[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[RKMBrown]

Debits and Credits... sure can get confusing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Debits and Credits... sure can get confusing.

Only for those with no accounting/bookkeeping background.

The bottom line is still Dick & Jane simple.

If I pay you $400 as a week's wages, I reduce my financial assets by $400. It doesn't matter whether you then pay no dollars or $1 or $400 in taxes, I am still out the same $400 plus whatever other payroll based expenses I am obligated to pay.

If your labor does not produce as much income for my business as that $400 plus my other expenses for having you on the payroll, I take a loss. If your labor produces $400 plus the amount of those additional expenses plus a reasonable profit, then it was worth my while having you on my payroll. If not, then you'll be let go or I will go broke in which case neither of us will have income.

Labor is only as valuable as what it can produce for the person paying for that labor.

And the only 'fair tax" is one that everybody pays at the same rate as everybody else and cannot be manipulated for political expediency.

 

[FA_Q2]

Income tax has the effect of convincing people to stop working or to work less as the more you work the more you are punished. Sale taxes encourages more efficient consumption. With more income in our pockets from our labors, we would have more money to invest, resulting in growth. Think 401k on steroids.

That is absolutely false. I have no idea where you get that idea. A progressive system might cause that where one income is taxes at a different level than another but a flat tax applied to all dollars evenly across the board does no such thing. There is difference in incentive to create that first 80c than there is to create the millionth 80c as that is what you are going to earn every time you create a dollar. Sales tax does the exact same thing btw as it drives up the cost of the product that you are taxing and therefore reduces the demand in that product. In reality, such is already built in as you pointed out and reduces incentives to create weather or not it is applied to incomes or products. The only changes are how that money is collected. As I stated before, an income tax is simpler in that regard and is not regressive like a sales tax would be.

No it's true. While you are correct that progressive taxes make the issue of working harder even more ridiculous, similarly forcing me to pay more for the same government services than my neighbor simply because I work more hours than my neighbor is ridiculous. Why work more hours when the government is gonna get a portion of the extra work?

You are ignoring the part I mentioned about people deciding to invest their income vs spend their income. The ability to take most of my earned income and put it into savings would be a tremendous incentive to work more hours for the single purpose of building a nest egg. You see I already have all the income I need to live, what's the point of working harder than I have to. Income tax is socialist, in this regard. From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his needs.

Yes it IS true and you have been making that exact claim through this thread on another instance: that the incomes taxes of workers is baked into the cost. The concept is the same. Are you trying to say that you are going to avoid consuming goods because that means you are going to pay the government more for the same services? Of course not, you will still earn more and consume more. So what is the difference if you pay that as a sales tax or an income tax? NOTHING!

There is no difference in the effect on production as to where the tax is applied (as you have essentially been pointing out this entire time). If you tax income, you end up with everyone making a certain percentage less or if you tax goods you STILL end up with those same people making the same amount. There is no real difference in the end result in production.

Where the difference lies in the fact that you cannot manipulate a flat income tax. It is simply not possible as long as we make it FLAT. You have expressed that your ‘sales’ tax is NOT like that. There are exceptions. You don’t tax items made for resale for one. Well, if I am an avid gum chewer then why would I not buy the resalable item rather than the single pack? How long before almost all products are sold for ‘resale?’ Then what do we do? Then you provide exceptions to things like food. I have already brought up why that is a problem in another post, one that you ignored. I wonder why?

As far as savings or nest eggs, you are STILL ignoring the fact that money is going to be taxed. The simple truth is that ALL money is meaningless unless spent. Savings only exist to be spent at a later date, be it by you or one that you bestow that money on once you pass away. If there is a 20 percent sales tax then 20 cents on every dollar is going to go to the government when you use that money. If there is a 20 percent income tax then 20 cents of every dollar still goes to the government. There is no difference there unless you are going to tell me that you are actually working to obtain the paper itself?!?!?

 

[FA_Q2]

Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth. If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export. That is strongly appealing to me. And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.

