The honeymoon is ALREADY over? Shocking numbers

[utgibbs]

Questions re the fair tax:

1) Would the tax apply to services?

2) Would the tax apply to goods (and/or services) bought outside of the United States?

3) If indeed the fair tax is, as sjt claims, going to result in a greater part of the tax burden being placed on the wealthy, then why is it that the wealthy support it? The only people I see really touting this are conservatives, like Boortz. Why is he promoting a tax that would increase the burden on the upper class if his argument that the lower class is getting away without paying its fair share? Makes no sense.

Agree. Defeats "trickle down" after all. lol:

For some reason I always thought "Fair Tax" was a straight flat tax on income. Have they recently changed to this consumption tax?

 

[StepCross]

Agree. Defeats "trickle down" after all. lol:

For some reason I always thought "Fair Tax" was a straight flat tax on income. Have they recently changed to this consumption tax?

No...the "Fair Tax" has always been consumption, I think.

 

[utvolpj]

No...the "Fair Tax" has always been consumption, I think.

it has as long as I've been following it.

 

[BeecherVol]

No...the "Fair Tax" has always been consumption, I think.

it has as long as I've been following it.

If that is true I could see why the "wealthy" would be more in favor of this than the current system.

 

[Vol423]

As much as I dislike Social Security, it is at least uniform and no one who earns income is immune from it.

That's not true. Social Security isn't uniformly applied. People don't have social security taxes deducted from earned wages over a specified maximum amount ($106,800 for 2011).

 

[StepCross]

That's not true. Social Security isn't uniformly applied. People don't have social security taxes deducted from earned wages over a specified maximum amount ($106,800 for 2011).

Yet another startlingly regressive tax.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That's my fear. Progressivity is necessary for any "fair" tax code.

However, the current code is so bad, I'd almost jump on the grenade just to get the dialogue somewhere closer to an appropriate place. It seems obvious (and it should be obvious since these are Adam Smith's rules for a tax code) that Simple, Transparent, and Progressive are the foundation. But we aren't close to there yer.

PS - great analysis above.

PPS - Your statement about wage stagnation could not be more true.

Did you bother to actually read the convoluted analysis that tried to tie a consumption tax and marginal rates in our current progressive system together? Can't beckon and is nonsensical. The analysis should be about what is would cost in true tax dollars for people at all levels. Only then would we know about the progressive or regressive nature of the tax. One beauty of the fair tax is that it also taxes wealth as people spend it. Today's trust fund types pay no taxes.

All analysis of thus nature is easy if we aren't dealing in actual gross dollars and if people aren't actually having to EARN those dollars. In that instance, we can go through a dance about marginal rates and believe it makes sense, but alas, it doesn't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BeecherVol]

Did you bother to actually read the convoluted analysis that tried to tie a consumption tax and marginal rates in our cutter progressive system together?

All analysis of thus nature is easy if we aren't dealing in actual gross dollars and if people aren't actually having to EARN those dollars. In that instance, we can go through a dance about marginal rates and believe it makes sense, but alas, it doesn't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

:no:

 

[sjt18]

Progressivity is an absolutely necessary feature of any taxation plan. There is no "fairness" without progressivity. "Fairness" has no meaning otherwise.

Yes it does. It is completely "fair" that if you put more effort and intelligence into something you should get proportionally more out of it than someone doing the same thing who doesn't try as hard or make good decisions. There is absolutely NOTHING inherently "fair" about rewarding those who do and contribute less.... or conversely punishing those who do and contribute more.

I make a good salary. I worked hard, made good decisions, kept my nose clean,... pulled myself up by my bootstraps so to speak. I wasn't born with rich parents... just parents that instilled rich values. Please tell me how it is "fair" for me to pay a higher percentage than my sister in law who had similar opportunities but instead chose to destroy her life with drugs, alcohol, and bed hopping. Worse yet... she's on 100% SSI disability because she managed to convince a gov't doctor that she's bi-polar when her only real problem is that she's a burn out. Please explain to me how that is "fair".

Taxes never inhibit wealth creation. Never.

No more so than planting wheat in Ga is less profitable than planting it in Nebraska.

Taxes against those who produce wealth ALWAYS inhibits wealth creation. This isn't rocket science. When you confiscate wealth from those who would invest it to create more wealth by resource utilization (including labor) and give it to those who consume wealth without making a substantial contribution... that inhibits wealth creation.

