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.
Unlike liberals I am more concerned about the ability of burger flippers to earn a decent living than about the ability of government to extract more from the economy.
Then you should certainly be able to understand why and how the government is working AGAINST you.
Any income share shift away from the income tax revenue cash cows, the top 1%, yields dramatically reduced income tax revenue. Guess why the government is keeping you and millions of others poor. All the while laughing at how ridiculously stupid you all are for voting for the party that wants to keep oppressing the poor to guarantee a voter base.
Then you should certainly be able to understand why and how the government is working AGAINST you.
Any income share shift away from the income tax revenue cash cows, the top 1%, yields dramatically reduced income tax revenue. Guess why the government is keeping you and millions of others poor. All the while laughing at how ridiculously stupid you all are for voting for the party that wants to keep oppressing the poor to guarantee a voter base.
I'm not voting for that party; I think burger flippers need a new party.
Rent is a SERVICE. Under the FairTax, rent is taxed.
You rent a car, you pay FairTax. You rent an apartment, you pay FairTax. You rent an existing (used) house, you pay FairTax. You buy an existing house, you do not pay FairTax.
The landlord would be required to remit the FairTax to your state tax collector, which would replace the IRS for purposes of collecting the FairTax. The landlord would collect the FairTax from his tenant.
Homeowners would enjoy untaxed housing consumption while renters would pay tax up the wazoo. Since rent includes embedded property taxes (which, of course, would be unaffected by FairTax), renters would be paying a tax on top of a tax.
Currently there is very little income tax embedded in rents, since rental property enjoys favorable treatment under our current income tax. So rents would rise and not fall under the FairTax.
Its collected at the point of sale not rent .Rent is not a sale and would fall under used services just as selling a used car would.It can also only be collected once at the point of sale ,SO rent is not fair taxed
I still don't haven't read what problem the flat tax solves. It is based on the fallacious belief that one rate is fair for all regardless of income. Since those at the lower end have little or now disposable income after expenses, how is it fair to add to their tax burden when the rich have loads of savings after expenses?
From the people who benefit from all of the above... essentially... EVERYONE, instead of the only 49% who pay federal income tax now.
And it wouldn't be low taxes on the rich. 15.3% of $500,000 is $76,500. The same tax rate for an income of $50,000 is $7,650. Is it really that hard for you to understand that $76,500 is MUCH more than $7,650 though both earners would be paying for the exact same access to the exact same government benefits and services?
They do not understand that now , you really think they even want to understand that
I still don't haven't read what problem the flat tax solves. It is based on the fallacious belief that one rate is fair for all regardless of income. Since those at the lower end have little or now disposable income after expenses, how is it fair to add to their tax burden when the rich have loads of savings after expenses?
Everyone should have skin in the game.
Punishing high income earners is not the answer.
Tax rates on income....with a 76,000 page tax code.....makes no sense.
Tax rates on income....with a 76,000 page tax code.....makes no sense.
And by my definition, involuntary renters priced out of ownership by government already have skin in the game, in the form of the premium to rent they pay, which I consider a regulatory tax.
My proposal to tax all discretionary income at a flat rate does not punish high income earners.
And by my definition, involuntary renters priced out of ownership by government already have skin in the game, in the form of the premium to rent they pay, which I consider a regulatory tax.
My proposal to tax all discretionary income at a flat rate does not punish high income earners.
Tax rates on income....with a 76,000 page tax code.....makes no sense.
While "everyone should have skin in the game" might make a cute bumper sticker, it makes no coherent sense. Moreover, they already ave skin in the game, they pay payroll taxes. Taxing the low end who already are struggling, creates a hardship and yields very little tax revenue, since so much is concentrated in the top brackets.
I am curious, tho. Does that "everyone should have skin in the game" also apply to the multitude of profitable corporations who pay no income taxes or just poor people?
While the length of the tax laws might be important if the average person had to read it but they don't. The average 1040 or 1040ez, isn't complicated, especially with tax software.
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.