But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:

1. The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.

2 The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.

3. The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.

The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.

Bam! Yes, these are critical. On #1, this is one thing I disagree with the Fair Tax people on. They want #1, but they are OK with doing it without a constitutional amendment. I believe 100% that if we did that congress would simply start adding back all the other taxes and we'd be worse off and not better. It has to be done with a Constitutional Amendment that covers all three of your points.

A constitutional amendment is obligatory for a flat tax. There really is no other way to enforce the required ‘flat’ portion.

 

[FA_Q2]

Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth. If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export. That is strongly appealing to me. And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.

But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:

1. The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.

2 The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.
3. The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.

The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.

I don't have a problem with these... but I find it odd that retiree post tax assets have more sway than anyone else's post tax assets. Why is the age of a person more important than the ownership of the asset and / or whether it has already been taxed? What about folks that are currently 60 do their assets get double taxed when they turn 65 or is this something that is evenly applied to all when they retire?

Yes you do. #2 does not fit into a flat sales tax because you have added qualifiers already like not taxing food and not taxing items that are for resale etc.

How long do you think it is going to take congress to ‘nudge’ that definition a little? How long do you think it is going to take congress to add those that donate to those categories?

 

[FA_Q2]

To put the claims in layman's terms:

- The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
- The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
- The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code

It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.

I noticed that Kaz's skipped this post. Probably because it destroys his little game.

That is nonsense. It can do all three. It might just as easily raise the cost of goods while raising income (for those that actually pay taxes that is). It will do one or the other though, that is a given. Either you are going to make more because you will not be remitting taxes or you are going to make the same while the price of goods lowers as the company does not need to pay you as much as they did before.

No, not all of this is a given if this happened overnight, it takes time for the fluctuations to happen but as the others have said, people earn what they do because the value of the work and they purchase what they do for the prices that they do because of how they value the product. Those basics will not change and the market is going to respond to the changes in kind. You don’t think that suddenly everyone is going to be willing to buy Charmaine for twice what it goes for now while making the same do you? Why would you think that the competition would not respond in kind?

 

[Foxfyre]

Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth. If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export. That is strongly appealing to me. And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.

But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:

1. The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.

2 The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.
3. The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.

The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.

I don't have a problem with these... but I find it odd that retiree post tax assets have more sway than anyone else's post tax assets. Why is the age of a person more important than the ownership of the asset and / or whether it has already been taxed? What about folks that are currently 60 do their assets get double taxed when they turn 65 or is this something that is evenly applied to all when they retire?

Yes you do. #2 does not fit into a flat sales tax because you have added qualifiers already like not taxing food and not taxing items that are for resale etc.

How long do you think it is going to take congress to ‘nudge’ that definition a little? How long do you think it is going to take congress to add those that donate to those categories?

His schtick is actually to accuse me of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money. Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money. I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.

But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth. The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.

At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.

Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.

 

[FA_Q2]

His schtick is actually to accuse me of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money. Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money. I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.

But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth. The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.

At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.

Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.

Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant. Sure, it is not very ‘fair’ that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form. If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long. There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system. Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in. That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax. Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes. Income, period, would be taxed. All of it from all sources.

 

[Billy000]

This bias and immaturity in the poll choices is so weak, but I will give you credit for asking a legit question. I suppose the closest one I would pick would be that I don't know what is the "fair share". I don't know because I am not qualified to know. I would leave this answer up to an independent, non partisan economist.

Consider this though. Revenue in this country is at record low levels. The Bush tax cuts were very costly and contributed greatly to our national debt.

Again, I don't know what exactly is the fair share, but I think economists could come to a consensus. And no, I am not suggesting we eliminate the wealthy class. Both poverty and wealth need limitations, however.

 

[PMZ]

Debits and Credits... sure can get confusing.

Only for those with no accounting/bookkeeping background.

The bottom line is still Dick & Jane simple.