It is just this simple... if you only had one cup of beans, which would be the better investment? A) plant the beans or B) eat them?

The exact same principle works for money. You can either put the money to work so that many can join in, labor to make the harvest better, and eat from the product... or else you can give it to someone who will simply consume it.

I see far more alcoholics than you do. The current financial crisis was empowered by Clinton and Rubin, but the real alcoholics - Wall Street - went on history's largest binge. I would certainly like to dry them out, and putting the 40-page Glass-Steagal act back into law, overturning Santa Clara vs Pacific Railroad, would certainly be a better move than the 2000 pg bricks ("El Ladrillo") currently written, not to dry out the alcoholics, but to ensure they get even more whiskey.

I guess you haven't seen any of my repeated posts asserting that big gov't/business/labor/education/media are ALL a threat to our freedom and rights? You can NEVER deal with Wall Street until gov't starts being the referree again and stops being a player. You would make gov't an even bigger player.

 

[MG1968]

That's not true. Social Security isn't uniformly applied. People don't have social security taxes deducted from earned wages over a specified maximum amount ($106,800 for 2011).

I know there is a maximum income limit, but the percentage doesn't change whether you earn $1000/year or $106,800.

 

[StepCross]

Yes it does. It is completely "fair" that if you put more effort and intelligence into something you should get proportionally more out of it than someone doing the same thing who doesn't try as hard or make good decisions. There is absolutely NOTHING inherently "fair" about rewarding those who do and contribute less.... or conversely punishing those who do and contribute more.

I make a good salary. I worked hard, made good decisions, kept my nose clean,... pulled myself up by my bootstraps so to speak. I wasn't born with rich parents... just parents that instilled rich values. Please tell me how it is "fair" for me to pay a higher percentage than my sister in law who had similar opportunities but instead chose to destroy her life with drugs, alcohol, and bed hopping. Worse yet... she's on 100% SSI disability because she managed to convince a gov't doctor that she's bi-polar when her only real problem is that she's a burn out. Please explain to me how that is "fair".

1. What in heaven's name are you whining about? You made better decisions and worked harder than your S-I-L, and you have a MUCH better life as a result. You sound so bitter and angry about the "unfairness" of it all, but her life sucks and yours seems fine.

2. Progressive taxation is not about "rewarding" those who do less, and "punishing" those who do more. Taxation is about collecting money to run a country, not about punishment.

3. It's fair because those who have gotten more out of the system (you and me, as opposed to your SIL) have more reason to keep things running smoothly. Think about it: if our infrastructure or army came crashing down tomorrow, you and I have a lot to lose, because we've made good decisions and have a good thing going. Your SIL has little to lose, according to you: she's broke and a burnout. What does she care if China invades tomorrow?

4. It's also fair because you and I have more ability to contribute. I can afford to pay 20 cents of taxes on my last dollar earned without it causing a gigantic problem for me. When I was in grad school with kids, I couldn't do that...those last 20 cents would have meant the difference in gas in the car and food on the table.

5. Your sister-in-law probably thinks it's all unfair too, and she got a raw deal. I'd tell her that life's not fair, and she made bad decisions and now she has to live with them. But I still don't understand why YOU don't think things are "fair." You made better decisions and have a better life. Why u mad bro?

 

[droski]

3. It's fair because those who have gotten more out of the system (you and me, as opposed to your SIL) have more reason to keep things running smoothly. Think about it: if our infrastructure or army came crashing down tomorrow, you and I have a lot to lose, because we've made good decisions and have a good thing going. Your SIL has little to lose, according to you: she's broke and a burnout. What does she care if China invades tomorrow?

how in the world have successful people got more out of the system than people on welfare? i tell you what. i'd gladly forgo asset protection if china invades to pay what his SIL does in taxes. deal?

 

[droski]

as for the rest:

1. What in heaven's name are you whining about? You made better decisions and worked harder than your S-I-L, and you have a MUCH better life as a result. You sound so bitter and angry about the "unfairness" of it all, but her life sucks and yours seems fine.

2. Progressive taxation is not about "rewarding" those who do less, and "punishing" those who do more. Taxation is about collecting money to run a country, not about punishment.

4. It's also fair because you and I have more ability to contribute. I can afford to pay 20 cents of taxes on my last dollar earned without it causing a gigantic problem for me. When I was in grad school with kids, I couldn't do that...those last 20 cents would have meant the difference in gas in the car and food on the table.

