Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: How much is a "Fair share?" « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

CTGuyton

***
Second String

Posts : 248
Offline
« #30 : September 19, 2012, 06:43:10 PM »

I'm a big proponent of the FairTax, or at least something resembling it. The simplicity of it is the biggest reason I'm drawn to it. Add in the fact that anytime the politicians want to increase taxes they have to do it directly to the tax payers rather than sticking it to Big Oil, who passes it off to us via higher gas prices, or sticking it to Big Coal, and we see it in our electric bills. The hidden taxes on us are ridiculous and the vast majority have no idea.

That being said, I'm not against a progressive tax system, for the simple reason that they can afford it. I am however against constantly spending beyond our means then blaming the rich for not paying their fair share. They already pay the majority of our nations bills, well beyond their fair share, so this sort of rhetoric is clearly class warfare and really a disgrace.

I'm of the opinion of several other on the board that "Fair Share" would be a flat tax. All personal income is taxed the same and at a rate of say 20%. I would prefer all other taxes be removed, but I wouldn't object to a corporate income tax remaining. Although as I pointed out before, those taxes are passed onto the consumer. Despite fair being flat, I think we should maintain a progressive tax. I agree with Spartan though, let's not pretend that those living in poverty are paying anything at all. Let's call it 0% and move on.

Here is what I would propose.

Bracket 1:
Married: $0 – $10,000   
Single: $0 – $5000
Rate: 0%

Bracket 2:
Married: $10,001 – $30,000
Single: $5,001 – $15,000
Rate: 10%

Bracket 3:
Married: $30,001 – $100,000
Single: $15,001 – $65,500
Rate: 15%

Bracket 4:
Married: $100,001 – $250,000
Single: $65,501 – $125,000
Rate: 20%
 
Bracket   5:
Married: $250,001 – $400,000   
Single: $125,001 – $300,000
Rate: 25%

Bracket   6:
Married: $400,001 and over
Single: Over $300,001 and over
Rate: 30%



I really think the max for any bracket should be 40%, You should never give the majority of any dollar earned to the government. If we would reduce spending (and by reduce I mean slash), and force our government to live within our means, our nation would be fiscally stable and the uncertainty would be removed from the equation for businesses and investors. With stability and certainty, our economy would thrive regardless of the tax rates.



CBW, I will give you credit. You responded to the question with an honest and thoughtful reply despite knowing you'll be attacked for it. Sadly, you've shown exactly why politicians can't approach issues with the same level of candor.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16857
Online
« #31 : September 19, 2012, 07:44:12 PM »

Income should not be taxed at all . It should be illegal to tax income.

The fact that we've come to accept the fact that we should have to report to the government every last penny we earned , and then they get to steal however much they decide we can do without,  is a joke . How does a supposedly "free" society accept that ? How much you make should be none of the government's damn business.

You want to tax something ? Tax the money we SPEND. That way the money I rightfully earned goes to the person who earned it 1st , and it moves through the economy BEFORE the government gets thier dirty hands on it and squanders it. If I want to be taxed less , I can spend less . If the rich guy wants to buy that Ski vacation in Aspen , he pays much more than the rest of us. Talk about fair shares...

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #32 : September 20, 2012, 09:16:55 AM »


The problem with only taxing what is spent is that people would realize how much tax they are actually paying. If you take some out before they get it, take some more at the end of the year, take a little more every time they spend, etc., you can nickel and dime them to death and they don't realize it. But if they buy a ten dollar item and the tax on it is five dollars, suddenly they see the light.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

deadzone

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3560
Offline
« #33 : September 20, 2012, 09:40:51 AM »

We're already paying taxes on money we spend.......How is that new?

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #34 : September 20, 2012, 10:02:47 AM »

We're already paying taxes on money we spend.......How is that new?

It's not. And only taxing money spent is also a bad idea. Increasing the tax on purchased goods would adversely affect consumption. In other words, it would encourage people to spend less money, which is exactly what causes recessions. Demand is the engine that drives our economy. Increasing the tax on goods would be like pouring sugar in the gas tank.


Sweep

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4161
Offline
« #35 : September 20, 2012, 10:43:19 AM »

The  Fair Tax is truly the only fair system I've studied.

The rich get no deductions.  Zero.  If they want to live extravagantly,  they'll pay a large tax to go along with that lifestyle.   If they decide to save and invest their income and live modestly, that will benefit the economy as well by creating new business, new jobs.

The "poor"  pay zero taxes under the system.  Everyone, rich or poor, receives a monthly check equal to the amount of sales tax that is paid for essentials.

The argument that is most often presented against the  Fair tax  is that the 23% sales tax quoted by its proponents is actually 30%.  That's an ignorant, if not a deceitful argument.  True you'll pay 30% to the cashier, but to compare apples to apples, 23% is the correct rate to state as income rates are quoted as tax inclusive, sales taxes are quoted as tax exclusive. 

Another argument presented against  the fair tax is that politicians will then be able to raise both the income tax and the consumption tax.  However, anyone who truly favors the fair tax is only for it if the 16th amendment is repealed. 

One of the most compelling arguments for the  fair tax besides its simplicity, is that the products you buy from the retailer already have imbedded corporate income taxes. Also imbedded in the retail product is payroll taxes that employers have to match.  Also in the retail product's price is the exorbitant fees and salaries that businesses have to pay tax attorneys and accountants.  The elimination of these imbedded costs along with competition in the marketplace will drive the price of retail products down.  Remember, as it is today, corporations don't pay income taxes....people do when they buy the product.

 
The public has never been educated properly on the fair tax and it would take a President, imo, to truly present the case for it before the American people.  Otherwise, with too many hands in the income tax cookie jar, it doesn't stand a chance.
« : September 20, 2012, 10:58:38 AM Sweep »

It’s going to look to some people like a different play every time we use it, but pretty soon they’ll be able to recognize it....by watching the official for the first-down signal.   -Vincent T. Lombardi

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7033
Offline
« #36 : September 20, 2012, 10:48:21 AM »

We're already paying taxes on money we spend.......How is that new?

It's not. And only taxing money spent is also a bad idea. Increasing the tax on purchased goods would adversely affect consumption. In other words, it would encourage people to spend less money, which is exactly what causes recessions. Demand is the engine that drives our economy. Increasing the tax on goods would be like pouring sugar in the gas tank.

Haven't you just spent the last 12 months explaining to us mortals that increasing taxes doesn't alter peoples behavior?

deadzone

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3560
Offline
« #37 : September 20, 2012, 11:11:02 AM »

How 'bout we stop sending billions of our tax dollars to 3rd world countries that don't give a shiz about us? We give Israel $3billion a year. Why? So they can coax us into a war with Iran? And how many Israelis fought in Iraq and Afghan? How 'bout none. That's some ally there folks.

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #38 : September 20, 2012, 11:41:12 AM »


The Israelis are at war every single day. We use them to play off of the Arabs. They focus on them instead of us. Were the Israelis not there, I suspect our overall costs related to that area of the world would rise substantially.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

BucNY

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7779
Offline
« #39 : September 20, 2012, 02:43:27 PM »

Income should not be taxed at all . It should be illegal to tax income.



You want to tax something ? Tax the money we SPEND.

Great idea. This is the ONLY way we'll ever get people to stop "working under the table" and avoiding pay their "fair share". Tax what we spend. This will never work because I would think it would result in the county, state and federal levels of government getting less of my money, maybe not. The biggest thing is that it is a system that rewards people for not spending their money. Spend less and pay less tax. Our economy is built on the idea that we will make foolish decisions, spend more than we have, and value superficial things that bring no real joy to our lives.

Spending within our limits and saving before spending might be the way this country gets itself right but on a global scale it would financially ruin the US.

To the OP, fair share is the same percentage of tax for everyone with no loop holes. 20% of my income is fair to 20% of the Mark Zuckerburg. People get all huffy because Zuckerburg can be taxed at a higher rate without significantly affecting his quality of life. IMO, that is BS and greed, envy, whatever you want to call it at it's best. He has more so we can take more before he has none.

\\\\\\\"This forum needs a poster like BucNY now more than ever\\\\\\\"
      - Everyone

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16857
Online
« #40 : September 20, 2012, 02:56:07 PM »


The problem with only taxing what is spent is that people would realize how much tax they are actually paying. If you take some out before they get it, take some more at the end of the year, take a little more every time they spend, etc., you can nickel and dime them to death and they don't realize it. But if they buy a ten dollar item and the tax on it is five dollars, suddenly they see the light.

Exactly ! Which is another reason it's a better system.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16857
Online
« #41 : September 20, 2012, 03:17:48 PM »

We're already paying taxes on money we spend.......How is that new?

It's not. And only taxing money spent is also a bad idea. Increasing the tax on purchased goods would adversely affect consumption. In other words, it would encourage people to spend less money, which is exactly what causes recessions. Demand is the engine that drives our economy. Increasing the tax on goods would be like pouring sugar in the gas tank.

Haven't you just spent the last 12 months explaining to us mortals that increasing taxes doesn't alter peoples behavior?

Of course he did  , lol. Hypocrite.

The fact is , if it altered anything , it would be people's desire for big expensive government , because they would see how much they were paying in taxes every day and be disgusted. That is what REALLY scares socialists like CBW.
But it wouldn't hurt the economy in reality. It would help it. People would have thier entire paychecks to take home every week instead of just a portion - They'd have more money to spend. All that money would then move through the economy BEFORE the government taxed it , instead of letting the government waste it prior to it being put to good use in the marketplace .

But for the sake of argument. let's say CBW is correct : If I did decide that the tax was just too high , and I'd rather save it than spend it all ....that should be the right of a free citizen in a free society , shouldn't it ?? What's wrong with having control over what we rightfully earn ?  If the current budget is so high that a sales tax to cover the bill would cripple the economy , don't you think that's a sign that we need to make some major cuts so taxes are NOT so high ??


....nah...that makes too much sense...

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #42 : September 20, 2012, 03:18:17 PM »

We're already paying taxes on money we spend.......How is that new?

It's not. And only taxing money spent is also a bad idea. Increasing the tax on purchased goods would adversely affect consumption. In other words, it would encourage people to spend less money, which is exactly what causes recessions. Demand is the engine that drives our economy. Increasing the tax on goods would be like pouring sugar in the gas tank.

Haven't you just spent the last 12 months explaining to us mortals that increasing taxes doesn't alter peoples behavior?

Increasing marginal taxes doesn't alter behavior. There is a difference. Raising or cutting marginal taxes doesn't effect the habits of people not in the margins, which is 90%+ of the population. There is actually evidence that it doesn't have that much of an adverse effect on the spending habits of those in the margins either. But raising taxes on middle and lower class people, who don't have a lot of disposable income to begin with, is going to cripple demand, thus crippling the economy.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46177
Offline
« #43 : September 20, 2012, 04:12:40 PM »

Increasing taxes - marginal or not - is affecting the population of several states.  Now perhaps one doesn't consider that a habit - but the millionaire tax was infamous for such a action.  Increasing a tax rate for all - as in California has had a similar outcome.  And it is noted that when a state who increase rates, marginal or not, there is a problem for the middle class - because jobs disappear.  And then there is a shrinking tax base. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7033
Offline
« #44 : September 20, 2012, 04:13:53 PM »

We're already paying taxes on money we spend.......How is that new?

It's not. And only taxing money spent is also a bad idea. Increasing the tax on purchased goods would adversely affect consumption. In other words, it would encourage people to spend less money, which is exactly what causes recessions. Demand is the engine that drives our economy. Increasing the tax on goods would be like pouring sugar in the gas tank.

Haven't you just spent the last 12 months explaining to us mortals that increasing taxes doesn't alter peoples behavior?

Increasing marginal taxes doesn't alter behavior. There is a difference. Raising or cutting marginal taxes doesn't effect the habits of people not in the margins, which is 90%+ of the population. There is actually evidence that it doesn't have that much of an adverse effect on the spending habits of those in the margins either. But raising taxes on middle and lower class people, who don't have a lot of disposable income to begin with, is going to cripple demand, thus crippling the economy.

Gotcha, rich people don't alter their behavior when taxed more, but the poor do. Good luck with that one.

I also think you need to read up a bit more on the fair tax. This is not on top of the current taxes it is instead of. If something is currently on sale for $100 it will be $100 with the fair tax. The reason being that current $100 includes the embedded taxes accrued getting it to market. Payroll taxes for the people who made, marketed and transported it for example. Without those the price of the thing would in the area of $82, then add the 23% fair tax and it is back $100. Those figures are off the cuff so might be a little off, but you get my drift? There is also a prebate which would unfortunately keep some of the IRS in jobs, but read up about that yourself.

What is good about the fair tax?

1. Buy a big assed boat or plane? Guess who paying a walloping dose of their "fair share."

2. When Politicians want to raise taxes, it hits everybody and is about as transparent as can be.

3. No freakin' tax returns.

4. Everybody gets an instant pay raise.

5. Oh there's more but read "The Fair Tax" by Neil Boortz.
  Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: How much is a "Fair share?" « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools