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.
Flat tax would still require the reporting. A national sales tax would have to be 23% or higher to raise the same amount of money, and would be highly regressive. It would be an instant 23% increase in the price of food, clothing, a plumber, a lawyer, a new house, a car, a camper, a boat, gasoline, etc. There's nothing conceptually wrong with our current system.
That would probably triple the number of homeless.
Flat tax would still require the reporting. A national sales tax would have to be 23% or higher to raise the same amount of money, and would be highly regressive. It would be an instant 23% increase in the price of food, clothing, a plumber, a lawyer, a new house, a car, a camper, a boat, gasoline, etc. There's nothing conceptually wrong with our current system.
The thing with the Flat Tax is it would reduce audits as there would be no deductions. I think that is where people think the IRS agents would go away. With the national retail sales tax or in particular FairTax, the taxes would be remitted to the IRS by the companies, not the individual. This again would "make the IRS 'go away.'"
The problem is exactly what you are getting at, the FairTax (the most common national retail sales tax proposal) is for that 23% tax rate on new good sales and services paid for. I haven't heard a set rate for any other national retail sales taxes proposed. Then again, the FairTax as I said was the most commonly suggested proposal at such.
The thing with the Flat Tax is it would reduce audits as there would be no deductions. I think that is where people think the IRS agents would go away. With the national retail sales tax or in particular FairTax, the taxes would be remitted to the IRS by the companies, not the individual. This again would "make the IRS 'go away.'"
The problem is exactly what you are getting at, the FairTax (the most common national retail sales tax proposal) is for that 23% tax rate on new good sales and services paid for. I haven't heard a set rate for any other national retail sales taxes proposed. Then again, the FairTax as I said was the most commonly suggested proposal at such.
Bit of a tangent here, but would the housing benefits asylum seekers receive (NYC has them staying in hotels) be considered taxable?
Are they given a tax ID number when they are here for years waiting for their hearing so they can pay their "fair share"?
Thousands of folks coming each day seems like we are missing possible tax revenue here.
Technically if this new requirement means you are paying more tax, it means you were not paying the tax you should have before the new requirement.
That's it.
So if you are complaining because now you will actually have to remit taxes on income that you were ALWAYS suppose to remit taxes on....okay.
65 pages in and people like you don't get it. Any way you slice it, the law is a new burden on thousands of Americans who sell personal items at a loss which has never been taxable. They will now have to pay more of their hard earn money for tax software or hire a CPA. Not to mention the added time and stress of trying to track down receipts. Furthermore, companies like Ebay are probably going to have to raise their fees to compensate for the financial hit that this law will give them so it really hurts everyone who sells online.
NO, it's not a new tax, but it sure as heck means people are having to pay more.
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.