RE: taxes

RE: taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 4:19:35 PM)
The only problem with not taxing certain items is you start to create loopholes. For instance - say you don't tax food. Milk, bread, ground chuck, t-bone, imported Russian caviar - do you not tax all of it? Or do you just tax the food for the rich? Don't tax shelter: small one bedroom trailers, nice house in the suburb, mansion in Palm Springs.... Transportation - 1985 used Kia, Ford Escort, or Mercedes? By offering a prebate, you no longer give any room for loopholes and it makes accounting so much easier. Everything new (only new, so items are taxed once and only once) are taxed the exact same. Easy stuff.

kdsub -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 4:30:27 PM)
To me its not a loop hole... but transportation does not mean a vehicle necessarily... it could just mean bus... subway... train… public transportation. Food does not mean alcohol for instance… but if you want to spend a lot of money on caviar go ahead. Not hard to figure or remember what not to tax. Butch

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 4:39:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub To me its not a loop hole... but transportation does not mean a vehicle necessarily... it could just mean bus... subway... train… public transportation. Food does not mean alcohol for instance… but if you want to spend a lot of money on caviar go ahead. Not hard to figure or remember what not to tax. See, that's the issue - transportation does not mean a vehicle 'necessarily'. That's the beginning of a potential loophole. For some who live in areas not served by public transportation, a car is necessary. Trains, subways, and even busses don't serve the majority of the population. And most public transportation is directly supported by taxes anyways. And why doesn't food mean alcohol? It is a consumable source of calories. Another loophole. It may not be hard to remember what not to tax, but letting the politicians figure out what to tax and what not to tax is what creates loopholes. Tax everything the same, prebate money to everyone to the same subsistence (sp?) level and everyone is covered. Those who live frugally, grow their own food, etc would actually make money from that prebate, which is fair because most likely they are having very little impact, if any, on the various infrastructures.

Stephann -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 4:41:46 PM)
Well, I rather hate the way we tax vice; you don't 'need' alcohol, cigarettes, or pumpkins, so why not tax it? After all, only drunks drink, dirty smokers smoke, and filthy children carve pumpkins... Anyway, the point is that poor people rarely buy new vehicles or new housing. Usually they buy used vehicles (which shouldn't fall under sales tax) and rent housing from the owners. Stephan

kdsub -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 4:44:54 PM)
I'm sure there is a lot of work to do but hell anything is better than what we have... damn talk about loopholes... what have we now... I am all for at least trying a simplified system that is fair... Try it in a few volunteer states... Bet there would be no problem with that... then compare the results to past years. Nothing can be worse than doing nothing. Butch

Maya2001 -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 4:51:54 PM)
Was wondering will this cause changes for those that are retired. example those that put away RRP's, Is that currently taxed when you withdraw money from your plans? if it was taxed prior than the senior will be actually paying taxes twice on the same money earned Same issue for those that worked had unemployment deductions from their pay and when the new system goes in place if unemployed will be taxed again Sorry I am from Canada so not sure how your payroll taxes are done and we got both taxes systems so trying figure out implications based on our system

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 4:52:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I'm sure there is a lot of work to do but hell anything is better than what we have... damn talk about loopholes... what have we now... I am all for at least trying a simplified system that is fair... Try it in a few volunteer states... Bet there would be no problem with that... then compare the results to past years. Nothing can be worse than doing nothing. Butch Agreed 100%.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 7:16:38 PM)
The true answers will be found here http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

OrionTheWolf -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 7:18:06 PM)
Actually everyone would get the same amount of prebate, they just need your name and address. The prebate amount would be decided based upon the poverty level. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...thanks for the informative reply LD. i see how many of the points you have laid out might work, particulary the one about getting tax from the underground economy(although the one about a rebate for the poor means the government need to know who, exactly, is poor......which in turn cuts against the point about government intrusion)........but, inevitably (lol), i have another question. Income based tax is based on a relatively simple ethical principle, ie the money you pay is based on your ability to pay it. Is there an equivilant, relatively simple, ethical principle that the point of sale tax is based on?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 7:23:03 PM)
Change the foundation, and the top has to readjust itself. HR 25 has been building momentum for many years, and now even more so now. I do not see it occuring in the near future, but just as anything that has alot of change to it, as it is discussed more, then it has more fine tuning, and will eventually make it. It would be a huge boost to the economy here, and bring in more tax dollars than the current system, without loopholes or punishing any class in paying more taxes. quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Given that the US is a christian nation, why is there a movement away from income based tax and towards a point of sale tax? There's no movement. It's all a bunch of rhetoric, jawboning, and the creation of fodder for wishful thinking... primarily to keep the peons divided and controlled (by chasing their tails) for a few more years. If we want to see real change, we need to start at the very top and work our way down the food chain. It's as simple as that. But so few seem to understand this.

Archer -> RE: taxes (1/9/2008 9:54:28 PM)
The problem with Not taxing items is that then you have to deal with people wanting to add their items to the list of "nessesities". The plan spcificly says TAX ALL NEW GOODS and SERVICES ONCE, The prebate simplifies the system on the collection end. If it's new it's taxed period. The prebate seems to complicate the idea but when instituted it's the simplest

philosophy -> RE: taxes (1/10/2008 10:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer All the government needs to know is How many people with social security numbers live in your family? 4, OK then the poverty level for a family of 4 is $XX,XXX.xx Tax rate is 23% so you get ($XX,XXX.xx times 0.23)/12 per month as your prebate. ......very intriguing thought Archer..... .....my first thought on this issue is that income based taxation was the most fair way to go about this. Now i'm not saying i've changed my mind, but i freely admit i have a lot of thinking to do around this subject.

ksub4u -> RE: taxes (1/10/2008 11:25:47 PM)
quote: Anyway, the point is that poor people rarely buy new vehicles or new housing. Usually they buy used vehicles (which shouldn't fall under sales tax) and rent housing from the owners. While I'm with you on the new vehicles or housing ... but how about things like tv's, mobile phones, i-pods, sneakers and jeans ... there are plenty of things that people in our society seem to find money for, even if they really don't have the money. I'm wondering how a flat tax would affect people's credit - would it make them pause a minute to see if they really needed the 3rd tv for the household, or would it not change their spending habits at all? Would credit card debt soar even higher, causing a greater economic problem? People are so greedy for what they want, and want it NOW vs. budgeting and saving, let alone saving for retirement. The thing is that this tax situation is frustrating beyond belief for the middle class. For anyone outside of the US trying to understand or judge our tax system - they have to realize that there are a lot of other taxes/ramifications/issues that we deal with beyond the federal income tax. There's the state and local income taxes, property taxes (which run about $10K/year for a house here in NJ worth between $400K-500K, which is a rather modest 3-4 bedroom single - just to give you perspective). There's the rising problem, especially here in NJ, with the state deciding that the citizenship has to now bail out the government for the poor financial decisions they've made in the past two decades. Our lovely governor has just announced a 'monitization' plan which confuses the heck out of me (I'm so not a finance major!) but which will raise tolls on our roads tremendously over the next twenty years. All to bail out the government for corruption, waste and poor management. So.... this is probably just a vent. I need to learn more about the prebate - I never heard the term before reading this thread. I tend to zone out when I hear the word 'taxes' these days. It's all a bit overwhelming. And honestly, I couldn't look at another country and criticize their government - I wouldn't feel able to understand their system enough to criticize it, without living within it. I do understand criticizing our world politics, but when it comes to understanding life within the country, if you haven't been there, there's just so much you can't understand. It goes beyond policies and philosophies and reaches into the daily struggle to eke out a decent living.

Zensee -> RE: taxes (1/10/2008 11:49:37 PM)
Somehow you just know that the people who most need to pay their share of taxes and are best at avoiding them now, will be able to dodge a consumption tax just as readily. Sorry but I have no confidence that the wealthy will do anything fair if it threatens their privilege. I think history will back me up on this. Z.

ksub4u -> RE: taxes (1/10/2008 11:55:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Somehow you just know that the people who most need to pay their share of taxes and are best at avoiding them now, will be able to dodge a consumption tax just as readily. Sorry but I have no confidence that the wealthy will do anything fair if it threatens their privilege. I think history will back me up on this. Z. They can't dodge the current sales tax - you're charged 6% for a tv, whether it's a 13" Sanyo or a big-ass flat screen. Collected at point of sale. No muss, no fuss.

CuriousLord -> RE: taxes (1/11/2008 12:07:55 AM)
I'm in favor of a combination flat tax and income tax. Such as, maybe everyone owes 10k per year then everyone owes an additional amount based on their income. The evil of proportional taxes leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Someone who spends their life working shouldn't have to pay more because the guy living next door is a lazy ass who never did anything in school and just gets by with half-assed effort in his minimum wage job. Then again, at some point, we have to acknowledge that the lazy ass who didn't try as hard and doesn't do shit simply can't payas much as the guy who works his ass off, so, while it's unfair, we can get more from the harder worker. The constant idea behind the income-based tax is that we all work just as hard, just that some people happen to get more money for that work. My ass.

ArgoGeorgia -> RE: taxes (1/11/2008 5:43:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Sorry but I have no confidence that the wealthy will do anything fair if it threatens their privilege. Wow - talk about class warfare rhetoric. Many 'rich' people in America work very, very hard for that so-called privilege. I would be curious to know what you think makes a person wealthy. Is it making 6 figures a year? Or does it necessitate a trust fund? With a sales tax, if that 'privileged non-working snob' goes to buy his 10th yacht, well, he's going to pay a lot of sales tax for it. Unless he buys it used. It will not be in a business's interestest to help the rich avoid paying these taxes, because they will be the ones, in the end, just like sales tax now, having to account for it.

NorthernGent -> RE: taxes (1/13/2008 5:03:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia not majority rules (which is a PC way of saying mob rule). Democracy comes complete with flaws, as with any system, but the underlying premise is that the majority are far less likely to make an irrational decision (in comparison with interest groups - such as today's kings in the market society). What exactly do you mean by "mob rule"? quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia And there are some legitimate uses for taxation. They are outlined in the US Constitution. Wasn't the US constitution deliberately left open for amendment? thus that which was deemed to be "legitimate use of taxation", was open for change. Presumably there are various opinions on taxation, how do you decide as a group on the way forward? Will of the majority, or something else? quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia There are also other ways of doing works such as roads - usage fees, tolls, etc. Wouldn't that be more equitable? Charge for using the roads, schools, etc rather than just making everyone pay for it, regardless of how they use it? I'm not against all taxation. I'm against unnecessary taxation and income taxes. We have a system of charges and tolls in England, and I'd agree with you that this is the more equitable method in relation to road use - no argument from me there. Applying this to schools in England wouldn't work because of the relative lack of social mobility in our society (by all accounts, the US and the UK have the greatest wealth gaps in the developed world - the irony eh - the nation that was founded in response to corruption and privilege, has become the greatest proponent of the aforementioned ills). quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia I said that opportunity exists for all, some more than others, true, but that is true in life. Every opportunity I had is available to probably most. Public school - check. Got a job at Wendy's and paid for a car - check. Joined the army - check. Paid for college with a job and student loans - check. Human behaviour isn't as simplisitic as saying "I've paid for everything, why can't everyone else". People live different lives, with different personal experiences, and the mind is a strange thing - you never know when yours might fuck up and when you'll need help. There all sorts of good reasons why people need a hand in guiding them back into employment, e.g. people who have suffered with depression and lost all confidence through being out of work for years, the disabled who struggle to compete for obvious reasons, but given a helping hand can contribute to the economy and society, there are other reasons but I'll give you an example of what I mean, and how taxation can help people seriously in need: I'm currently working on a project designed for abused children. A particular girl was gang raped and so traumatised that she couldn't speak to anyone for about 8 months. Some of our female staff have managed to help persuade this girl to accept a training post in one of our projects - the training is nurturing abused horses - that way she isn't forced to speak to people (particularly men). She's improving, her confidence is still very shaky indeed, but she's steadily making progress. There are hundreds of thousands of people like this in England (I'm guessing it's the same in the US) who need help to give them a chance in life, and it all costs money. The world isn't as straightforward as everyone gets a fair crack of the whip - it ain't - so, you can either abandon the marginalised, or you can help them. By the way, who was funding your student loan? and, presumably, you couldn't have gone to college without that loan? quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia What you are after is for the government to make sure that all things are equal, and that is not possible, probable, or even advisable. No, I'm not after equal outcome at all. You're reducing human behaviour to the cold, hard, science of "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth" - it ain't like that - life is complex. I'm after a system which helps the marginalised get back into work and generally have a chance in life. quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia Hospitals are commonly built by private corporations, churches, etc. A private corporation will want a return on its investment - the highest return possible - when it comes down to health v proifts, there will only be one winner and that is profits. This is why a public administration body has the edge - it has a duty to the public's well-being, whereas a corporation has a duty to its shareholders wealth. quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia Education is where I am a little torn - I recognize the good schools provide to society, Education/health/housing/parental upbringing etc are simply components of a much wider picture - a chance in life. All of these fill a need in society. Are you torn on education because you've experienced the benefits of schooling? Will you be torn if you suffer from depression in later life and need some help, just like you needed help with your schooling? quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia Because my parents put money into the system, and rightly expected something in return. Agreed, a return is a fair call. Then again, the vast majority of people put money into the system, and if you can guide those struggling for various reasons, then so will they, and thus reduce the burden on the system. quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia Quite simply, you are a socialist from the tone of your posts. You'll find that you're incorrect, but it's not important to this discussion, and I've better things to do with my time than go through the ins and outs of Socialism and Liberalism to someone who quite clearly throws labels around, but doesn't take the time to understand them. quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia You believe that the world's social ills can be solved by taxing the rich and giving to the poor. The cold, hard science eh. In fact, I believe the wealthy have made their money on the back of society, and thus are indebted to society; they can go a long way to repaying their debt by freeing up a small portion of their fortune, earned on the back of society, for helping those who are struggling with life. quote: ORIGINAL: ArgoGeorgia That is a system bound to lose in the end, because in total, you are taxing (punishing) the producers and rewarding the consumers. This is not an economically sound system and will fail. Not at all. There's an economic benefit as well as a social one; where you can guide people back into work, they earn a return on their labour to further economic growth, and they don't act as a drain on taxpayers funds.

OldBastardly1 -> RE: taxes (1/13/2008 6:04:39 AM)
It is my understanding that the FairTax plan would provide MORE money to the goverment for infrastructure, military, etc. It would also stabilize the now endangered Social Security system. It would also do away with corporate taxes, making their profit margin grow and allowing them to either grow themselves or to reduce prices to the consumer. Doing away with the IRS, it's employees & paperwork/forms, would reduce the financial burden on the government. There are more benefits to a Fair Tax plan, but I can't remember them right now. I am old and a simple man. [sm=ugh.gif]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125