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.
Just think, instead of income based tax every year, you as an individual, were taxed based upon your net wealth. An inventory of your assets, determining your payment to society.
The wealthy you are, the more you pay, base upon a set rate for everyone.
5% - 10% - 20% - 50% - 75% - 100% as long as everyone has the same rate not some curve.
Hiding assets would become a big game.
The you didn't build it theory at play.
Personally, if we are going to be taxed, it should be a consumption tax, not income or wealth based.
I agree. Consumption taxes encourage saving and require anyone who consumes to pay them. We'd pick up illegals and criminals who are currently not paying taxes on what they earn or own. Corporations would pay taxes on the raw materials they buy. I have no idea why we're sticking with an income tax.
I agree. Consumption taxes encourage saving and require anyone who consumes to pay them. We'd pick up illegals and criminals who are currently not paying taxes on what they earn or own. Corporations would pay taxes on the raw materials they buy. I have no idea why we're sticking with an income tax.
Taxed for consuming resources of the nation. Material and human.
Not the prosperity, where it penalizes you for being productive.
Consider the proposed FairTax as an example of a national consumption tax.
Homeowner buys existing home - no tax. Homeowner also gets preferential property tax rate.
Renter rents the same existing home pays 30% tax on the rent he pays. Rental property tax rate is higher than homeowner property tax rate, and as part of the rent he paysm he even pays 30% on top of the higher property tax.
A renter who pays over a lifetime an extra 30% to rent - if he can't afford to save money by buying a house he can't afford to retire either.
I agree. Consumption taxes encourage saving and require anyone who consumes to pay them. We'd pick up illegals and criminals who are currently not paying taxes on what they earn or own. Corporations would pay taxes on the raw materials they buy. I have no idea why we're sticking with an income tax.
Only if homeowners pay tax on their housing consumption just as renters pay tax on their housing consumption.
I think if one is considering a 'fair tax,' it makes sense to consider whether people (as individuals) & corporations (individually) are taxed fairly.
Corporations are not people. Equating corporative entities with people begins as a false premise. It's no wonder this faulty premise has led to no solutions (or reasonable outcomes). Syllogistic reasoning demands beginning with, at least, a plausible premise. One of the illogical & faith-based ideologies enabling this type of illogical narrative (& faulty premise) is free market fundamentalism.
This (& other unreasonable ideologies) seems to place a Peoples' financial sovereignty in the 'hands' of Corporations (sometimes with suggestions of 'privatization') or, in the nonexistent 'Invisible Hand' of ??? (I think using the adjective 'invisible' to describe provides a clue to this mind set.) Legal however fictional characters (Corporations) owe no allegiance or responsibility to the people. The model is designed to avoid liability & not to encourage responsibility.
I think if one is considering a 'fair tax,' it makes sense to consider whether people (as individuals) & corporations (individually) are taxed fairly.
Corporations are not people. Equating corporative entities with people begins as a false premise. It's no wonder this faulty premise has led to no solutions (or reasonable outcomes). Syllogistic reasoning demands beginning with, at least, a plausible premise. One of the illogical & faith-based ideologies enabling this type of illogical narrative (& faulty premise) is free market fundamentalism.
This (& other unreasonable ideologies) seems to place a Peoples' financial sovereignty in the 'hands' of Corporations (sometimes with suggestions of 'privatization') or, in the nonexistent 'Invisible Hand' of ??? (I think using the adjective 'invisible' to describe provides a clue to this mind set.) Legal however fictional characters (Corporations) owe no allegiance or responsibility to the people. The model is designed to avoid liability & not to encourage responsibility.
Why don't you start a thread about all this fiction, so we can discuss it on topic.
Why don't you start a thread about all this fiction, so we can discuss it on topic.
It needs to be debunked as the nonsense it is.
Some folks giving orders & others obeying them.
How unusual.
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.