5. Your sister-in-law probably thinks it's all unfair too, and she got a raw deal. I'd tell her that life's not fair, and she made bad decisions and now she has to live with them. But I still don't understand why YOU don't think things are "fair." You made better decisions and have a better life. Why u mad bro?

1. not sure how this is relavant to fair taxation. we should feel sorry for idiots and tax them less?

2. then why does 45% of this country not pay taxes? surely if it was about collecting money more could contribute.

4. not our problem.

5. because he's paying for her dumb ass to sit around and do nothing.

 

[StepCross]

how in the world have successful people got more out of the system than people on welfare?

His sister-in-law hasn't gotten much at all out of the system or out of life or out of anything, apparently. He says she's a burnout living month-to-month on some sort of fake disability.

I wouldn't choose that life, and if I woke up with that life I would immediately clean myself up and go get a job. So would you. Why are we pretending that's a cool life? It's not, it's terrible. She has gotten basically nothing out of the opportunities afforded her in this country. That's fine, it was her choice, but let's not pretend she's living the sweet life here.

Anyway I'm not a big supporter of welfare. Cut her funding if you want, fine with me. That's a different issue. The issue here is taxation, and we're going to have to pay it with or without her, if we want the country to stay afloat.

i tell you what. i'd gladly forgo asset protection if china invades to pay what his SIL does in taxes. deal?

China isn't invading, because we DO have an army.

Are you saying you would gladly disband national defense, if it meant also disbanding welfare? Wow. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

 

[droski]

His sister-in-law hasn't gotten much at all out of the system or out of life or out of anything, apparently. He says she's a burnout living month-to-month on some sort of fake disability.

I wouldn't choose that life, and if I woke up with that life I would immediately clean myself up and go get a job. So would you. Why are we pretending that's a cool life? It's not, it's terrible. She has gotten basically nothing out of the opportunities afforded her in this country. That's fine, it was her choice, but let's not pretend she's living the sweet life here.

Anyway I'm not a big supporter of welfare. Cut her funding if you want, fine with me. That's a different issue. The issue here is taxation, and we're going to have to pay it with or without her, if we want the country to stay afloat.



China isn't invading, because we DO have an army.

Are you saying you would gladly disband national defense, if it meant also disbanding welfare? Wow. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

not understanding your point. i'd say for DOING NOTHING it's a pretty damn good life supported by those who work for a living.

no i'm saying that arguing i'm paying more taxes because we need to defend ourselves from china is a bit absurd at best.

 

[StepCross]

1. not sure how this is relavant to fair taxation. we should feel sorry for idiots and tax them less?

I don't care how you feel about them. I don't feel particularly sorry for idiots myself, in general. But I accept that idiots can't afford to help run the railroad.

And I'd like to hope that there are some PARENT idiots who have NON-IDIOT children. Those children are poor, and deserve a little break on taxation so they can have a chance to work their way OUT of that life and help you and me keep this bee-otch running.

2. then why does 45% of this country not pay taxes? surely if it was about collecting money more could contribute.

45%? I'm pretty sure you made that number up.

It IS about collecting money, and everyone should contribute.

4. not our problem.

I don't follow. The country has to have some amount of money, and broke people don't have much to give.

Plus there's the whole american dream thing, where broke people are supposed to have a chance to WORK and EARN and no longer be broke. If they do that, then it helps the economy and helps the infrastructure and helps everything.

5. because he's paying for her dumb ass to sit around and do nothing.

She's his family, he'd probably be paying anyway. And he'd be paying more, because as it is, his tax dollars are spread out between things that actually mean something and things that don't. If he had to pay for her by himself, it would just be pure loss.

No point in being mad because of bad choices by stupid people...there are too many of them around to let it torque you off. JMO.

 

[StepCross]

not understanding your point. i'd say for DOING NOTHING it's a pretty damn good life supported by those who work for a living.

To each his own, I guess, but I would hate that life. To me, the "well, my life sucks, but at least I didn't have to do anything to get it" argument doesn't make any sense.

But like I said, I'd be OK if we cut her off. I'm not a big welfare guy.

no i'm saying that arguing i'm paying more taxes because we need to defend ourselves from china is a bit absurd at best.

But we DO need to defend ourselves. This isn't absurd, it's obvious.

 

[droski]

I don't care how you feel about them. I don't feel particularly sorry for idiots myself, in general. But I accept that idiots can't afford to help run the railroad.

