Flat taxes 26%

n-Track Studio Discussion Forum
21
Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 04 2004,11:11)
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.

Sure I am getting services for my tax dollar. Everybody does. Most all of the state and federal services could use a leaner, meaner approach though. For example, the Alabama DOT wastes thousands if not millions of dollars every year due to nothing but poor management. It may not be this bad in every state, but it is pitiful in mine. The waste is pathetic. If they ran the DOT like an independent, private business, they would shortly be bankrupt.

TG
22
Quote (pete @ Nov. 04 2004,07:38)
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.

OK Pete, you disagree and are too afraid to say so, lest it hurt your own 'cause, understood.
And you have nifty websites to get all your facts from, and they are always right, of course.
But I only made this thread 'cause I was informed by the televized House/Senate meeting on the matter.
How you turn this into, "continue spewing what you are being told" is unclear to me. No-one told me about this. And to tell you the truth I'm not spewing anything, I'm just putting a topic out here (now that all the canidate slander and name calling is over) for us to discuss. All opinions are valid to me, whether they help or hurt a side (I'm not taking sides just yet). So fear not, for I will not waist your time if you get the courage to post "YOUR VEIWS"-not your nifty website's you always seem to find. I apologize for the "Ignorance must truely be bliss" comment, it was out of line. I was having a bad day and I let my emotions get the best of me.
BTW- I did read your in agree-ance, after I typed this, but can't turn back now. But I disagree with the whole- "saying anything, what good are my words" thingy. I think your words are just as good as any of the frequent jesters of this court.
---end pete responce.
Sometime's I get frustrated because intead of people talking about an issue, they just want to critisize everthing from my spelling, dates, names, terms, phrases, ect. All things that would be important if I were righting a Novel, but I'm not. I'm posting general conversation peices in a forum full of silly little threads about meaningless sheeeit (for the most part).
And for those who got confused when I said "flat tax".
I guess I should have phrased it as a "flat rate" on consumer tax. As opposed to the variable rate that exist on all different products presently. I did take a look at the numbers and it looks like cigarettes and gas would be considerably cheaper.
Don't smoke, but do drive...
:D
Anyway, I'm bias, because I'm in the lower, low income area, so according to the figures I wouldn't have to pay Sheeeit!
Regardless of that fact, I would still elect a canidate who will make the best decision for the country, not me personally.
That's why I posted this topic, to formulate an opinion of my own, by hearing opinions from both sides, in a democratic method. Not to argue with anyone that my side is right and someone elses isn't.
I have to agree with someones statement that it will help the lower income citizens save money, that makes sence to me, being one. I don't spend alot of money on frivilless things. And I would save alot more if I was given more to keep.
But I don't want more to keep at the expence of my countries best interest. I'm not that selfish or self-centered to think that would be a cure-all solution.--and my wife disagree's strongly on that one. What good would all the money I saved do if the economy collapses as a result.
I've notice the tone in this forum seem's to have returned to a somewhat civilized one. That's the only reason I returned to post a topic in here.
Thanks for all the "opinions" and facts guys.
jerm
23
Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 04 2004,11:11)
I'd entertain the flat tax but you have to realistically look at what services you're willing to give up.

Mike based on the meeting I watched, and the figures they representatives used, there would be now loss of revenue, quite the contrary. An increase was projected, thanks to all the kind folks making money off drugs, prostitution, and working under the table at labor jobs so they can take home the $15.00 an Hr, instead of $10.00 (after taxes).
Also, it would increase privacy to individually who want to move upward in earnings without having to pay penalties for there success.-(like the current system does)
Without Uncle Sam monitoring our evey dollar earned, we would be free to earn as much as we want and not face any undue penalties. Might just increase productivity here in the good Ol' USA, just enough to pull us out of this slump.
Right now we have a whole lower income group afraid to get that second job, afraid to work overtime, ect. Lest they loose there EIC by going over ridiculous guidelines set by the IRS.
I myself wish I was free to earn whatever amount of money I could without worrying about such things.
According to the debate I veiwed it will be a fiew years till it reaches fruition, but at least they are considering it.
:cool:
To anyone else lurking--please read the thread before responding...

jerm
24

Jeremy! Read the rest of the thread!

I AGREE WITH YOU, and that other comment was to Tom - who DID go look at the source and change his mind.

Peace… ok?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
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.

