At $4/gallon us Yanks have it good

[chadrcr]

My brother-in-law thinks he lives in a welfare state, I am pretty sure that Texas is not a welfare State. He was living off my sister's student loans, wic, food stamps....he would go 'work' for his brother 'fixin' radiators a couple days a week, got paid in beer and cigarettes. Never contributed to the upkeep of their house, my GrandMother, and Dad, and step-dad paid all the bills..........
that is pathetic...
but on the other hand, Warren Buffet (multi billionaire) paying a lower tax rate ( as per W. Buffet) than his secretary (60k per year) is hard to swallow.
It does not have to be LEFT or RIGHT; sometimes right down the middle is the best way...not on ALL things.

[GTAHVIT]

I agree, however Warren Buffet didn't quite compare apples to apples, He was comparing income taxes, and with all his tax deductions for interest and property taxes, and charitable donations etc., his AGI put him in a lower tax bracket. He had to give away or spend a lot of his money to be able to get the lower tax bracket. His secretary may not be able to afford those kinds of expenses and therefore gets taxed at a higher rate. Doesn't make sense does it. the only way to lower your tax burden is to spend more, give away more or make less...

And Mr. Buffet, pays himself a very small salary compared to what he's worth. if you calculated what he paid in taxes on all his assets, it would most likely be above 30%.

My only problem with our governments tax system is that it should be the same for everyone. My preference is the FairTax, But I'm not necessarily against the flat tax. The system we have now is so convoluted and broken that we the tax payer have lost the ability to hold the Gov accountable for what they are, or, aren't doing with our tax money. The cool thing about the FairTax is it doesn't require spending cuts. They predict that with the fair tax the Gov can continue to spend as much as they spend now, with enough to adequately fund Social Security, Medicare and reduce the Deficit.

Plus, it's based off of what you spend not what you make. So, if you don't make a lot therefore don't spend a lot you don't pay a lot in taxes. Vice versa for the wealthy. They spend therefore they pay. Obviously this is a very simple analogy. But that's the basic premise. No more April 15th. No more death, income, or investment taxes among many others. Sponsored by Senator John Linder.

http://www.fairtax.org

The quote is from a different site.

Of the FairTax, Huckabee asserts that it’s…

• SIMPLE, easy to understand
• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn’t cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
• FAIR, FLAT, and FAMILY FRIENDLY, loophole-free, and everyone pays their share
• LOW TAX RATE is achieved by broad base with no exclusions
• PREDICTABLE, doesn’t change, so financial planning is possible
• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn’t intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
• PRODUCTIVE, rewards - rather than penalizes - work and productivity

A detailed benefits analysis of the plan (from The FairTax Book) explains Huckabee’s ardent advocacy:

For INDIVIDUALS:
• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
• You pay the tax when you buy “at retail” - not “used”
• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
• Reduction of “pre-FairTaxed” retail prices by 20%-30%
• Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels
• FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices
• Every household receives a monthly check, or “pre-bate”
• “Prebate” is “advance tax payback” for monthly consumption to poverty level
• FairTax’s “prebate” ensures progressivity, poverty protection
• Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
• Elimination of “parasitic” Income Tax industry
• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals
• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates

For BUSINESSES:
• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
• Business compensated for collecting tax at “cash register”
• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
• No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
• Off-shore “tax haven” headquarters can now return to U.S
• No more “favors” from politicians at expense of taxpayers
• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
• Global “free (and equitable) trade” becomes possible for currently-disadvanted ( http://snipurl.com/tradeinequity ) U.S. exports
• US exports increase their share of foreign markets

For THE COUNTRY:
• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
• Jobs return to the U.S.
• Foreign corporations “set up shop” in the U.S.
• Tax system trends are corrected to “enlarge the pie”
• Larger economic “pie,” means thinner tax rate “slices”
• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as “pie” increases
• No more “closed door” tax deals by politicians and business
• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow

Sorry for the hijack.

[chadrcr]

Warren Buffet's income is predominately taxed as 'capital gains'...investment income on multibillions invested, as you said.. he has almost no 'salary'.
The tax rate issue (that he brought up) is: he pays 15% capital gains tax on billions, she pays 25% income tax on her 60-100 k salary.

I like the idea of a fair tax, the one presented by Mike Huckelberry !
It does tax on spending, and 'rich' people spend more $$$.
However, Poor people spend ALL their income 100% would be taxed, billionaires do not spend anywhere near 100% of their income, therefore they 'might' only be taxed on 2% of their income. That is an extreme example of a REGRESSIVE tax rate, which puts a disproportionate burden on the low income people.
Of course there are tax breaks for poverty level folks, but it did seem to hit
lower to middle enlisted military pretty hard; Their calculator said that I would GAIN -$3000 approximately (that is minus). I did not spend a lot of time researching it, just enuff to know that the calculator said I was hosed if it worked the way it was then....before Huckleberry dropped out of primary race. How many people here believe that someone like Terrel Owens (new 27 million contract) deserves a lower tax rate than the soldier who just posthumously received the Congressional Medal of Honor, for saving the lives of the crew in his tank? Of course he does not pay taxes now....but there are many like him in Iraq etc. No offense to T.O. I love the NFL, but I do not believe the football players are 'worth' more than Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors.....I need a ladder so I can get off my soap box...sorry.

[Silverado]

Flat tax across the board says everyone pays the same percentage. And, that's how is should be....everyone, not just those that make more than X amount, EVERYONE contributes their fair share.

Consumption Tax would work too. I used to be a huge proponent of the Flat Tax (again, assuming everyone pays), but now I'm leaning towards the Consumption Tax because it gives the people better control over their own money.

Sure, someone will point out how a Consumption Tax will create a "black market" for more things than there already is, but there are always going to be those that get around the system.

Either way, Flat Tax or Consumption Tax, it's better than what we do now.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I think it's sad that our tax system takes up more pages than a full encyclopedia. All volumes included...Frankly, anything is better than what we have. The taz returns, deduct this, write off that - do you have kids? Are you married...how much do you make? (Does our current law system favor you?)

Ugh...I haven't read much into the flat tax, but I like the idea of the fair tax.

[chadrcr]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I think it's sad that our tax system takes up more pages than a full encyclopedia. All volumes included...Frankly, anything is better than what we have. The taz returns, deduct this, write off that - do you have kids? Are you married...how much do you make? (Does our current law system favor you?)
Ugh...I haven't read much into the flat tax, but I like the idea of the fair tax.

It should definitely be simpler... go to the fair tax web site ( link thru Mike Huckebees site) put in your info see if it works for you...or against you.

Originally Posted by Silverado

Flat tax across the board says everyone pays the same percentage. And, that's how is should be....everyone, not just those that make more than X amount, EVERYONE contributes their fair share.

Consumption Tax would work too. I used to be a huge proponent of the Flat Tax (again, assuming everyone pays), but now I'm leaning towards the Consumption Tax because it gives the people better control over their own money.

Sure, someone will point out how a Consumption Tax will create a "black market" for more things than there already is, but there are always going to be those that get around the system.

Either way, Flat Tax or Consumption Tax, it's better than what we do now.

The consumption tax, taxes 100% of poor peoples income. ( they spend it all to exist) and can only tax the richest peoples income by a small percent, if they do not buy yachts and houses every year...
Flat tax is the closest thing to fair...
my .03 cents (inflation)

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by chadrcr

It should definitely be simpler... go to the fair tax web site ( link thru Mike Huckebees site) put in your info see if it works for you...or against you.



The consumption tax, taxes 100% of poor peoples income. ( they spend it all to exist) and can only tax the richest peoples income by a small percent, if they do not buy yachts and houses every year...
Flat tax is the closest thing to fair...
my .03 cents (inflation)

Don't forget about the prebate checks that will be issued monthly to every household which is based on dependants.

Here's a link to an article that answers this question. Remember that the cost of all goods will go down and the Net income will go up for all wage earners. Plus if you buy preowned products, as most lower income families already do, you will pay no tax at all. So, the benefits are across the board. The calculatore doesn't adequetly capture buying used versus new imo.

http://www.fairtax.net/14.htm Info. on Prebate Checks.
http://www.fairtax.net/15.htm Info. on Benefits to Low Income.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by chadrcr

Warren Buffet's income is predominately taxed as 'capital gains'...investment income on multibillions invested, as you said.. he has almost no 'salary'.
The tax rate issue (that he brought up) is: he pays 15% capital gains tax on billions, she pays 25% income tax on her 60-100 k salary.

I like the idea of a fair tax, the one presented by Mike Huckelberry !
It does tax on spending, and 'rich' people spend more $$$.
However, Poor people spend ALL their income 100% would be taxed, billionaires do not spend anywhere near 100% of their income, therefore they 'might' only be taxed on 2% of their income. That is an extreme example of a REGRESSIVE tax rate, which puts a disproportionate burden on the low income people.
Of course there are tax breaks for poverty level folks, but it did seem to hit
lower to middle enlisted military pretty hard; Their calculator said that I would GAIN -$3000 approximately (that is minus). I did not spend a lot of time researching it, just enuff to know that the calculator said I was hosed if it worked the way it was then....before Huckleberry dropped out of primary race. How many people here believe that someone like Terrel Owens (new 27 million contract) deserves a lower tax rate than the soldier who just posthumously received the Congressional Medal of Honor, for saving the lives of the crew in his tank? Of course he does not pay taxes now....but there are many like him in Iraq etc. No offense to T.O. I love the NFL, but I do not believe the football players are 'worth' more than Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors.....I need a ladder so I can get off my soap box...sorry.

If we pay flat taxes, then either the government is broke or the poverty line increases. It will be impossible to reconcile this problem. The current bracket system isn't anywhere near perfection, but the problem with a flat tax is the proportional cost of paying those taxes. If a millionaire spends 1% of paid income on food goods and a person spending the exact same amount of money on food is paid under $30k per year, the proportions are different. In both cases, they can survive, but the millionaire gets to spend remaining money on everything else. Since food prices are constant and market-based, there's no justification for changing food prices, but taxes are different.

People spend proportions of their income on food, transportation, and themselves. For people with large incomes, their proportions are more favored toward the latter category, but people who have little wealth and income have to spend the vast majority of their income on the former two categories, leaving little for them to spend on themselves. A proportional tax system that goes up with income performs two tasks in this system. The first task is to reconcile the ability to pay. In other words, people who can contribute more to this great country of ours do. A capitalistic system like the United States is successful due to the elites who come from the bottom with great ideas and build their success. Anyone can do that in America. All our country asks of us is that those who are allowed to succeed in our system pay more so that others have the opportunity to do the same. In a flat rate tax system, everyone pays the same amount. That amount would be a middle-class average that working class people could not afford and wealthy people could easily afford. The wealthy would be able to invest their remaining balance to become infinitely wealthier while the poor would fall into an irreversible debt. The system would turn to a neo-feudalism in which the wealthy would dominate society much like the favored families of Spain did until the state redistributed their lands in the 20th century. The second task of proportional taxes is providing predictable stability. If citizens already know approximately how much their taxes are going to be in the following fiscal year, then they can save accordingly. With a flat tax system, taxes are based upon the need for funds. Those in government tend to spend excessively these days, leading to an unbalanced system of spending on programs and policies that the government cannot afford, as evidenced by America's ever-increasing debt.

Overall, flat taxes are great for wealthy people because the likely cost of taxes would be significantly less that their current expense. At the same time, it takes capitalism too far by charging everyone indiscriminately, breaking the wallets of the poor and middle. It's really simplistic to think that it will work. Simple things just don't tend to work in practice the same way their supporters advertise in theory. I'd hate to see what would happen to this country if flat taxes were ever to be implemented.

[Silverado]

It doesn't matter what tax system gets put in place, if the idiots that get to "control government spending" (there's 3 words that should probably never be used together)....let's say the idiots in charge of goverment spending....if they don't ever get their heads out of their asses and stop ridiculous spending (both amount and what it's being spent on), it won't matter. Ask the current politicians...they all believe there just isn't ever enough money for them to spend.

While I understand what you're saying about proportional tax vs flat tax, understand that the proportional tax "penalizes" someone for making more money. Understand that there are people out there regularly (some on this message board if I remember correctly) that will bust their ass to do good work and earn a raise, only to take home less money because of the proportional tax.

Call me selfish, but I hate the fact that just because I've worked hard to get to where I'm at, the government feels it's okay to take more from me than someone else who hasn't gotten as far as I have only to give it to those who don't work for it at all.

Why should I pay more than someone else, but only have the same access to services (police, fire, streets, etc) as that same someone else? That would be like saying everyone could go into Best Buy to get a 50" plasma TV, but because I make $60K a year I should pay 15% more than a guy that only makes $30K. Not because it's fair, but because I can? That's BS.

I've got a better idea....how about if I make enough to cover my food, shelter, etc and I have anything left over, I get to decide if I want to spend it and what I want to spend it on. If the guy making $30K can cover his necessities and has anything left over, he can do the same. If he can only cover his necessities, then he doesn't get to buy a plasma TV.

Like I said, I'm all in favor of a flat tax...take 15% of everyone's income right off the top....10-11% goes to the Fed, 4-5% goes to the State. No returns, no deductions, nothing, just pay it. The rest is yours. Then you get to decide how to spend your money.

Implement the Flat Tax and cut out the entitlement/hand out programs. Get the government to stop going through money like it's water and we will all be better off.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Silverado

the government feels it's okay to take more from me than someone else

I'm just reading these for now...but I wanted to clarify: When you say 'more', I presume you mean percentages of income, not actual dollar amounts, right?

[Silverado]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'm just reading these for now...but I wanted to clarify: When you say 'more', I presume you mean percentages of income, not actual dollar amounts, right?

Yeah, Blur was talking about the proportional tax, so yeah, I meant a higher percentage from me just because I make more.

You know, I should probably stay out of these types of discussions....I get to worked up over them and while I try not to take it personally, you know what, I take it personally. I work way to hard for my money only to have the government take a large chunk of it and give it away. I don't mind my taxes going to pay for things covered in the Constitution (i.e. the defense of the country). I just can't stand seeing so many people sit on their asses all day only to get free money from the government. I can't stand it when people think it's unfair that I am able to drive two nice vehicles (and be looking to get a 3rd one), live in a nice house, feed and clothe my family, splurge a little here and there on some entertainment and still have some savings, when they can't. You know what...if someone wants a better life for themselves, then they should work for it. If they don't want to work for it, they shouldn't get it.

Sorry, that may be cold hearted, selfish, whatever, but that's it. Just because someone has worked to get ahead and they make a little bit more than they need (or even a lot more than they need), they shouldn't have to "give it" back to anyone (government, charity, etc). If they want to, completely and totally up to them, but they shouldn't have to. And someone who doesn't want to work for it, isn't entitled to it either. They think they are, but....

Alright, again, I should stay out of this stuff.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Silverado

Yeah, Blur was talking about the proportional tax, so yeah, I meant a higher percentage from me just because I make more.

You know, I should probably stay out of these types of discussions....I get to worked up over them and while I try not to take it personally, you know what, I take it personally. I work way to hard for my money only to have the government take a large chunk of it and give it away. I don't mind my taxes going to pay for things covered in the Constitution (i.e. the defense of the country). I just can't stand seeing so many people sit on their asses all day only to get free money from the government. I can't stand it when people think it's unfair that I am able to drive two nice vehicles (and be looking to get a 3rd one), live in a nice house, feed and clothe my family, splurge a little here and there on some entertainment and still have some savings, when they can't. You know what...if someone wants a better life for themselves, then they should work for it. If they don't want to work for it, they shouldn't get it.

Sorry, that may be cold hearted, selfish, whatever, but that's it. Just because someone has worked to get ahead and they make a little bit more than they need (or even a lot more than they need), they shouldn't have to "give it" back to anyone (government, charity, etc). If they want to, completely and totally up to them, but they shouldn't have to. And someone who doesn't want to work for it, isn't entitled to it either. They think they are, but....

Alright, again, I should stay out of this stuff.

If it makes you feel any better, +1. It is really hard to stay objective and not take it personally.

It is my fault that I have money to spare. It isn't my fault that some one else doesn't. The government has proven time and time again that they can't be trusted with our money, yet they keep asking for more??? I don't get it.