If I pay you $400 as a week's wages, I reduce my financial assets by $400. It doesn't matter whether you then pay no dollars or $1 or $400 in taxes, I am still out the same $400 plus whatever other payroll based expenses I am obligated to pay.

If your labor does not produce as much income for my business as that $400 plus my other expenses for having you on the payroll, I take a loss. If your labor produces $400 plus the amount of those additional expenses plus a reasonable profit, then it was worth my while having you on my payroll. If not, then you'll be let go or I will go broke in which case neither of us will have income.

Labor is only as valuable as what it can produce for the person paying for that labor.

And the only 'fair tax" is one that everybody pays at the same rate as everybody else and cannot be manipulated for political expediency.

"Labor is only as valuable as what it can produce for the person paying for that labor."

Do you really believe that the only reason that people work is to profit the person that owns the means of production that they use?

People work to create value, which can be exchanged for tokens, money, that they can use to buy what they need, and can't by their own skills, produce.

They typically need means to produce. They work for the person that they have to pay the least to for those means. To put it another way, for the person that allows them to net the most from the value that they create.

This idea of yours that businesses own workers has a name. Slavery. It's been illegal for quite a while now.

 

[RKMBrown]

His schtick is actually to accuse me of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money. Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money. I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.

But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth. The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.

At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.

Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.

Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant. Sure, it is not very ‘fair’ that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form. If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long. There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system. Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in. That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax. Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes. Income, period, would be taxed. All of it from all sources.

She is not quite explaining my schtick... My point to her was similar to your fairness is relative statement. I've had to pay double by % for her SS checks than she had to pay for her parents checks. Reagan and crew called it "saving" SS, SS has been saved so many times SS taxes went from 2% to 12-15%. Yeah it was saved it alright, saved by doubling how much they take from my generation for the same thing that the previous generation got at a 50% discount (iteratively applied all the way back to the start.. yeah that's a pyramid scheme). Not to mention that they get benefits at a younger age, than later generations. Thus my point to "fairness" was more that even if her generation was being charged extra, that in some sense it would be making up for the discount they got. Thus the fairness issues she brought up might be considered somewhat of a wash.

To the point about sales tax manipulation. Well it hasn't been an issue in the States I've lived. But then we have never had sales tax prebate checks. We have welfare to cover that stuff.

 

[Foxfyre]

His schtick is actually to accuse me of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money. Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money. I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.

But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth. The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.

At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.

Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.

Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant. Sure, it is not very ‘fair’ that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form. If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long. There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system. Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in. That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax. Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes. Income, period, would be taxed. All of it from all sources.

RKW keeps moving those goal posts doesn't he?

But if we go into it that nothing is fair, then for heaven's sake stop calling it a a "fair tax" because there is nothing fair about it.

But you're right. I've been doing some form of bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing in some capacity for somebody for most of my adult life, and I know that the fair tax provides far more places the system could be manipulated than, as you say, a flat income tax which is the way I am leaning unless somebody can give me a better argument for the fair tax than what I've seen so far.

Going to a flat income tax would be super annoying to some now exempt from federal income tax, but at least they won't be double taxed.

 

[FA_Q2]

His schtick is actually to accuse me of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money. Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money. I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.

But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth. The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.

At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.

Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.

Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant. Sure, it is not very ‘fair’ that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form. If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long. There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system. Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in. That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax. Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes. Income, period, would be taxed. All of it from all sources.

RKW keeps moving those goal posts doesn't he?

But if we go into it that nothing is fair, then for heaven's sake stop calling it a a "fair tax" because there is nothing fair about it.

But you're right. I've been doing some form of bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing in some capacity for somebody for most of my adult life, and I know that the fair tax provides far more places the system could be manipulated than, as you say, a flat income tax which is the way I am leaning unless somebody can give me a better argument for the fair tax than what I've seen so far.

Going to a flat income tax would be super annoying to some now exempt from federal income tax, but at least they won't be double taxed.