(posted Nov. 4 at 10:50 AM.)
25

I wonder with everyone taking home their full pay chekc in this system, how much wages would fall or rise. Right now an employer matches what you pay to social security. Would the employer give that back? Would they reduce wages to keep what they and the employee were paying to social security? One way the employer makes more, the other the employee is left with the same, just that what went to social security before stays in the employer’s pocket but the employee perceives making the same money and gets hammered on sales tax later. I suppose the job market would work this out over time… but look at the Euro and how that screwed with prices. Retailers banked on consumers perceiving things differently and messed with prices accordingly to try to use the system to their advantage and prices raised across the board. A slightly different scenario, but maybe a worth while correlation to look at.

They also claim that prices as a whole would go down. Is that such a good thing? Would that lead to deflation eventually? How would the value of the dollar be affected with people having more buying power in the short term? A spike in prices later?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, thus making the tax rate zero up to that level.


So we now have to track our spending and send in a tax return on that? Sounds like a way to monitor and potentially control our spending. WIth our current system we know only what a person makes, not how much booze, porn, cheetos they buy, and political activist books they buy.

Then the government will want to monitor sellers to be sure they are reporting taxes correctly. Another IRS. I dunno. This sounds like more of the same in some ways.
26

Well, in Australia after the last election (not the one just gone), a GST of 10% was brought in. It was supposed to be across the board on all goods sold and every service provided, and on top of the current 43% petrol excise, whatever the alcohol and tobacco excises are, and all our other taxes (income, stamp duty, FIDs, HECS).

Previously, an election was lost on this issue.

Anyway, the only way they could get it past the democrats in the senate was to make certain items GST free, mainly fresh, unprocessed, staple foods. I don’t know if bread was finally included or not, but they were talking about defining bread by including a recipe in the legislation. I belive the idea was to simply taxation, but it actually increased the size of the tax book.

New Zealand has done it right from what I’ve heard. Ours is a fiasco and has hardly touched the cash economy.

27
Quote (pete @ Nov. 05 2004,09:23)
Jeremy! Read the rest of the thread!

I AGREE WITH YOU, and that other comment was to Tom - who DID go look at the source and change his mind.

Peace... ok?

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.

(posted Nov. 4 at 10:50 AM.)
Wait, I said that I MIGHT have to change my mind... :)

How's the pie?
28

It’s gone, Tom. I’m ready for another… have me another four spies right here.

Thank you for asking!

29

Pete,

Very interesting tax strategy at fairtax.org, thanks for the turn on. I have no affection for the IRS, this may be the cure. Got a very argumentative person at work to read the material at the web site. She changed her tune pretty quick.

30

Gary - thank you!

Always a joy to know you are still lurking about.

31
Quote (Bubbagump @ Nov. 05 2004,11:06)
I wonder with everyone taking home their full pay chekc in this system, how much wages would fall or rise. Right now an employer matches what you pay to social security. Would the employer give that back? Would they reduce wages to keep what they and the employee were paying to social security? One way the employer makes more, the other the employee is left with the same, just that what went to social security before stays in the employer's pocket but the employee perceives making the same money and gets hammered on sales tax later. I suppose the job market would work this out over time..... but look at the Euro and how that screwed with prices. Retailers banked on consumers perceiving things differently and messed with prices accordingly to try to use the system to their advantage and prices raised across the board. A slightly different scenario, but maybe a worth while correlation to look at.

They also claim that prices as a whole would go down. Is that such a good thing? Would that lead to deflation eventually? How would the value of the dollar be affected with people having more buying power in the short term? A spike in prices later?
Then the government will want to monitor sellers to be sure they are reporting taxes correctly. Another IRS. I dunno. This sounds like more of the same in some ways.

Some good point's there bubba.
After reading your post I see there are alot of other things to consider.
That's probably why it's going to take so long to get it passed through Congress.
The've got alot of numbers to crunch, and pros and cons to consider, as do we.
Thanks,

jerm
32
Then the government will want to monitor sellers to be sure they are reporting taxes correctly. Another IRS. I dunno. This sounds like more of the same in some ways.

They're already monitoring sellers, Chip. You know it well. So we lose everything BUT that. Where's the problem there?
33

There will be loopholes in any tax system. Ammendments will be passed. The wealthy will benefit from this, the working class will suffer. Every thing changes, but ‘the song remains the same’.

