Thankyou for that, and this sounds fairly good, really good infact. Though SpellJammer wouldn't mind paying high taxes if they went to something useful for once. But this works too..
__________________ Smile, tommorow is going to be worse..
Well in a capitalistic society which is driven by consumers this is a fairly good way to spread the tax to all.
Illigal immigrants get to pay taxes, business's save a ton on payroll...the rich since they "buy" more can contribute to the level of purchases but not nec. cry about 40 percent in income tax
anyway I think its interesting and can get rid of the outdated tax laws we currently have.
This tax beneifts only the rich, and it stomps the hell out of the Middle Class. it means, proportionate to income, poor people pay more on any good not lucky enough to be designanted 'essential' than rich people. A tax that is proportionately higher on the poor than rich? It is unfair at the most basic level.
Furthermore, I don't know what that bullcrap being suggested by the article of evetyone having a lot more money is. Newsflash- the only way people have a lot more money is if taxes are cut. No matter how logical they want to make that seem, there is no other way that it works!
Besides which, corporations and companies will still add on to make up tax costs because there are plenty of other taxes they still have to pay- like Capital Gains for example, unless you want to shut that down as well, which I am sure the very rich will thank you for, for making them richer.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Oct 13th, 2005 at 05:11 PM
When has the middle class not been the most burdened with taxs?
The rich have so SO many tax shelters they do ridiculuos things with their money what this does is makes them accountable.
As well as we get a sizeable increase in tax money from all the illegal immigrants that come to work in the USA and send all their money home without paying the same tax's just undercutting jobs and placing a burden on our society with medical bills, housing etc etc etc
So that's what attracts you most? Squeezing the immigrants? You'll get bugger all from them that would actually massively affect the country, and besides which, do you have nay idea how much lagrer the black market will become if the only official tax is sales taax? Why would you think this is a magical, unbeatable solution?
This is a nursery school idea. A first year Economics undergrad could point out why logic, intelligence and history shows that an idea like this is shot full of holes. It's obscene.
And you think the way to help the burden on the middle class is to make it offiical??
It;s unfair, it is arbitrary, and it is eventually counter-logical. All 'Pay as you spend' taxes are unfair to those with lower incomes and that cannot be avoided by any means. The pathetic lure of 'everyone would have more money under this system' is ptitiful.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Oct 13th, 2005 at 05:18 PM
Capital gains tax stops you avoiding tax by ploughing it all into something solid- like property- and making money off its increase in value instead. As all businesses increase in value like that, such a tax is quite important to order to stop people sidestepping tax by trading cash for stuff.
But it's only something rich people can use, hence it only affects the rich. The article suggests prices would drop as companies wouldn';t be being taxed any more, but with any logic, they actually still would be- not to mention the basic obviousness that their costs would go up because all their acquisitions would become more expensive due to this tax idea! So they would have to pass the costs onto the customer anyway. Which is such an obvious point, I cannot believe the article tried to pretend it would not happen.
If you want a simple tax, go for flat rate income, not all sales.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Oct 13th, 2005 at 05:19 PM
See now I can go on and on about this but if you REALLY want to take a step back here to radify, change , alter the current system is bollucks and the main reason it no longer makes sense for the "average" person who pays tax's (yeah all of us.)
So squeezing immigrants is certainly something I bounce around with joy about however I find it amusing that these economists and all that are against this are for more confusing rules so the govt can get larger and we pay more taxes for that to have more of your rich people pay for lawyers who understand the tax code and absolutley ABUSE the system cuz they have the money to do this.
So what were you saying now about the rich and the current tax code? They are the only ones that can abuse this system because they can afford to while no one else can.
At least that shouldn't be enshrined in the system! You want a system by which it is actually designed for the rich to be richer! Why would you think that an improvement?
And as I have outlined above, it doesan;t work. And, again, if you want a dead simple tax, go for flat rate! Plenty of countries are now doing just that and the debate about it is starting up in the UK as well. Look it up, it's quite a big thing- and it makes ten times more sense than this silly plan.
Economists are experts- you should think about why they oppose this.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Compare the FairTax, the Flat Tax and the Income Tax
16th Amendment
Current Income Tax: No Change.
Flat Tax: No Change.
FairTax: Proposes repeal.
Complexity
Current Income Tax: Very complex. 20,000 pages of regulations. IRS incorrect over half of the time.
Flat Tax: Witholding continues. Individuals and businesses must still track income and file income tax forms.
FairTax: Individuals do not file. Businesses need only to deal with sales tax returns.
Congressional Action
Current Income Tax: Used by lobbyists and the wealthy for tax breaks and loopholes. Used by bureaucrats for social engineering.
Flat Tax: Has some problems, but is far superior to current law.
FairTax: 23% Linder/Peterson FairTax Act (H.R. 25). Employees receive 100% of pay. Social Security and Medicare funded from consumption tax revenue, not your paycheck.
Cost of Filing
Current Income Tax: $225 billion in annual compliance costs.
Flat Tax: Significant simplification costs are somewhat reduced.