Fair tax does not refer to the idea that it is ‘fair’ to the people trapped by the previous tax structure. That would be absolutely impossible anyway. It is also not fair that my nest egg was taxed at a rate that is higher than the next person’s nest egg that was built after the ‘fair’ tax. What fair refers to is that it is now an even system across the board. Fair is a valid term here though I still am not to keen on it. That is why I would refer to it as a flat tax.

The point is not fair anyway; it is getting rid of the corruption.

 

[FA_Q2]

His schtick is actually to accuse me of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money. Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money. I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.

But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth. The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.

At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.

Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.

Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant. Sure, it is not very ‘fair’ that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form. If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long. There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system. Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in. That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax. Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes. Income, period, would be taxed. All of it from all sources.

She is not quite explaining my schtick... My point to her was similar to your fairness is relative statement. I've had to pay double by % for her SS checks than she had to pay for her parents checks. Reagan and crew called it "saving" SS, SS has been saved so many times SS taxes went from 2% to 12-15%. Yeah it was saved it alright, saved by doubling how much they take from my generation for the same thing that the previous generation got at a 50% discount (iteratively applied all the way back to the start.. yeah that's a pyramid scheme). Not to mention that they get benefits at a younger age, than later generations. Thus my point to "fairness" was more that even if her generation was being charged extra, that in some sense it would be making up for the discount they got. Thus the fairness issues she brought up might be considered somewhat of a wash.

To the point about sales tax manipulation. Well it hasn't been an issue in the States I've lived. But then we have never had sales tax prebate checks. We have welfare to cover that stuff.

Sure you have. There is plenty of abuse in that system as well, you are just choosing to ignore it because it counters your argument.

You think that products are taxes at the same rate at the state? There is nothing added onto gas for instance? Perhaps cigarettes? Alcohol? Seriously, you cannot say that state tax is any less convoluted, particularly if you run a service in a state with taxes on it. I can tell you that our state taxes here in Washington are a mess with respect to sales taxes.

The abuse is not as apparent because the focus on federal taxes as the feds actually provide most of the funding for the states anyway. Even those things that have no federal connection at all end up getting funding from them through the block grants (another travesty that the feds should never have been allowed to do). So far, there is no real reason that a sales tax would be better than an income tax though there are some real problems with a sales tax.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

One rate for all, one deduction for all.

For example: 18% on every dime after $40,000 no matter what the source.

Edit: On personal income. Business taxes need to consider the cost of goods in the equation.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Labor is only as valuable as what it can produce for the person paying for that labor."

Do you really believe that the only reason that people work is to profit the person that owns the means of production that they use?

People work to create value, which can be exchanged for tokens, money, that they can use to buy what they need, and can't by their own skills, produce.

They typically need means to produce. They work for the person that they have to pay the least to for those means. To put it another way, for the person that allows them to net the most from the value that they create.

This idea of yours that businesses own workers has a name. Slavery. It's been illegal for quite a while now.

What a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said. You do not own your labor when you have agreed to sell it in the same way that you do not own your car after you sold that. Simple as that and that is not a form of slavery. The difference that you seem to not understand is that you WILLINGLY sell that labor. That is different from slavery where you are not willing.

What you sell your labor for is between you and the one that you sell it to. That is it. What Fox has been stating is pure truth and from the viewpoint of the business owner who purchased the labor from the worker who sold it. You might phrase it from the workers prospective by saying this way; “People work to create value, which can be exchanged for tokens, money, that they can use to buy what they need, and can't by their own skills, produce” but that is in effect stating the EXACT same thing. Just because Fox used different words does not make that voluntary exchange a state of slavery.

 

[AVG-JOE]

His schtick is actually to accuse me of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money. Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money. I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.

But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth. The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.

At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.

Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.

Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant. Sure, it is not very ‘fair’ that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form. If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long. There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system. Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in. That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax. Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes. Income, period, would be taxed. All of it from all sources.

RKW keeps moving those goal posts doesn't he?

