Three questions regarding income tax for everyone:
1) Do you believe in a progressive income tax system at the Federal level (you make more you pay a higher %)?
2) Given the choice between the following options which would you prefer:
A) A tax of a fixed percentage based on income with no deducations.
B) A flat tax rate for everyone regardless income
C) A progressive tax system with deductions (like our current income tax system)
D) Consumption based taxes.
3) With regard to questions 1 & 2, explain the reasoning for your answers.
Grady
Edited, Wed Jul 28 15:59:39 2004 by Grady
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Income Tax
Income TaxFollow
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
B
I think everyone should have the same tax rate.
Except for gays, we should not have to pay taxes since we make everything look good. =D
Edited, Wed Jul 28 16:02:22 2004 by Pulseczar
I think everyone should have the same tax rate.
Except for gays, we should not have to pay taxes since we make everything look good. =D
Edited, Wed Jul 28 16:02:22 2004 by Pulseczar
Flat Tax...no loopholes.
It just makes cents.
It just makes cents.
smash, if you have commented on this, I would love a link. If not, um, if you don't mind. BTW how were those snipers?
I just hope Smash doesn't make any sharp turns otherwise Deano's nose is in for a world of hurt ; )
Grady
Edited, Wed Jul 28 16:55:58 2004 by Grady
Grady
Edited, Wed Jul 28 16:55:58 2004 by Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
This is the most just way to collect taxes...
Got this from fairtax.org
Varus
Quote:
Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary “consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.
It's simple.
Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes.
It's simple.
Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes.
Got this from fairtax.org
Varus
Quote:
This is the most just way to collect taxes...
Got this from fairtax.org
Quote:
Quote:
Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary “consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.
It's simple.
Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes.
Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary “consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.
It's simple.
Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes.
Got this from fairtax.org
I am not bashing this concept but I find it strange they don't tell us what this "consumption" tax shold be set at? 10%, 20%, 30%, what will work to pay for all that is all I am asking?
I would think it would depend greatly on the level of government you're wanting to have...
Grady
Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
Grady check this out
Hope this clarifies it.
Varus
Quote:
Is the 23% FairTax higher or lower when compared to the income taxes people pay today? Most people are paying that much or more today – much of it is just hidden from view. The income tax bracket most people fall into is 15 percent, and all wage earners pay 7.65 percent in payroll taxes. That’s 23 percent right there, without taking into account the 7.65 percent employer matching! On top of that, you have to add in all of the hidden taxes embedded in the price of everything you buy, from goods (averaging 22 percent) to services (averaging 25 percent).
Effective tax rates vs. stated tax rates
Because the 23-percent FairTax would not be imposed on necessities, an individual spending $28,808 would pay an effective tax rate of only 15.6 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of his or her income to federal taxes under current law.
Effective tax rates vs. stated tax rates
Because the 23-percent FairTax would not be imposed on necessities, an individual spending $28,808 would pay an effective tax rate of only 15.6 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of his or her income to federal taxes under current law.
Hope this clarifies it.
Varus
Quote:
I would think it would depend greatly on the level of government you're wanting to have...
Grady
Grady
A range would help at least.
30-40% (and would have to be this or more I think)
My $6 fast food meal now costs $8
Two movie tickets at $16 now costs nearly $22 add in two drink and a medium popcorn and we are talking around $43.
$25 in gas now costs almost $34.
A $60 dinner for two now costs $81 before tip.
That $1500 computer now costs more than $2000.
But we wont have paycheck taxed.
I agree it depends on how much you want the state to fund (healthcare, education, security etc.)
Here in UK it works something like this (all amounts are pounds unless otherwise stated:
There's a tax-free floor - the 'Tax allowance' between 4K and 15K depending on marital status, age, disability etc.
(nobody pays income tax for the first few thousand they earn, whatever their income)
For low earnings, tax is 10%.
Any earnings between 2K (or the minimum allowance) to 31K it's 22%, and anything over 31,400 is charged at 40%
In return that funds free Education from 5 to 18, all essential healthcare (including dental but excluding cosmetic stuff), and the maintenance of a Blair/Bush endorsed puppet government in Iraq
Here in UK it works something like this (all amounts are pounds unless otherwise stated:
There's a tax-free floor - the 'Tax allowance' between 4K and 15K depending on marital status, age, disability etc.
(nobody pays income tax for the first few thousand they earn, whatever their income)
For low earnings, tax is 10%.
Any earnings between 2K (or the minimum allowance) to 31K it's 22%, and anything over 31,400 is charged at 40%
In return that funds free Education from 5 to 18, all essential healthcare (including dental but excluding cosmetic stuff), and the maintenance of a Blair/Bush endorsed puppet government in Iraq
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Nob,
Do the rich folks ***** about their higher tax rate? Are there loopholes for the rich and/or business?
Edited, Wed Jul 28 17:20:40 2004 by pickleprince
Do the rich folks ***** about their higher tax rate? Are there loopholes for the rich and/or business?
Edited, Wed Jul 28 17:20:40 2004 by pickleprince
I'd have to go with a compromise between flat personal income tax rate and consumption tax. I've never understood why rich people are obligated to contribute a higher portion of their earnings to the government simply by virtue of being wealthy. Even with a flat tax rate they'd be contributing more than those who make less than them, right?
Supplement this flat rate with a consumption tax, and keep luxury taxes on high ticket nonessentials as well, and the rich folk will still be forking over more than the average Joe unless they're scroogelike and don't enjoy the benefits of their wealth.
One concern I would have with the consumption tax, however, would be that it may discourage consumers from purchasing things they don't absolutely need ... which might sound like a good budget proposition for the families, but has the potential to hurt businesses that deal in anything but food, fuel, energy, etc.
Supplement this flat rate with a consumption tax, and keep luxury taxes on high ticket nonessentials as well, and the rich folk will still be forking over more than the average Joe unless they're scroogelike and don't enjoy the benefits of their wealth.
One concern I would have with the consumption tax, however, would be that it may discourage consumers from purchasing things they don't absolutely need ... which might sound like a good budget proposition for the families, but has the potential to hurt businesses that deal in anything but food, fuel, energy, etc.
Pickled wrote:
Do the rich folks ***** about their higher tax rate?
Pickled wrote:
Are there loopholes for the rich and/or business?
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
Not a great deal. Bear in mind in the 60's and 70's Higher rate was 60% (hence all the 'Tax Exiles' living abroad) The lower end earners get to keep more of what they earn, and the higher rate payers generally appreciate that it's not as bad as it was.
Yay!
Quote:
But of course! As in the USA, there's a mega-million industry of 'Tax Avoidance' experts. Loads of accounts held in offshore accounts (Channel Islands, Switzerland etc.)
Boo!
The biggest concern of consumption based taxes is avoidance. A guy making $28,000 a year can't afford to offshore his earnings and buy his items from foreign vendors with no direct sale in the U.S. a multi-millionaire can. So then you'd have to up the importation taxes but you still wouldn't catch all the consumption that would happen abroad.
Personally, I'm for a progressive tax system, but with no deductions or limited deductions for those making less than say $2 million a year. It would be a tax based on a person's income but would be at a lower percentage than currently is taking place. For instance, if you're paying 28% to the Fed's right now it might go down to 20% with your deductions. Why not just go with the 20%? If you're making $10 million dollars a year and the tax rate is set at 50% (too high but easy math), then you'd pay 5 million in taxes. No deductions.
The biggest argument against taking away deductions would likely be charity. Granted, there's a segment of the population that simply gives to charity for the tax break, but it's really small. More often than not, they'd give money with or without the deduction. Would charities suffer? It's obviously speculation, but it could. Then again, there's no perfect system...
Grady
Personally, I'm for a progressive tax system, but with no deductions or limited deductions for those making less than say $2 million a year. It would be a tax based on a person's income but would be at a lower percentage than currently is taking place. For instance, if you're paying 28% to the Fed's right now it might go down to 20% with your deductions. Why not just go with the 20%? If you're making $10 million dollars a year and the tax rate is set at 50% (too high but easy math), then you'd pay 5 million in taxes. No deductions.
The biggest argument against taking away deductions would likely be charity. Granted, there's a segment of the population that simply gives to charity for the tax break, but it's really small. More often than not, they'd give money with or without the deduction. Would charities suffer? It's obviously speculation, but it could. Then again, there's no perfect system...
Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
Posting from the UK as well - so I can't comment on the various strands of US tax law.
All tax systems have three fundamental problems:
direct vs indirect taxation How much of your tax should be at source and how much on the purchase of "luxury" goods - this is a big issue over here at the moment because by the time you take your hard earned pennies home the government is waiting for you with VAT, fuel duty, stamp duty, etc etc Indirect taxation is not as obvious and non-savvy citizens are usually unsure about it's actual impact on their pockets.
balance of expectation between funding and taxation levels How much the government can get away with taxing you for all the state provided services you want before you run down the road and kick them off their pedestals
pain thersholds for rich people In an ideal world all tax should be at a flat rate for everyone. Unfortunately big cheeses being big cheeses they pay themselves huge amounts of money - the government work out that they can have higher bands and as long as it doesn't get so painful they won't go into tax exile.
Our governemnt recently made a very significant change in tax regulation: "everyone will pay the right amount of tax". This means that all tax avoidance schemes have to be registered with the tax authorities before implementation or the accountant in question will be prosecuted. If the accountant is in a foreign country - the tax avoider will be prosecuted. Nice, eh?
All of this is moot as the original question you had was about rates. The main reason for this flurry of stuff is that second point. It is a constant complaint of tax payers around the world that the government never does enough for them - but at the same time complain that the governemnt wants too much money from them. So where do these extra services come from ?
A common answer is cut down on the amount of administration the government undertakes. The problem politicians have with that is that if they don't count what they have done then no one believes them about how well they are spending your money. Of course no one believes them anyway - but politicians won't admit that very often.
So the real question is - how much are you willing to contribute to your country and what do you want in return?
If your gut call is "I want to pay very little" then stop complaining if your country does very little for you in return.
edit: because I spell for sh*t
Edited, Thu Jul 29 05:10:06 2004 by palimpset
All tax systems have three fundamental problems:
direct vs indirect taxation How much of your tax should be at source and how much on the purchase of "luxury" goods - this is a big issue over here at the moment because by the time you take your hard earned pennies home the government is waiting for you with VAT, fuel duty, stamp duty, etc etc Indirect taxation is not as obvious and non-savvy citizens are usually unsure about it's actual impact on their pockets.
balance of expectation between funding and taxation levels How much the government can get away with taxing you for all the state provided services you want before you run down the road and kick them off their pedestals
pain thersholds for rich people In an ideal world all tax should be at a flat rate for everyone. Unfortunately big cheeses being big cheeses they pay themselves huge amounts of money - the government work out that they can have higher bands and as long as it doesn't get so painful they won't go into tax exile.
Our governemnt recently made a very significant change in tax regulation: "everyone will pay the right amount of tax". This means that all tax avoidance schemes have to be registered with the tax authorities before implementation or the accountant in question will be prosecuted. If the accountant is in a foreign country - the tax avoider will be prosecuted. Nice, eh?
All of this is moot as the original question you had was about rates. The main reason for this flurry of stuff is that second point. It is a constant complaint of tax payers around the world that the government never does enough for them - but at the same time complain that the governemnt wants too much money from them. So where do these extra services come from ?
A common answer is cut down on the amount of administration the government undertakes. The problem politicians have with that is that if they don't count what they have done then no one believes them about how well they are spending your money. Of course no one believes them anyway - but politicians won't admit that very often.
So the real question is - how much are you willing to contribute to your country and what do you want in return?
If your gut call is "I want to pay very little" then stop complaining if your country does very little for you in return.
edit: because I spell for sh*t
Edited, Thu Jul 29 05:10:06 2004 by palimpset
I still remember the firwst time I heard of a consumption based tax. I was in Jr. High (middle school didn't exist back then). I thought it was a great idea at the time. In retrospect, I wonder just how gullible I was. I don't see comspumption based taxes as viable for supporting an economy as enormous as that of the US.
I'm against big government. Always have been; probably always will be. I recognise that, in many small ways, big government makes the life of the average citizen both safer and more comfortable. But to me, it feels like it just sucks the life out of citizens by inhibiting their choices, their reactions, and ultimately, their available options. I don't feel that the tradeoff is worth it.
However, last time I checked, the world wasn't running to my specifications. The reality is that we have big government. It's here, it's real, and man is it big. And it takes money to support it.
A progressive tax is the only answer I see that's viable. So I guess my answer to #1 is sure, I believe in it.
#2 I'd like to see A, but that's not gonna happen. C, again, is the only viable answer.
And I think I already did #3. :)
I'm against big government. Always have been; probably always will be. I recognise that, in many small ways, big government makes the life of the average citizen both safer and more comfortable. But to me, it feels like it just sucks the life out of citizens by inhibiting their choices, their reactions, and ultimately, their available options. I don't feel that the tradeoff is worth it.
However, last time I checked, the world wasn't running to my specifications. The reality is that we have big government. It's here, it's real, and man is it big. And it takes money to support it.
A progressive tax is the only answer I see that's viable. So I guess my answer to #1 is sure, I believe in it.
#2 I'd like to see A, but that's not gonna happen. C, again, is the only viable answer.
And I think I already did #3. :)
I'd have to go with a compromise between flat personal income tax rate and consumption tax. I've never understood why rich people are obligated to contribute a higher portion of their earnings to the government simply by virtue of being wealthy. Even with a flat tax rate they'd be contributing more than those who make less than them, right?
They don't. The reality is that the wealthy want absolutely nothing to with any sort of simplified tax structure because in most cases they'd pay dramatically more than they do now.
Percentage wise, the wealthy pay a vastly smaller percentage of their WEALTH than the average person.
Don't confuse income in wealth. I can have personal wealth of 19,000,000,000 and have no income for thirty years. Does that make it fair if I pay no taxes?
Supplement this flat rate with a consumption tax, and keep luxury taxes on high ticket nonessentials as well, and the rich folk will still be forking over more than the average Joe unless they're scroogelike and don't enjoy the benefits of their wealth.
The tax structure should move away from taxing income completely. Taxes should only be leveled when money is spent, not when it's earned.
One concern I would have with the consumption tax, however, would be that it may discourage consumers from purchasing things they don't absolutely need ... which might sound like a good budget proposition for the families, but has the potential to hurt businesses that deal in anything but food, fuel, energy, etc.
Right, because people in states with sales taxes, like Massachussets, spend a lot less than people in states without them like New Hampshire.
Oh wait..
A comprehensive VAT with a complete elimination of payroll and income taxes would incent people to earn more money, to save for large purposes rather than relying on credit and generaly improve the economy dramatically.
It'll never happen, of course, because there are incredibly powerful special intrests who rely on the majority of people being swamped with massive debt and a complicated tax structure that allows comapnies like Wachovia to do 100B in revenue and pay $7,345 in taxes.
Can't put an end to that now, can we?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
thanks bud.
Smashed so then you're in favor of the fairtax plan, reference the web page I posted earlier?
Varus
Varus
Despite being an accountant and against all the so-called liberal bones in my body...
The current tax system sucks, is too complicated, too expensive, and has too many incentives (loopholes) for the wealthy.
I wish I had time to look at the IRS budget, but it has to be huge. With a true flat tax, we could almost eliminate the IRS. Individuals would not have to file. Corporations (following GAAP) would file a relatively simple form. Lots of accountants would be out of work. :( - never happen
The consumption tax could completely eliminate the IRS, but do we tax at all levels of transfer? ie. Does a retailer pay tax when buying inventory and then the consumer pays a tax on the final sale? It could (and would) wind being very complicated, plus it's never gonna happen.
The current tax system sucks, is too complicated, too expensive, and has too many incentives (loopholes) for the wealthy.
I wish I had time to look at the IRS budget, but it has to be huge. With a true flat tax, we could almost eliminate the IRS. Individuals would not have to file. Corporations (following GAAP) would file a relatively simple form. Lots of accountants would be out of work. :( - never happen
The consumption tax could completely eliminate the IRS, but do we tax at all levels of transfer? ie. Does a retailer pay tax when buying inventory and then the consumer pays a tax on the final sale? It could (and would) wind being very complicated, plus it's never gonna happen.
The only way the tax structure will be drastically changed is if the economy crashes pretty thoroughly. Otherwise, there's no support for it.
The vast majority CAN overrule wealthy few, but the threat of a peasant uprising has to be omnipresent before change is deemed necessary.
The vast majority CAN overrule wealthy few, but the threat of a peasant uprising has to be omnipresent before change is deemed necessary.
Recent Visitors: 344
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (344)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Income Tax
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC