Is this thing for real??

[airhead]

Originally posted by supervike
...And a flat tax. 15 percent for everyone, NO deductions. While I don\'t know the actual percentage we\'d really need, I cannot imagine a more fair system. That could turn the IRS into a much smaller organization...the way it was designed.

A 10% national sales tax. That alone would be an incentive to save. If you spend it, it gets taxed - othwise it is yours.

And just think of all those IRS agenst sitting in the State (Un-)Employment Agencies offices. That alone could crush the economy. I mean if we get all those people off the government dole and into real jobs and making money and paying taxes instead of living off of taxes...

 

[danl]

its only going to get worse, the idea is to bankrupt the U.S so a north American union (similar to the E.U) can be made, incorporating Canada, the U.S and Mexico (already happened in Europe), the same thing will happen to us in Australia we will have an Asian union, until all the continents have 1 ruler each, they will sit on the board of the one world govnt, Obama is only saying what will eventually happen anyway ( the disarming of sovereign states) that is why there is so much attention being placed on global warming now, Govnt\'s can only stay in power when there is a threat that\'s greater than the suffering the govnt inflicts, but when all the countries are part of a one world govnt there will no longer be an external threat, so to replace the big bad Nazi/Commi whatever, they will have terrorism and global warming (everybody has got to do what we say or the planet will fry) from there laws will be introduced to control population numbers and it gets really nasty from there. but I could be wrong.

 

[Dragon Forge Design]

Its rather simple really.

Republicans want to keep their money so they can party with it.

Democrats want the Republicans money, so they can party with it.

 

[cultist of Slaanesh]

Theres should me the mini gamer party, at least we all have some common sense

 

[nosirrahkcaz]

honestly this election reminds me of the south park episode when they\'re trying to chose a new mascot between a big turd and a giant d-bag. I usually lean right as Im a military guy but I\'ll be honest I hate mccain with a passion, by no means do I see obama as being great just maybe better and hopefully he wont tax the middle class(is there such a thing) as much as mccain. I agree with the third party comment but the problem is that we have a winner take all system and laws that favor the two parties in power.

 

[Dragonsreach]

As an outside to your elections I can tell you now that Obama is getting 99% of the media focus.
I\'m seriously glad that I\'m not a voter having to choose as NEITHER of the options you have seem to provide any form of confidence.

Having said that our own political arena is pretty screwed.

 

[wiccanpony]

:duh: I\'m voting for Mickey Mouse and his running mate Mighty Mouse

 

[No Such Agency]

I\'m sorry, from where I stand, this ad seems like it\'s right on target. America\'s \"defense\" spending is totally out of control, and severely lacking in common sense. You spend countless billions on newer technological terrors, and billions more have been poured into a war with results that are hazy gains at best and catastrophic losses at worst. Nuclear weapons are STILL a big threat to the world, and the US will be able to exert little moral authority condemning others for having them, while American silos still contain enough to destroy the human species several times over.

Originally posted by supervike
15 percent for everyone, NO deductions. While I don\'t know the actual percentage we\'d really need, I cannot imagine a more fair system. That could turn the IRS into a much smaller organization...the way it was designed.

15 percent of a working-class single mother\'s income is less easily afforded than 15 percent of Donald Trump\'s. That\'s what makes a flat tax \"unfair\". It\'s also what makes it political suicide, because while the rich can fund all sorts of political action committees and attack ads, they still only get one vote each, just like that single mother does.

 

[Thunderhawker]

The fair tax is, in essence (and fact for that matter), a natinal sales tax. the number included is 20-23%, but that would be across the board for everyone including the producers. The massive taxes they pay in the acquisition and production end of their products would (should) actually go down somwhere around 30% (This is a single source I am getting this from and this particular number seemed the most reasonable as some were bizarrely calculated at 60% or more reductions which, while I am no economist, I cannot fathom). This would lead to a lower bottom line for wholesalers, distributors and consumers. As a nation of consumers it makes tons of sense. You only pay tax on what you consume and everything else you make is yours to keep. I cannot imagine anything more fair than that: Lower prices, more in your pocket, and not having to file taxes ever again.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by No Such Agency

15 percent of a working-class single mother\'s income is less easily afforded than 15 percent of Donald Trump\'s. That\'s what makes a flat tax \"unfair\". It\'s also what makes it political suicide, because while the rich can fund all sorts of political action committees and attack ads, they still only get one vote each, just like that single mother does.

I don\'t understand that argument. Less easily afforded? Why does the government get to make that call? It\'s not our business if Donald Trump makes a KAZILLION dollars...only that he pays a fair share of that. 15 percent sounds fair. It\'s probably more than he pays right now.

I don\'t understand why I should be punished for someone elses hardship or fortune. Government aid would still exist, a single mother paying her fair share would only be expected to pay 15 dollars for every 100 she made. Just like Donald Trump. Just like me.

The current system has the Single Mother actually getting back $115 dollars for every 100 she makes, the Donald Trump character pays about four dollars for every hundered, and I pay about 44 dollars.

Tell me how I can afford that?

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by Thunderhawker
The fair tax is, in essence (and fact for that matter), a natinal sales tax. the number included is 20-23%, but that would be across the board for everyone including the producers. The massive taxes they pay in the acquisition and production end of their products would (should) actually go down somwhere around 30% (This is a single source I am getting this from and this particular number seemed the most reasonable as some were bizarrely calculated at 60% or more reductions which, while I am no economist, I cannot fathom). This would lead to a lower bottom line for wholesalers, distributors and consumers. As a nation of consumers it makes tons of sense. You only pay tax on what you consume and everything else you make is yours to keep. I cannot imagine anything more fair than that: Lower prices, more in your pocket, and not having to file taxes ever again.

SIGN ME UP!

 

[daddyo]

Is this for Rael?

Is this Presidential election for real?

Yep, and these are the clowns we get to vote for. Like Pete Townshend saidin \"Won\'t Get Fooled Again,\"

\"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss\"

When we see a puppet, we must wonder, who is actually pulling the strings, orwho has their hand in the puppet\'s hip pocket. (trying to stay PG here)

Neither candidate has the stones or political courage to really effect any true change in any part of the system as it stands now. Nor does the Senate or the House. (the folks in Great Britain must be wondering: \'that taxation _with_ representation, how\'s that working out?\')

All I know is, so long as the US government keeps wringing their hands over World Opinion, we\'re going to keep getting it in the shorts. Some folks don\'t like us because of just what we are doing right now, choosing a new leadership every 4 years. Some of the world problems stem from this very property of our country. They never know if a rebuilding program started by one administration will continue into the next. Most of the time, it doesn\'t.

Whoa- look, I didn\'t want to start ranting, plus I\'ve got to go get ready for a hurricane. Hopefully, I\'ll be back sometime early next week. Last time (Katrina), my crap got tossed all over the place, most of it never came back. (I found my weather station 10 miles away)

later!

 

[Thunderhawker]

IMO here is the root of the problem: Those that would do the job well are too smart to actually want it.

 

[Mr.S.Marbo]

The idea that a flat tax would do away with civil servants, the IRS, HM Revenue and Customs and whatever is simply totally untrue. If you think you are going to save a ton on tax administration then you are mistaken. The complexity of the tax system, the reason people have to file tax returns is really down to all the different sorts of income and tax avoidance rather than rate bands. Applying rate bands is very simple and easy it takes no time all and in the UK this calculation is done by computer in split seconds and and can be calculated manually in a minute or two once you have the total taxable income. Trust me the simple part of taxation is applying the rate bands, the hard part is deciding what is taxable!

The reason people have to fill in a tax return is that their income is more complex - the self employed (who need to account for allowable expenses - you can only tax people on profit and you need to account for loss - you need rules on what expenses or allowable or people will always say their expenses equal their income and have no profit). If you have no rules governing what can be claimed as an allowable self employment expense then people will say they made no profit and your flat tax will collect nothing.

People are constantly trying to generate income by all sort of means and ways sometimes to avoid tax. This is why we have capital gains tax, tax on employment benefits, tax on land and property income, on shares, on interest, on life insurance gains etc etc... This is what takes the time, not the rate calculations. You cannot apply a flat rate tax on just employment income because you will collect hardly any tax. Those who are rich and able will stop getting employment income and use their wealth to generate income in ways that avoid tax.

The complexity in the tax system is because we try and avoid paying tax - that\'s why countries have big tax administrations - not because of tax free personal allowances and rate bands. The big time consuming thing and the reason for tax returns is mainly because it\'s hard to come up with the taxable income to apply the rate or rates to!

Secondly a flat tax seems fair, everyone pays the same right? But are they really paying the same? Is £100 worth the same to someone who has an income of £10,000pa as it is to someone who has an income of £10,000,000? Of course not. It\'s not the same is it? The £100 of the person on the lower income is more valuable than the £100 that the multimillionaire has.

In economics terms \"the marginal value of income declines with the amount of income\". In other words the monetary value is the same but the worth to the person depends on their income - the personal value of £100 to someone varies depending on how much income they have. This is the main \"unfair\" element - a flat tax is taking proportionally more in value and worth from those with low incomes compared with those with high incomes.

If you were a millionaire and you dropped your wallet which had £50 in you wouldn\'t be too bothered. If the £50 represents your entire food budget for the week then you are going to be screwed. See?

 

[Thunderhawker]

And all your arguments support my support for the fair tax. A tax on only what you consume would not have any effect on your budget and would, in fact reduce public issues with filing tax returns and such. There would still be plenty of tax regulation jobs and other bureaucratic jobs, they would just have a different function in the management of the corporate level fair taxation program.
I am not pretending to be an expert on it, but I do like what I have heard and read so far.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by Mr.S.Marbo

Secondly a flat tax seems fair, everyone pays the same right? But are they really paying the same? Is £100 worth the same to someone who has an income of £10,000pa as it is to someone who has an income of £10,000,000? Of course not. It\'s not the same is it? The £100 of the person on the lower income is more valuable than the £100 that the multimillionaire has.

In economics terms \"the marginal value of income declines with the amount of income\". In other words the monetary value is the same but the worth to the person depends on their income - the personal value of £100 to someone varies depending on how much income they have. This is the main \"unfair\" element - a flat tax is taking proportionally more in value and worth from those with low incomes compared with those with high incomes.

If you were a millionaire and you dropped your wallet which had £50 in you wouldn\'t be too bothered. If the £50 represents your entire food budget for the week then you are going to be screwed. See?

I disagree with this completely.

You\'ve used a \'lose your wallet\' metaphor, but you didn\'t extend it to what it really represents. The millionare pays more taxes, period.

The percentage should not change, it already takes care of the actual money, thus the magic of percentages.

So, make 1,000,000 pay 10,000.
Make 10,000 pay 100.

The rich guy pays 9,900 dollars more, and THAT still isn\'t enough? You say the rich guy can afford it, but my point is the government does not have that right to decide that!
The millionaire will pay MORE money.

In this case, the rich guy pays 100 TIMES MORE than the poor guy. All with the same magic rate.


Besides, it would be fixed with a quick flick of the pen. Just include this addendum into the tax code.

Everyone pays flat tax of 10 percent. No refunds. First 20,000 dollars are exempt.

Viola! The truly poor are helped, everyone else pays fair share.

 

[Mr.S.Marbo]

Originally posted by Thunderhawker
And all your arguments support my support for the fair tax. A tax on only what you consume would not have any effect on your budget and would, in fact reduce public issues with filing tax returns and such.

I see what you mean and it is a bit better than a flat income tax but don\'t entirely agree on this either. Again those with higher incomes benefit. You simply create your own stuff and buy as little as you can if you have the money and land to do so. You pay people to farm for you, so you avoid buying food or you farm yourself. You barter with other rich people who farm themselves and make things themselves. You set up factories to make things for you and because you are not buying things from yourself you avoid that tax. You buy from abroad or you travel abroad to get things you want. You need a whole new level of bureaucracy to control this, and to try and value barter transactions.

Again the richer people can save on tax by producing things themselves - and you still have the situation where it benefits the richer more than the poorer. Rich and want a house? Don\'t buy it because you\'ll pay sales tax on the whole cost. You might not even need to buy land because you might own a lot already. Build as much of it as you can, pay people to cut the timber for you, lay bricks, make bricks (or do you propose for the workers to charge a \"sales tax\"? Sounds a bit like self employment or employment income tax this). Also you would have to have people submitting tax returns for things they sell to collect your tax on sales. You couldn\'t have leeway for small businesses or you\'d lose too much wouldn\'t you? Hence more people caught whenever they sell something and most people still having to do tax returns to declare the sales tax they owe.

What about services? would they be exempt from the sales tax? What about economies that are largely service based? The one man self employed cleaner? If you apply a sales tax to his fees is the flat tax the same value to him as it is to the multimillion pound corporation? You can see you are slipping back into the old problem. That is paying the sales tax is still more of a burden on those who earn less because the flat rate is worth more to them. Or do you propose services are exempt?

