verses the IRS method.
I was watching a televised Senate/House debate the other day. And I’m not shure of the representatives involved, so I won’t even guess. But the subject matter was this. They were tryng to pass a bill that would eliminate the need for the IRS. And get rid if income tax entirely. Instead of our incomes being taxed there would be a flat tax on all products set at 26%. This way all the people working under the table to avoid income tax would still have to pay their share and support our fiscal buget.
In addition, all the money drug dealers and organized crime is making would be taxed as well. Everytime they went to buy a new flat screen TV for there plush apartment. ect. ect.
This would lower the burden on the law abiding citizens, while increasing revenue for good old Uncle Sam. That means more money for schools, youth programs, parks ect.
Also it would help to bring buisnesses back into the US, since they could produce products here for lower labor cost, and export them (avoiding the tax). Might just help with the whole outsourcing thingy! 
--never really understood that one.
I, for one, think it’s a swell idea.
Any thoughts people?
If you bothered to do the math, Jeremy…
Ah, never mind.
Exuse me? Pete.–math.
Ok let’s entertain your notion.
10,000 some odd IRS employees we wouldn’t have to pay.
All the money that comes out of my check ever week, comes to roughly 18% already, then I have to pay an additional 6% on some items I buy. I’m no Einstien, but look like I’m already paying 24% indirectly. Subtract all the money the gov. not getting form illegal activites (because it’s not taxed!) Which means I’m also forking the bill for them as well, along with all the peolpe working under the table jobs. Hmmmm you must be working on that new math system I’ve heard of. tee hee LMFAO.
Ignorance must truley be bliss…
jerm
| Quote (jeremysdemo @ Nov. 03 2004,19:29) |
| Any thoughts people? |
For one ... that's a consumption tax or VAT not a flat tax
Just to piggy back on what Jerm is saying, I’m just tired of the tax system in general. The current system encourages people to work under the table, cheat on taxes, etc… Everyone knows about the loopholes in the tax code. They tend to favor the wealthy. With a national sales tax, you pay based on what you consume, instead of what you earn minus what you can write off. Then for the poor, they are planning on some type of exemption or voucher system to offset the tax burden on them. Sounds pretty good to me.
| Quote (Ali bin Gali @ Nov. 03 2004,19:52) | ||
For one ... that's a consumption tax or VAT not a flat tax
|
WOW Ali, your insite on the matter is just mind boggling!
You've truley opened up my mind to new ways of thinking! tee hee LMFAO. Please continue with your valuable thesis on the matter, --PLEASE!
Ali (gasp, I am having trouble saying this, no offense, Ali) is right, it’s not a flat tax - at least not as the term “flat tax” is understood. It is a VAT.
Think about this: who would end up paying the highest percentage of their income under that scheme, and who would get off with paying less? Answer that, and you will know who wants it and why.
I’m not going to waste my time trying to educate anybody. If you want to know from the source, go here:
http://fairtax.org/
Otherwise, continue spewing what you are being told.
A national sales tax is not all that unfair if implemented properly. If all needed goods were not taxed (food/clothes/medical), then those who spend the most on luxury items would pay the most. It really wouldn’t be that tough keeping track of taxing only those who buy more than one car/house etc. So if properly implemented, the poor would not pay more tax than they should. The wealthy (who buy much more junk) would pay a fair share of the tax burden. Remember that many wealthy people pay no tax at all. 26% seems a little high though. Considering the spending habits of Americans, it seems like 26% would bring in a whole lot more money than is currently collected by income tax. I would need to see the numbers to hop on board that percentage.
Mike
Pete,
I, for one, respect your opinions and am curious to hear your views. I’m no expert, but it seems to me that the ‘rich’ pay a very large portion of the US tax revenue. That would explain why a replacement, consumption-based strategy would need to be as high as 26% to make up for the loss of income tax paid by the rich.
Seems to me, i read that those in the top 20% of wage earners (the rich) provide 80% of tax revenue… or something along those lines.
While I’m thinking about it, Bush’s tax cut returned some of that tax revenue. Since ‘the rich’ paid the most in taxes, it follows that ‘the rich’ would get the biggest refunds.