But if we go into it that nothing is fair, then for heaven's sake stop calling it a a "fair tax" because there is nothing fair about it.

But you're right. I've been doing some form of bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing in some capacity for somebody for most of my adult life, and I know that the fair tax provides far more places the system could be manipulated than, as you say, a flat income tax which is the way I am leaning unless somebody can give me a better argument for the fair tax than what I've seen so far.

Going to a flat income tax would be super annoying to some now exempt from federal income tax, but at least they won't be double taxed.

Fair is having the same rates and deductions for all.

Unfair starts with a 'special interest'. Nobody should be special in a free market economy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Fair is having the same rates and deductions for all.

Unfair starts with a 'special interest'. Nobody should be special in a free market economy.

The very nature of deductions is not even. There is no such thing as a deduction for all really. It will forever turn into a deduction for those that fit into this category as well as forever be a political weapon. Even the single example of a deduction for all, not taxing the first X dollars, will accomplish the same thing as the people close to that line will tend to vote to push it up further. Flat rate, no deductions. That is the only way to bury this once and for all.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant. Sure, it is not very ‘fair’ that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form. If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long. There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system. Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in. That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax. Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes. Income, period, would be taxed. All of it from all sources.

She is not quite explaining my schtick... My point to her was similar to your fairness is relative statement. I've had to pay double by % for her SS checks than she had to pay for her parents checks. Reagan and crew called it "saving" SS, SS has been saved so many times SS taxes went from 2% to 12-15%. Yeah it was saved it alright, saved by doubling how much they take from my generation for the same thing that the previous generation got at a 50% discount (iteratively applied all the way back to the start.. yeah that's a pyramid scheme). Not to mention that they get benefits at a younger age, than later generations. Thus my point to "fairness" was more that even if her generation was being charged extra, that in some sense it would be making up for the discount they got. Thus the fairness issues she brought up might be considered somewhat of a wash.

To the point about sales tax manipulation. Well it hasn't been an issue in the States I've lived. But then we have never had sales tax prebate checks. We have welfare to cover that stuff.

Sure you have. There is plenty of abuse in that system as well, you are just choosing to ignore it because it counters your argument.

You think that products are taxes at the same rate at the state? There is nothing added onto gas for instance? Perhaps cigarettes? Alcohol? Seriously, you cannot say that state tax is any less convoluted, particularly if you run a service in a state with taxes on it. I can tell you that our state taxes here in Washington are a mess with respect to sales taxes.

The abuse is not as apparent because the focus on federal taxes as the feds actually provide most of the funding for the states anyway. Even those things that have no federal connection at all end up getting funding from them through the block grants (another travesty that the feds should never have been allowed to do). So far, there is no real reason that a sales tax would be better than an income tax though there are some real problems with a sales tax.

I'd kind of like to see the federal government stop taxing businesses all together, with the exception of a small sales tax at one and only one rate on everything.

The states would then be free to encourage or discourage economic activity as the local folks see fit.

This would have the added bonus effect of requiring big corporations to hire 50 lobbyists each, thus creating a LOT of jobs for out of work state employees and diluting the corruption so rampant in DC as we speak.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fair is having the same rates and deductions for all.

Unfair starts with a 'special interest'. Nobody should be special in a free market economy.

The very nature of deductions is not even. There is no such thing as a deduction for all really. It will forever turn into a deduction for those that fit into this category as well as forever be a political weapon. Even the single example of a deduction for all, not taxing the first X dollars, will accomplish the same thing as the people close to that line will tend to vote to push it up further. Flat rate, no deductions. That is the only way to bury this once and for all.

The problem with that is that in order to have a high enough rate to actually pay the bills, the folks at the low end of the scale are harmed. If the rate is low enough to be reasonable for lower incomes, the folks at the high end are subsidized and, either way, the burden once again falls on the middle class.

For it to be fair, the flat tax needs to be accompanied by a single deduction, and a small, single rate sales tax.