 

[No Such Agency]

We give the government the \"right\" to decide a lot of things - when to deploy the armed forces, how to manage transportation and water and endangered species - why should the tax scheme not be one of those? The IRS/RevCan employ scads of economists and mathematicians to figure out how to tax people in a way that produces enough revenue and yet doesn\'t screw anybody (too much). It\'s not like the thing is invented by sadistic howler monkeys.

Originally posted by supervike
I don\'t understand why I should be punished for someone elses hardship or fortune. Government aid would still exist, a single mother paying her fair share would only be expected to pay 15 dollars for every 100 she made. Just like Donald Trump. Just like me.

The current system has the Single Mother actually getting back $115 dollars for every 100 she makes, the Donald Trump character pays about four dollars for every hundered, and I pay about 44 dollars.

Tell me how I can afford that?

So why go for a flat tax instead of measures to eliminate all the loopholes that the very wealthy use to pay very little? Anyone who\'s poor should pay little or no tax. Why? For one thing because it\'s an investment in them maybe using that extra cash to bootstrap themselves/their kids to a more productive and rewarding place in society. Poverty is a social ill with many bad and costly consequences, after all - crime, bad health, urban decay. I know many will spend financial aid unwisely, but that\'s not the point. After all, government money is spent unwisely all the time, and usually not five bucks at a time either. No institution that ships palettes of cash to a war zone where it vanishes has any excuse for not helping the poor.

As for being \"punished\" for someone else\'s hardship, that\'s how society works. The burden of helping those in need is distributed among those who can afford to pay for it. \"In need\" includes welfare but also any time the cops investigate crime or a new road is built - needed services to keep the country running with a degree of civilized order. It\'s not a \"punishment\", it\'s an investment in not living in a chaotic sh*t hole.

 

[Mr.S.Marbo]

Originally posted by supervike
The percentage should not change, it already takes care of the actual money, thus the magic of percentages.

So, make 1,000,000 pay 10,000.
Make 10,000 pay 100.

The rich guy pays 9,900 dollars more, and THAT still isn\'t enough? You say the rich guy can afford it, but my point is the government does not have that right to decide that!
The millionaire will pay MORE money.

In this case, the rich guy pays 100 TIMES MORE than the poor guy. All with the same magic rate.....

Everyone pays flat tax of 10 percent. No refunds. First 50,000 dollars are exempt.

Sure the millionaire pays more in monetary value but that is not my point. A percentage point has more value (it means more and is worth more not in terms of money units but simply value - it could mean food or not, healthcare or not...) to the poor person compared to the rich person.

If you want a £50,000 exemption then that is quite a lot. You will lose a lot of tax revenue and possibly have to raise the flat rate to compensate. Do you think it\'s fair that some people pay nothing at all if they are below this exemption limit?

We the people are supposed to in theory choose our government who decides (in theory!) on what we the public demand. So in theory the government doesn\'t decide what is fair we the people should be. The public is supposed to decide through politicians who can afford what so I see no problem with rates being applied to income based on affordability. If that is not working then it needs to be fixed.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by Mr.S.Marbo


If you want a £50,000 exemption then that is quite a lot. You will lose a lot of tax revenue and possibly have to raise the flat rate to compensate. Do you think it\'s fair that some people pay nothing at all if they are below this exemption limit?

Well, first of all, I pulled that figure straight out of my ass (which, actually is where I get all my facts...lol) But I did revise it before you responded. My revised figures look a bit more realistic.

Secondly 50,000 American dollars, is like what, 8 GBP? Enough for a beer and a crisp packet!

HOWEVER...i do understand your points, and I\'m not trying to be thick on purpose. You make good arguments, but I still feel fair share, and flat tax is the properly fair thing to do.

The tax code, the way it exists today, is paying deadbeats not to work, not to get ahead. I\'ve some sort of a second cousin, who, after all the \'tax credits, exemptions, and rules\' has on more that a few occassions come out with a refund check of 5000 dollars ABOVE what they paid in. So, 5000 dollars free money. And what did said cousin do with the money? Well, a Florida vacation, and trips to the casino.

I can\'t afford a trip to Florida because the government deems me to \'well off\' to be able to earn a refund on my taxes!

That is goofy!

@NSA...very good points sir. Hard to argue, and I\'m not the hardass I\'d imagine I am. I understand the difference in the theory of the flat tax, and the real application. But, it is a shame that some of the biggest drains on society are not those that are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but rather have found themselves a nice niche to cheat the system.

Granted, there are truly unfortunate souls that deserve and need our help, but I think you are vastly underestimating the enormous numbers of people that are taking advantage of this system.