Arguing that Bush’s tax cut wasn’t fair is silly. His plan is fair in the sense that everyone got refunds based on a percentage of the amount they paid originally. What wouldn’t be fair would be to give refunds based on different percentages… for example, the poor getting a smaller percentage of their taxes back.
Oh wait… Didn’t i read that the rich actually did get a smaller percentage of their taxes back? Maybe i’m remembering wrong?
I, for one, want my company to do well. I know that i’ll keep my job only if they make money. Seems to me, we should also want the rich to do well. They’re the ones who own small businesses and employ the rest of us.
Anyway, Pete? What’s wrong with taxing everyone based on what they purchase? Seems like that would encourage folks to save more. Maybe the Social Security issue would even become less troublesome if more folks saved for the future. Not to mention the reduction of the Federal Govt by simplifying/reducing/eliminating the IRS bureaucracy.
tj
TJ - I’ll gladly talk to you in email about this. I’m sorry, but I’m not here to argue points that are coming from talking heads rather than the sources. It is an utter waste of time. There is no value in trying to say anything when I’m going to be called a liar and spinner, which is assured here.
Your questions are good, and I do have answers to them. A hint to anybody who WANTS to do their own homework - take a dollar earned, at your employer’s hand, and work it through to the point where you purchase, say, a gallon of gas. Do your own math though the whole process. Don’t forget federal and state income tax, your employer’s half of your SS, sales tax and other taxes depending on your state and what you are purchasing.
Consider the cost you pay, as well, in taxes that are part of the thing you are buying - taxes payed by the manufacturer or producer which are directly passed to you in the form of product cost.
Add in the costs of dealing with our staggeringly complex tax codes - for individuals and businesses… and add that in. Consider, too the cost of running the IRS right now. Go look it up.
Then do some more homework. Which nation in the world has the highest taxes on business? Which nations in the world have abandoned Carl Marx’s progressive taxation system and replaced it with a flat tax? Which nations in the world have burgeoning economies, and which are floundering and losing jobs wholesale?
DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, PEOPLE.
Now, TJ, I’ll continue this in email with you.
Pete…
By the way, Jeremy - my frustration here is in saying ANYTHING. What good are my words?
I happen to be in agreement with you - but my saying so here would only hurt the cause.
Anybody who looks at their paycheck and bellyaches about the amount of taxes withheld should wake up. That is only the TIP of the ICEBERG. I had a very knowledgeable CPA tell me that your average, middle-class worker spends 65 -75% of his earnings in taxes in one form or another. Think about it. Federal/State Income Tax, SS Tax, Sales Tax, Gasoline Tax, Property Tax, Use Taxes, et. al…it’s a ridculous amount of money WE spend on taxes!
I’m not knowledgable enough to say if a flat tax is the answer or not. What I do know is the local ‘rich’ guys certainly have better means to ‘play’ the current system than I do. So do I think I am carrying an unfair tax burden? Darn straight!!
TG
Understood. Thanks, Pete.
tj
You also have to ask the question: do you think you’re getting something for the taxes that you pay? I happen to think so. Usually the people who don’t think so want the government to be reduced.
The last candidate to run on the flat tax didn’t get very far. I don’t think the Republicans or Democrats will run on this.
I’d entertain the flat tax but you have to realistically look at what services you’re willing to give up.
| Quote (pete @ Nov. 04 2004,10:50) |
| By the way, Jeremy - my frustration here is in saying ANYTHING. What good are my words? I happen to be in agreement with you - but my saying so here would only hurt the cause. |
I dunno Pete, you made me go look at that web site, and there is one part of it that is important to note: rebate for the poor. Any system that ends up with a shift in tax burden away from lower incomes to higher incomes is OK with me.
Well thank you, Tom.
Under the proposed Fair Tax, poverty-level would be tax-free. The fact that YOU went and found that is what counts.
Yes, and it answered my objection. Gad, I hate it when I realize I might have to change my mind.
I still think the progressive income tax is fairer, particularly to the middle class, regardless of whether Marx or Jesus thought of it first (I could care less).
Even if we were to pass a flat tax there would sure to be loopholes in it & it would still probably require an accountant.
PS - I pay an accountant to do my taxes but I’ve done them before. They’re not easy but they’re not that hard either. It requires alittle work but IMO, it’s a useful exercise to go over the “books” once a year.