And I'd like to hope that there are some PARENT idiots who have NON-IDIOT children. Those children are poor, and deserve a little break on taxation so they can have a chance to work their way OUT of that life and help you and me keep this bee-otch running.



45%? I'm pretty sure you made that number up.

It IS about collecting money, and everyone should contribute.



I don't follow. The country has to have some amount of money, and broke people don't have much to give.

Plus there's the whole american dream thing, where broke people are supposed to have a chance to WORK and EARN and no longer be broke. If they do that, then it helps the economy and helps the infrastructure and helps everything.



She's his family, he'd probably be paying anyway. And he'd be paying more, because as it is, his tax dollars are spread out between things that actually mean something and things that don't. If he had to pay for her by himself, it would just be pure loss.

No point in being mad because of bad choices by stupid people...there are too many of them around to let it torque you off. JMO.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance

we aren't just talking about junkies here. too many people aren't paying taxes.

 

[droski]

To each his own, I guess, but I would hate that life. To me, the "well, my life sucks, but at least I didn't have to do anything to get it" argument doesn't make any sense.

But like I said, I'd be OK if we cut her off. I'm not a big welfare guy.



But we DO need to defend ourselves. This isn't absurd, it's obvious.

sitting at home all day and getting paid for it sucks? obviously some disagree.

yes we need to defend ourselves. but the need to defend ourselves isn't the primary reason we have a progressive tax system.

 

[StepCross]

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance

we aren't just talking about junkies here. too many people aren't paying taxes.

That's just INCOME taxes. We also have sales tax, gas tax, food tax, property tax, wheel tax, on and on and on. Everybody is paying taxes.

I'd prefer to eliminate all sales taxes and have everyone pay an income tax. That would be simpler and less regressive, and people wouldn't be getting out of paying income taxes at that clip.

But as long as we have a million different taxes on spending and selling and driving and working and eating and breathing and owning a house, 47% ain't getting off for free.

 

[droski]

That's just INCOME taxes. We also have sales tax, gas tax, food tax, property tax, wheel tax, on and on and on. Everybody is paying taxes.

I'd prefer to eliminate all sales taxes and have everyone pay an income tax. That would be simpler and less regressive, and people wouldn't be getting out of paying income taxes at that clip.

But as long as we have a million different taxes on spending and selling and driving and working and eating and breathing and owning a house, 47% ain't getting off for free.

if your income is so low you aren't paying any income taxes i very much doubt you are paying more into the system via sales tax than you are taking out. all you need is one kid in public school. the numbers just don't work.

 

[BeecherVol]

To each his own, I guess, but I would hate that life. To me, the "well, my life sucks, but at least I didn't have to do anything to get it" argument doesn't make any sense.

But like I said, I'd be OK if we cut her off. I'm not a big welfare guy.

It makes good sense. There are many who would rather live with less (off the government) than have to work with a chance to have more. To each his own, as you put it.

 

[StepCross]

sitting at home all day and getting paid for it sucks? obviously some disagree.

Quit your job and apply for welfare then, if that's the life for you. It's not for me.

yes we need to defend ourselves. but the need to defend ourselves isn't the primary reason we have a progressive tax system.

Defense is about 20% of expenditures.

The safety net programs you don't like are only 14%.

The article you cited about 40% not paying income tax mentioned defense first, too: "... paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education."

Those are good things to pay for, no?

 

[StepCross]

if your income is so low you aren't paying any income taxes i very much doubt you are paying more into the system via sales tax than you are taking out. all you need is one kid in public school. the numbers just don't work.

"So low"? It was you that said a bunch of middle-income families weren't paying income tax. Those families are paying plenty in sales and gas and property taxes and SS taxes.

(Actually, I'm pretty sure every income bracket ends up paying about 20% of their income in total taxes, but I can't find the link at the moment.)

 

[droski]

Quit your job and apply for welfare then, if that's the life for you. It's not for me.



Defense is about 20% of expenditures.

The safety net programs you don't like are only 14%.

The article you cited about 40% not paying income tax mentioned defense first, too: "... paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education."

Those are good things to pay for, no?

i've thought about it.

it's not just welfare and social security, it's pensions for the unions. lots of crap that can be cut before we have to start talking about china invading us. and the 47% that doesn't pay taxes doesn't need protection and education? it's just an absurd argument by you.