34
There will be loopholes in any tax system. Ammendments will be passed. The wealthy will benefit from this, the working class will suffer. Every thing changes, but 'the song remains the same'.

So... just never mind? It is hopeless? Who do you expect people to work for? The POOR?

Mike - maybe we BOTH need to head to New Zealand. I think I'm finally beginning to understand the divide here in the US.

Are any here familiar with Ayn Rand's works? If you've never read "Atlas Shrugged," it probably wouldn't kill you.

But what will become of the Department of Candles??
35

Pete, how can you square Rand’s radical individualism with the Christian obligation to take care of other people? From that perspective, the answer to your question is: yes, we should work for the poor. Unless I misunderstood your post?

Randian individualism is just about as far from an ethic of compassion as one can get. You belong to a tradition that holds that what matters is love - selfless love, other-regarding love, not selfish, self-regarding objectivist love.

This is the major divide in the US - between people of compassion and selfish people.
:) :) :)

36

The way I square it is the same reason I am a capitalist, Tom - because I recognize the reality of the human condition- and its corruptability.

I am quite obviously no objectivist, because of my spiritual beliefs. Rand explained the difference you cite as “between people of compassion and selfish people” as the difference between producers and parasites. Both are overly simplistic, - but I’ve been on both sides of Rand’s model and recognize the truth of it. Rational Selfishness does not equal a lack of compassion any more than not seeing things the modern “liberal” way equals hate. There is a logic flaw there. It requires a great deal of prejudice to come to such conclusions.

Selfishness is an interesting concept. It is one of those loaded terms that evokes an instant emotional response. Rand argues that selfishness is rational, and that in fact our very survival depends on it. It is the way that we are built. Rational Selfishness is why I work fourteen hours a day trying to take care of my family. It is why I make decisions that do not sacrifice my ability to live and survive.

It squares nicely with my Christianity. The better I do, the more I can do.

The assumptions made about a group don’t work when the sample is reduced beyond a certain point, as I’m sure you know from your statistical studies. Statistical validity falls to zero as the sample goes to one. Yet you have cheerfully grouped me among the “selfish” (your definition) as you seemingly prepare for war against me and my kind.

At the same time, you’ve grouped 48% of our population and determined them to be compassionate - and divided them from the rest (who apparently aren’t?).

God made us individuals. Any effort to make inferences about individuals based on genetic, social, religious or cultural associations is flat out prejudice. As I watch the fallout from this last election, I’m learning who the REAL bigots are, Tom.

:blues:

37
Quote (pete @ Nov. 06 2004,18:54)
Then the government will want to monitor sellers to be sure they are reporting taxes correctly. Another IRS. I dunno. This sounds like more of the same in some ways.


They're already monitoring sellers, Chip. You know it well. So we lose everything BUT that. Where's the problem there?
More thinking out loud. We have state and local authorities in the sales tax business. The thing that gets me is how do they know when a person has passed poverty levels in their spending? An individual would have to file a return or be tracked in some way.

God made us individuals. Any effort to make inferences about individuals based on genetic, social, religious or cultural associations is flat out prejudice. As I watch the fallout from this last election, I'm learning who the REAL bigots are, Tom.

Here here. People sure get high and mighty when they win or defensive and accusing when they lose. Easier to judge than to understand I suppose.
38
More thinking out loud. We have state and local authorities in the sales tax business. The thing that gets me is how do they know when a person has passed poverty levels in their spending?

Check out the link I posted way back there, Chip. There is an EXTREMELY simple and elegant way to handle this very question. Better to get it from the source.

And I'll let my other comment stand, chastisement or no. I'm sorry - genuinely so - but ####. There has been more prejudice and bigotry open and on display these last few days than I have ever witnessed. The diplomacy is gone, and the sources of the blanket assumptions and generalities are being duly noted.
39
Furthermore, to ensure that no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level.

This would assume everyone is spending 100% of their povery allowance. I don't know, you have registered households. Sounds a lot like the IRS. They say there are other measures of this, so there may just be more to the story I am not finding. I am not poo pooing the idea, it just seems to me there are still a few kinks left for me to be 100% sold. I am a cheap $^%#, so this is right up my ally. I'd pay nearly nothing. :)
40

And you would make money on it. There are no distinctions, no check-ups… EVERYBODY gets that rebate.