2035.
Raise taxes to Clinton levels over 2 years+
Eliminate cap gains treatment for funds that trade commodities+ If you want to gamble on the price of oil fine but no special treatment for it.
Eliminate carried interest for hedge funds managers excluding ONLY TRUE venture capital funds THAT CREATE BUSINESSES.
+REAL cuts OVER time including defense in a planned orderly manner. (see Sen Coburns list for some good ideas).
Personally I agree with you, however there is no chance at all of getting away with not taxing investments. In a perfect world, I would exclude investments.
I'm thinking Consumption tax + Luxury tax. If you feel the need to buy a 32" or larger TV or drink Crystal, you can pay luxury tax. No tax on capital gains.
I'm thinking Consumption tax + Luxury tax. If you feel the need to buy a 32" or larger TV or drink Crystal, you can pay luxury tax. No tax on capital gains.
The last time we tried a luxury tax it failed miserably. It put thousands out of work and was quickly rescinded.
I'm thinking Consumption tax + Luxury tax. If you feel the need to buy a 32" or larger TV or drink Crystal, you can pay luxury tax. No tax on capital gains.
Why not a 25" TV? The "luxury" tax is built-in, already. The more expensive something is, the higher the total amount of tax is on that item.
What would be included in this "consumption" tax? Food? Gas? Rent?
Sounds like a consumption tax would disadvantage the working poor just as much as a flat tax would, unless essential expenditures are exempted.
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.