FairTax: No personal forms are filed. Significant cost savings.
Economy
Current Income Tax: Taxes savings, labor, investment, and productivity multiple times.
Flat Tax: Imposes a tax burden some of which is still hidden in the price of goods and services.
FairTax: Un-taxes wages, savings, and investment. Increases productivity. Produces significant economic growth.
Equality
Current Income Tax: The current tax code violates the principle of equality. Special rates for special circumstances violate the original Constitution and are unfair.
Flat Tax: A flat tax is an improvement of the current income tax, but it is still open to manipulation by special interests.
FairTax: Taxpayers pay the same rate and control their liability. Tax paid depends on life style. All taxes are rebated on spending up to the poverty level.
Foreign Companies
Current Income Tax: Current tax code places unfair tax burden on U.S. exports and fails to neutralize tax advantages for imports.
Flat Tax: A flat tax taxes exported goods and does not tax foreign imports to the U.S., creating unfair competition for U.S. manufacturers and businesses.
FairTax: Foreign companies are forced to compete on even terms with U.S. companies for the first time in over 80 years.
Government Intrusion
Current Income Tax: Current tax code requires massive files, dossiers, audits, and collection activities.
Flat Tax: A flat tax still requires personal files, dossiers, audits, and collection activities.
FairTax: As the Founding Fathers intended, the FairTax does not directly tax individuals.
History
Current Income Tax: The 1913 income tax has evolved into an antiquated, unenforceable morass, with annual tax returns long enough to circle Earth 28 times.
Flat Tax: A flat tax just won’t stay flat. Starting out nearly flat in 1913, the income tax grew out of control with top rates over 90% until the Kennedy administration.
FairTax: 45 states now use a retail sales tax.
Interest Rates
Current Income Tax: Pushes rates up. Biased against savings and investment.
Flat Tax: Reduces rates 25-35 percent. Neutral toward savings and investment.
FairTax: Reduces rates by an estimated 25-35 percent. Savings and investment increase.
Investment
Current Income Tax: Biased against savings and investment.
Flat Tax: Neutral toward savings and investment.
FairTax: Increases investment by U.S. citizens, attracts foreign investment.
IRS
Current Income Tax: Retained.
Flat Tax: Retained with reduced role.
FairTax: Abolished.
Jobs
Current Income Tax: Hurts U.S. companies and decreases available jobs. Payroll tax a direct tax on labor.
Flat Tax: Positive impact on jobs. Does not repeal payroll tax on jobs.
FairTax: Makes U.S. manufacturers more competitive against overseas companies. Escalates creation of jobs by attracting foreign investment and reducing tax bias against savings and investment.
Man-hours Required for Compliance
Current Income Tax: Over 5.4 billion hours per year.
Flat Tax: Reduced.
FairTax: Zero hours for individuals. Greatly reduced hours for businesses.
Non-filers
Current Income Tax: High tax rates, unfairness and high complexity harm compliance
Flat Tax: Reduced tax rates and improved simplicity will improve compliance.
FairTax: Reduced tax rates and fewer filers will increase compliance.
Personal and Corporate Income Taxes
Current Income Tax: Retained.
Flat Tax: Retained in a different form.
FairTax: Both are abolished.
Productivity
Current Income Tax: Inhibits productivity.
Flat Tax: Increases.
FairTax: Increases.
Savings
Current Income Tax: Decreases savings.
Flat Tax: Increases savings.
FairTax: Increases savings.
Visibility
Current Income Tax: The current tax code is hidden, embedded in prices, complex, and incomprehensible. Taxes are withheld from paychecks.
Flat Tax: The business component of the flat tax and payroll taxes are hidden and would be embedded in prices. Taxes are withheld from paychecks.
FairTax: The FairTax is highly visible and easy to understand. No tax is withheld from paychecks.
Any chance you can get a source that is not based around trying to back this fundamentally flawed idea? That list of yours is full of unsubstantiated opinion. That kicking off with the 16 Amendment thing is a good example- so what if Flat Rate doesn't repeal it? It's only this sales tax diea which makes out that it NEEDS repealing- so that's circular logic. Likewise it trumpeting the abolition of Corporate tax. That only works as a positive if you assume the Fair Tax's own idea that it needs abolishing- more going in circles.
The only reason individuals don't file under this 'Fair' (and it is anything but) system is because they are being screwed opver by a system they don't even get any documentation about, and so can't fight.
It assumed a flat rate won't stay flat which... well, I doubt I need to point out why THAT is puely speculative. I may as well attack how the idea of what is and is not an 'essentia' good will drift under the 'Fair' system, much as it has with VAT in the UK.
And interesting to note that this 'Fair' tax is interested in protectionist import taxes... no chance of global fair trade, eh? Ahh, how the rich must love it...
And I simply cannot fathom that source's logic about interest rates. That just seems to make no sense.
I don't quite understand why it attracts foreign investment when all their costs to buy in the US increase 23%, also.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Oct 13th, 2005 at 05:50 PM
KMC Community Forums
Oct 13th, 2005 02:47 PM
