-
So, how much of my income should I send to you via Paypal in order for things to be fair? Afterall, if I am in favor of the ideas at fairtax.org, I must make too much and should gladly give some away.
No system of taxation (either income or consumption) will be revered as 'fair' by everyone. A consumption tax with allowances for necessities is about as fair as it gets.
The observed differences in MPC between classes is often related to basic human needs. This is addressed in the fair tax. After basic human needs, MPC and MPS do not change significantly with your income. You will either consume or save at a similar rate.
If you make more, you spend more and are taxed more. That should be on par with the liberal agenda. Except, using the income tax and IRS is a more efficient weapon to stay in office.Comment
-
how much do you make? do you think that your contributions to superfluous goods that the poor and middle class can't afford would equal what you already pay in taxes? how much much do you think you spend on food? gas?
I'm not too sure about how the auto industry would be taxed with this system however, maybe someone could clear it up? what about gasoline-- an already highly taxed item. Though, currently, the tax at sale of gasoline is $0.184 (federal), but there are taxes that are applied before final sale. how would fair tax change that?Last edited by squidmaster; 09-22-2012, 11:18 PM.Comment
-
Wouldnt need so many taxes if the federal government didnt have so many bloated and useless agencies.
All the federal government should responsible for is defence and foreign policy. Everything else should fall on the individual states. Which is beautiful because it almost acts as 50 different countries(state actually means country). Want socialism, move to California. Want high crime, move to DC.
Want conservatism, move to a Conservative state.
The problem is the federal government has taken it upon itself to take care of everything from food stamps to currency. And......to put it bluntly.....the federal government couldnt run a lemonade stand and make a profit.
There is so much waste at every level, raising taxes will never be enough. They need to slash(not trim) fat from their bloated budget. Entire departments need to get the axe. But that is never going to happen. I dont give the States more than 20 years before the Dollar is inflated to worthlessness. The only reason it still has value is because it is the reserve currency. Now China, Russia, Brazil, Australia, EU and India are talking about a new reserve currency based on a basket of currencies. You know what that means. Weimar Republic in the streets of the United States.Comment
-
Do you only think it is fair for people to have goods that everyone can afford or something?
What about all the lower and middle income workers whose income is based in production of luxury goods? Like that dude here who was laid off when richers stopped buying new yachts in the recession. Is that what you want? One government brand clothing in 3 sizes so everyone has the same and fair?Comment
-
hahahahahahahahahachina, russia, brazil, australia, eu and india are talking about a new reserve currency based on a basket of currencies. You know what that means. Weimar republic in the streets of the united states.Comment
-
Yes, it would make goods cost more. That 30% or so that you're shelling out now on the income side of it would instead be easy to save, and theoretically the goods price would raise by the same amount. For sake or argument I'm just using the number 30%, I have no idea what would actually be appropriate.
I think, as far as consumer goods go, this would be a good thing. It's not being outwardly protectionist with the political load associated with tariffs and such; but the price difference between competing products just became a lower % difference. I doubt it would make or break a business but if you're trying to decide between a local product that's made well and a cheaper imported product, and price becomes 30% less of a factor, it should make it easier to choose the better product.
I also think that problem should sort itself out as fuel becomes more expensive, it won't make sense to ship EVERYTHING overseas. But this is a side-track.
I'll have to read it again and see if there's a tax break on materials used to make the final goods.sigpic
Originally posted by u3b3rg33kComment
-
there is waste but closing down important agencies that regulate important industries is not the way to further our society.
(using florida wages) someone that makes minimum wage works 40 hours a week. they earn about $290 before any taxes are taken out. that's 1160 a month. say you spend $60 a week on food, $25 on gas or transportation. that's $95 a week on basics. leaving you with 780 at the end of the month for: phone, car insurance, housing, power, water, etc. I don't know about you, but good luck paying all of that with only $780 left over. Let's not forget that this is UNTAXED income with only lowly taxed purchases. Try tacking on another 30% to each one of these purchases. Try bumping up their salary to $10 an hour (though at MANY businesses you are capped at pay*), that's still only 1600 a month (before taxes) leaving you with only 1220 left for, again, phone, car insurance, housing, power, water, etc.
insurance is easily $100 a month (I was paying 90 for absolute basic PIP on a perfectly clean driving record in my e34) phone is at least $40 or $50, housing is at MINIMUM $600/mo for a one bedroom, tiny place around here, power runs us between 190 and 240 (hot fl weather), and water is another $30.
that's $920. Easily. A poor worker, working shittier jobs, longer hours, in shittier conditions, eating the cheapest, shittiest of food and living without any form of health care or dental or life insurance, and they have... $50 left over to save? $100? Nothing? Your only weekly expenditures aren't just food and gas....
Then take someone that makes $250,000... or $1,000,000... or $66,700,000 (ralph lauren) and you're trying to tell me that their one time purchase of a rolex or imported car is going to somehow do anything? It's somehow "fair" that these "job creators" are profiting from the lower class at record numbers and receding jobs growth?
In order for "fair tax" to be fair, all rich people would have to spend almost all disposable income all the time. They're not. Obviously they're not going to. It's absolutely asinine for you to think this.
Just because you all live in some magical fantasy world where the poor have it great an the rich are the incarcerated ones. Where the rich end up paying sometimes tens of percentage points LESS taxes than the people making them that money. How many BIG TICKET (non service) items do you think rich people would buy in order to make up what they would have already paid in taxes? Or will this, as it already has been championed to be, actually be a burden on many poor families, break even for the middle class, and cut for the wealthy? You know, please go to google and try typing out some crazy weird sentences like "why is fair tax bad for the poor" you might get such results as:
(WHOA, POLITIFACT? THAT MUST BE SOME CRAZY LEFT-WING LOON STUFF AMIRIGHT?!)
"The FairTax would place most of the tax burden on low-income families and give large tax breaks to high-income families. Don’t forget about the state income tax, county tax, property tax, and city taxes that will be in addition to the consumption tax. The FairTax would crush the low-income family, destroy the economy, and provide an enormous tax break to the wealthy. "
SO NOW I leave you all with the options, and urge you, to educate yourselves, and see beyond your current living arrangments and into the lives of people that OBVIOUSLY aren't as fortunate and privileged as yourselves. The people that serve you every day. And somehow you all think that one rich ass buying yacht could POSSIBLY make up for the buying power of millions of people that didn't have the expendable income before.
* I worked for circuit city as a FireDog tech for a while, and most of the retail workers made minimum wage. Some, that had been there for a while, would make $9.50/hr (after a few years). If you made $10 or more when corporate walked in, your hours would be cut in less-than-half or you'd be let go. I saw it happen. This is the problem with "job creators". While it's been PROVEN that higher taxes on the rich and lower on the poor have created more jobs than the opposite, somehow everyone here is failing to recognize that.Last edited by squidmaster; 09-23-2012, 06:35 PM.Comment
-
First off, you didn't answer any of the simple questions I asked. How can you say that a tax code doesn't have the rich paying enough of their fair share if you cannot define that? And you are trying to get assistance from the peanut gallery and still have such poor arguments? Pathetic. And seems only fair if you post the links to you bad talking us.
1) Even care to look at who actually earns min wage? Assuming that many people work it full-time and have to pay for housing and utilities is a bit of a stretch. A lion's share are unskilled, not poor teenagers.(using florida wages) someone that makes minimum wage works 40 hours a week. they earn about $290 before any taxes are taken out. that's 1160 a month. say you spend $60 a week on food, $25 on gas or transportation. that's $95 a week on basics. leaving you with 780 at the end of the month for: phone, car insurance, housing, power, water, etc. I don't know about you, but good luck paying all of that with only $780 left over. Let's not forget that this is UNTAXED income with only lowly taxed purchases. Try tacking on another 30% to each one of these purchases.
2) Where would the prebate put them?
1160*12 = 13920
+ 6960 = $19520
19520/13920 = +40% over previous amount... so is your "30%" worse off for them? Or are you just bad at math?
Were you too lazy to calculate this yourself? You made up a story of the expenses for a full-time min wage earner paying for housing on their own, but can't do basic math to back up your claims?
You're, what? A teenager? Most people living on their own (and have actually real experience with taxes, not some ignorant opinions about them evil richers) have cheaper insurance. Mine is SUBSTANTIALLY lower than yours and full coverage on a newer car with a V8.insurance is easily $100 a month (I was paying 90 for absolute basic PIP on a perfectly clean driving record in my e34)
Weird, my phone is $11/month. Cancel your data plan if you can't afford it. And cable.phone is at least $40 or $50,
Do you think the current system serves them well?A poor worker, working shittier jobs, longer hours, in shittier conditions, eating the cheapest, shittiest of food and living without any form of health care or dental or life insurance, and they have... $50 left over to save? $100? Nothing? Your only weekly expenditures aren't just food and gas....
Please explain how Ralph Lauren is profiting from poor people. Last time I checked, poor people don't rock out Polo. But Ralph likes cars and middle class people work on cars, and those people have jobs because he can afford to pay them. Working classes built boats, planes, and get a good amount of money from customer service - jobs that wouldn't exist for many middle class clients compared to them. If you don't have willing to pay for those services, people wouldn't have those jobs.Then take someone that makes $250,000... or $1,000,000... or $66,700,000 (ralph lauren) and you're trying to tell me that their one time purchase of a rolex or imported car is going to somehow do anything? It's somehow "fair" that these "job creators" are profiting from the lower class at record numbers and receding jobs growth?
Do you want to punish people to work and make income, or when it is put to use in all those things you are jealous of? Do you worry about the money that isn't taxed that those richers give to charity? Or that they put aside for retirement?In order for "fair tax" to be fair, all rich people would have to spend almost all disposable income all the time. They're not. Obviously they're not going to. It's absolutely asinine for you to think this.
Would you prefer me to earn only 75% of the next dollar I earned? Or let me save it and pay more into the system when it is spent? If I get all of the next dollar I earn, won't I be encouraged to work harder?
Simple question: What is the highest income bracket you personally have ever paid into? Or have you ever paid federal income taxes, yourself?
Dude, did you read this even? You make ZERO sense. Did you just smoke a bowl?Just because you all live in some magical fantasy world where the poor have it great an the rich are the incarcerated ones. Where the rich end up paying sometimes tens of percentage points LESS taxes than the people making them that money. How many BIG TICKET (non service) items do you think rich people would buy in order to make up what they would have already paid in taxes? Or will this, as it already has been championed to be, actually be a burden on many poor families, break even for the middle class, and cut for the wealthy? You know, please go to google and try typing out some crazy weird sentences like "why is fair tax bad for the poor" you might get such results as:
Did I miss an actual point here?http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...dding-fairtax/
(WHOA, POLITIFACT? THAT MUST BE SOME CRAZY LEFT-WING LOON STUFF AMIRIGHT?!)
Only if you failed every math class ever.http://fairtaxfraud.com/fair.asp
(another great article even for those of you that failed the 6th grade)
100%-Remaining DI != tax rate, lol. That right there should be reason enough to realize you are on the side of the idiots.BREAKDOWN OF FAIRTAX RATES INCLUDING PREBATE
1. Working poor person - earns $30,000 a year - works paycheck to paycheck - spends it all on necessities - has 0% to invest tax-free under FairTax.
2. Middle class person - earns $70,000 a year - spends 80 percent on necessities - has 20% to invest tax-free under FairTax.
3. Rich person - earns $10,000,000 a year - spends 5 percent on necessities - has 95% to invest tax-free under FairTax.
(INCOME plus PREBATE X 12 minus NECESSITIES) divided by INCOME mult by 100 equals PERCENT LEFT TAX RATE
1. ($30,000 + 187 x 12 - $30,000) / 30,000 X 100 = 7.5 92.5% working poor
2. ($70,000 + 187 X 12 - $56,000) / 70,000 X 100 = 23 77% middle
3. ($10M + 187 X 12 - $500,000) / 10M X 100 = 95 5% rich
Maybe you should educate yourself, or at least attempt to experience enough life and pay enough taxes yourself to produce the capability to have an opinion of your own, instead of simply reposting hateful, uneducated sources that base their views on the idea that businesses and successful people are evil instead of logic and reason.SO NOW I leave you all with the options, and urge you, to educate yourselves, and see beyond your current living arrangments and into the lives of people that OBVIOUSLY aren't as fortunate and privileged as yourselves. The people that serve you every day. And somehow you all think that one rich ass-fuck buying one ass-fuck-yacht could POSSIBLY make up for the buying power of millions of people that didn't have the expendable income before.
Or, learn how to do math... (40% more $ vs. 30% consumption tax)
HA, dude. Get a real job, pay real taxes, and get back to us.* I worked for circuit city as a FireDog tech for a while, and most of the retail workers made minimum wage. Some, that had been there for a while, would make $9.50/hr (after a few years). If you made $10 or more when corporate walked in, your hours would be cut in less-than-half or you'd be let go. I saw it happen. This is the problem with "job creators". While it's been PROVEN that higher taxes on the rich and lower on the poor have created more jobs than the opposite, somehow everyone here is failing to recognize that.
It's not anyone's fault but your own that you don't recognize reality.Last edited by rwh11385; 09-23-2012, 07:37 PM.Comment
-
When the dynamic effects of the FairTax are included, only those households in the top per-capita-expenditure decile would be worse off after the 25 th year of the implementation of the tax, and then by a relatively small amount. Thus, we conclude that replacing income and payroll taxes with the FairTax would make the United States federal tax system more progressive than it is now and would benefit the average undividual in almost all expenditures deciles.
HuffPost... them must be a heartless conservative....Here are some applied research results of economists who analyzed the likely impact on the U.S. economy of moving from the current federal income tax system to a broad-based consumption tax, such as the national retail sales tax plan called for by HR 25, the FairTax.
In a study of the specifics of the FairTax plan, Kotlikoff and Jokisch find that the capital stock will be 13 percent higher under the FairTax system than under the current system by 2010, and 41.4 percent higher by 2030, and that long-run interest rates would be 150 basis points lower than under the current system. Their study states that, “the shift to the FairTax raises marginal labor productivity and real wages, over the course of the century, by 18.9 percent and long-run output by 10.6 percent. . . . These macroeconomic gains have important microeconomic welfare implications. In the long run, low-income households experience a 26.7 percent welfare gain, middle-income households experience a 10.9 percent welfare gain, and high-income households experience a 4.7 percent welfare gain. This is a very progressive long-run outcome.”1
Another new study of the FairTax plan by Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics finds that investment will be 33 percent higher in the first year and 41 percent higher by the tenth year than under the current tax system. The effect of an increased rate of productivity growth and the reduced efficiency costs yields GDP up to 24.4 percent greater than under the current system by the tenth year. Consumption, fueled by 1.7 percent higher real disposable income in the first year which increases to 11.8 percent higher by the tenth year, is higher by 2.4 percent in the first year and 11.7 percent by the tenth year.2
Among positive effects, proponents claim the national consumption tax would:
- Encourage savings and investments (since income is not taxed);
- Eliminate an estimated $300-450 billion per year spent by Americans on tax compliance;
- Cause the repatriation of an estimated $12-15 trillion that are hidden in offshore accounts in order to avoid or escape U.S. taxation -- and, once returned home, would cause interest rates to fall as increased capital becomes available for investments;
- Result in increased job creation -- given the higher levels of investment from the greater available capital;
- Provide a sustainable and stable source of revenue for Social Security and Medicare, since there will always be 300 million-plus consumers purchasing at least necessities every month; and
- Have positive environmental effects because it leaves untaxed old and used goods, encouraging people to use and re-use things rather than consuming natural resources to create new things.
Let's get back to the point. You hate the plan because you don't think it is "fair", yet cannot define how much of the country's expenses would be fair to be paid by the rich. You worry about the 30% increase in costs for a person working full-time min wage which is unrealistic for a real adult, and completely ignore that the prebate (or hundreds of other possible features) could preserve welfare for the less fortunate. Your sole concentration is hatred of the richers, even those who give much of what they earn, or provide you with cool new products or services that have made your life better. Inventors and companies have made your life better through their hard work and they have been rewarded with money and fame, and without our system that would not likely happen. Should we punish them for their hard work because they had success? Or be grateful? They pay taxes. They would pay taxes in the new system. And you focus on whether or not they would defer their taxes to later when they spend it rather than when they earn it?? I can deter a huge amount of my taxes until I retire with a 401k and IRA. Is that unfair? It'll still be taxed later on when I spend it (unless it is a Roth account...) Is that evil, that I know how the tax system works? That I reduce my liability? Or are you just uneducated?
I still find it funny that you focus on when money is being taxed, instead of the improved efficiency and overall economy and improved investment and increase welfare for all with a new system than our ridiculously complex one. People can make a shitton of money and not pay any taxes. Don't act like our system is perfect. Don't act like people can't shelter income or make it illegally through crime in our system. But FairTax would tax them when they spend it here in the US, so that they can't as easily evade it. The rich should pay their fair share, and most of the well off do. And most of the well off work hard and do so from professional educations and entrepreneurship. Sure, some finance guys are assholes and game the system, but that top 0.01% spend and when they do, they'll be taxed. Assuming people make money and will never use it really misses the point. Why do people make money if not to use it at some point (or give it away)? Why not let people keep their money that they earn and reward working, rather than punishing it? Why not tax spending, which is the power of money, and encourage saving and investment? Are you really jealous of someone's bank statement, or the car they drive? Is that why you want to tax more from them? To bring them down to your level?Last edited by rwh11385; 09-23-2012, 07:21 PM.Comment
-
^
Heeter I need to buy you a beer.The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -Alexis de TocquevilleOriginally posted by Fusion
The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
William Pitt-Comment
-
Some more follow-up:
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/20...-minimum-wage/
Who Earns Minimum Wage? A Statistical Profile
Of the 76.5 million people paid by the hour in the United States in 2006, 2.2% make minimum wage or less.
More than half (51.2%) of minimum wage workers are between 16 and 24 years old.
Most minimum wage earners work in food service. Nearly two-thirds of those paid minimum wage (or less) are food service workers. Many of these people receive supplemental income in the form of tips, which the government does not track.
Most minimum wage earners never attended college. Just 1.2% of college graduates are paid the minimum wage.
Those without a high school degree are nearly three times as likely (3.7%) to earn minimum wage. 59.8% of all minimum wage workers have no advanced education.
Finally, as you might expect, part-time workers are five times more likely to be paid the minimum wage than full-time workers.
So, why are you arguing about the tax system focusing on teenagers who wait tables in restaurants and are from families earning the national median income??More than half (54 percent) of these young workers live in families with incomes two or more times the official poverty level for their family size and 18 percent live in poor families. The average family income of these young workers is almost $50,500 per year. The average income for single young workers is $11,200. Over 63 percent are enrolled in either high school or college.
The average family income for all minimum wage workers is $45,200 and their wages account for 35 percent of their total family income.
And who can afford an X6? (Many people who make less than its MSRP in a year? Probably not) But it is built in a plant with workers who have their jobs because people can afford a luxury SUV. Same with Mercedes. Not everyone can afford a new car, should we frown on them and the jobs they create? And should we be mad that luxury brands exist? Even though they provide the margin necessary for companies to fund research to create new innovative technologies that luxury owners demand (and later trickle down segments to economy models). Mercedes invented ABS and I don't think they would have been able to invest as much in systems like this if they didn't have luxury buyers paying so much for their vehicles. The tech eventually made it to even the cheapest cars, like traction control and air bags. Punishing the rich kill the business investment to make new products to sell to them.
Like the iPhone. Not everyone can afford the new iPhone, so is that "unfair"? Even though the capabilities of the first one improved the industry and gave growth to competitive in smart phones that made RIM's products outdated. Now there are cheap older models and everyone benefits. Maybe only well off people got the iPhone5 this week, but some middle-class sales people earned their pay in retail this week and in the past and in the future because of people being able to buy expensive new phones.Last edited by rwh11385; 09-23-2012, 08:13 PM.Comment
-
I need to be less inflammatory in my posts, that really is my bad. so, sorry, honestly.
here's one link I forgot to add:
and my e34 was 84 a month because I paid by I switched companies and I think it's actually around 50 a month now with better coverage. and even so, you're going to argue with me about $50 in the math?
a quarter of americans are lower class. for individuals that's making less than 20,000 a year. that's barely more than $10 an hour sometimes. that's not a lot of money. that's not much money.
but I feel like I shouldn't post more tonight, and i would like to read through what you've said and linked to, but later. okay?Comment
-
No the math you didn't do about the prebate and ignorantly assumed your 'case' would be worse off paying a 30% tax when actually would be better off because would have 40% more money.I need to be less inflammatory in my posts, that really is my bad. so, sorry, honestly.
here's one link I forgot to add:
and my e34 was 84 a month because I paid by I switched companies and I think it's actually around 50 a month now with better coverage. and even so, you're going to argue with me about $50 in the math?
but I feel like I shouldn't post more tonight, and i would like to read through what you've said and linked to, but later. okay?
You assume the country is made up of people making min wage like you, paying teenager auto insurance rates, paying for data plans if they are broke, paying as much as you do for housing, and generally an argument based on your tiny perspective of the world and your lack of experience with taxes. I've lived with a VAT before and wasn't radically different and goods were plenty cheap in local terms. I've seen my net income go down by working more and harder, and also seen stupid tax deductions like mortgage interest cut down what I would pay because I took on debt. Taxing consumption would encourage be to save instead of student loan and mortgage benefits encouraging debt. We pay TurboTax to make our doing taxes easier, and it is still a pain in the ass and takes a long time. HAVE YOU EVER FILED FEDERAL INCOME TAX EVEN?!? The system sucks and we could be more effcient with a smarter one. The country could grow and improve, and not be run by people protecting loopholes.
Also, you avoided the question about where you have posted quotes of my arguments to laugh at them behind the backs of this forum. It's only fair to post links so we can all participate, not just let you talk shit in the safety of your fellow idiots. That's not cool. I think deserves a motion for ban if you don't post them after mentioning them.Last edited by rwh11385; 09-23-2012, 08:53 PM.Comment
Comment