Slashdot Mirror

Because the harder I work, the less I get for it. Might sound fair to a socialist, but in reality all it does is make me not want to work harder - then the government gets nothing extra.

I do understand the value of progressive taxation. However, my idea of a reasonable progressive taxation is that people below a certain level pay zero, while people above it pay a reasonable FLAT tax on the amount over. In this scheme the people making more money pay more taxes - that's what you want, isn't it? The highest income earners still pay the lions share of taxes. And to answer your question: my first and last dollars would never be taxed the same - there'd be ZERO on the first.

In fact, truth be told, I agree more with the national sales tax (or "Fair Tax", which, BTW, has a similar scheme in that up to a certain dollar amount the tax is refunded monthly - wether you payed it or not, which is similar to the earned income credit that people who pay no taxes recieve).

A national sales tax encourages you to work hard and earn money, but it also encourages you to save that money, perhaps investing it (which is actually what happens even if you only put it in the bank).

Now think of it this way, I've always had a problem with the way taxation worked. I think taxes ought to be collected for the programs that are related to the items being taxed. For example, gasoline tax should go almost exclusively for road maintenance. Property taxes should go almost exclusively to police/fire/military protection (so the people with the biggest house, who have more to lose from theft and fire, are paying the largest amount for that protection). A national tax would work the same way - the more you buy, the more stuff you have to protect. It works out well.

Please read Fair Tax.org before slamming it - all your precious socialistic programs like welfare and social security all exist under the Fair Tax scheme.

I'll state right upfront that I'm not sure whether you're FOR or AGAINST an Internet sales tax, but I had a couple comments that other people might find interesting.

and delivery of that item doesn't use any existing infrastructure ? like the roads or such?

I'm sure you're not suggesting that the only way the government can afford to pay for highways and other roads is by with an Internet sales tax... are you? If so, then I'd be VERY interested to know exactly how the highway system has survived for the last 100 years or so. Also, if my federal income taxes aren't being used to pay for the roads that I use on a daily basis, what ARE they going towards? Most likely, they're going towards a whole host of things that I'll never see or have anything to do with. Please don't get this confused with greed... greed, in my opinion, is wanting something that doesn't rightfully belong to me. Wanting a benefit from the money I spent my time in earning isn't greed, it's the basis for property rights and as such, the whole Capitalist system.

To bring this back to the original point, if we established an Internet sales tax, and I purchased a $100 piece of software that I download and burn onto a CD (that I also bought at Best Buy and paid sales tax on, I might add), how would the Internet sales tax portion of that purchase be used? Surely the government isn't suggesting that they take over the Internet infrastructure like they have the railroads. If the government doesn't control the Internet, and the government wants to tax purchases made on the Internet, where does that money go? Would they give that money to the ISP that hosts the website I made my purchase from, effectively increasing profit by 8% (or so)? Doesn't seem right to me... The only way they could justify it is to take over the Internet infrastructure and become the sole ISP in the country. I DEFINITELY don't want THAT. Damn... talk about Big Brother.

If the evey get a standardized nation tax system I will assure you there will be forced taxes the day after.

There's a good proposal for a national tax system in the works right now. You can read about it here.

A real socialist should be against sales taxes all together anyway, they are inherantly regresive.

Could you expand on this a bit? I have been an advocate of the Fair Tax for several years now, precisely because it is a sales tax.

It taxes new goods and services at 23%. It eliminates the income tax. The part I like best about this is that it moves the "penalty" of taxation from income (creation, productivity) to consumption (destruction, waste) -- and by not taxing used goods, it promotes reuse and recycling.

I say make as much money as you want, and keep it. If you prefer to live in a condo instead of a million dollar house, your expenses will be lower, and therefore your taxes will be also. How is this not a good thing? (Seriously, I don't really understand "regressive" and "progressive". Thanks!)

I would like to help solidify your platform.

• Abortion: Spot on, man. Making abortion illegal has the direct result of teenagers in bathtubs with coathangers, which are far more of a burden on our health care system. Besides, there's supposed to be separation of church and state, and anti-abortion is a religious stance in most cases.
• Taxes: Please read up on the FairTax initiative. My favorite part is that it taxes consumption rather than earnings, so those who reuse/recycle/buy used goods/consume less will end up paying less taxes.
• Death Penalty: Abolish it. If even 0.001% of the criminals executed are innocent, it's too many. And statistics show that it costs less to keep a criminal in jail for the rest of their life, than it costs to execute them. From both a compassionate and fiscal stance, eliminating the death penalty makes sense.
• Gun Control: This is a tough one. Why should someone be denied the ability (right?) to defend themselves and their family simply because of a mistake they made in their past? And requiring a license makes it easy to "round up the guns" which the Nazis did in taking over power. A disarmed populace is an easily controlled populace. The 2nd Amendment is important; however, there needs to be a balance because otherwise violence may get out of hand. Long story short I think I'd leave it the way it currently is, or perhaps put less restrictions on it.
• Space Program: Another post had a quote from Jerry Pournelle with a great plan: the government would give a tax-free reward to the first American company to cross a specific finish line. Here's a link to that post.
• Prayer in School: Your later response is correct: prayer should not be mandatory, led by school officials, or otherwise forced on students; and also, students should not be prevented from praying (as long as they don't do it out loud).
• Education: Web cams in classrooms will go a long way toward bettering the teachers; if the teachers are graded by the students then teachers might "dumb down" their classes so the students like them better. But having the parents grade the teachers makes sense -- the parents can watch the teachers in action through the webcams, and can also judge how well their child is learning by asking their child questions. Funding should be increased, and by funding I mean teachers salaries should be doubled (or so). Give financial incentives to enter a teaching profession and we'll get better teachers. So we can finally do away with the old saying, "Those who can't do, teach. (And those who can't teach, teach gym.)"
• War in Iraq: I'd like to say get out now, stop wasting money. We've spent $75 billion, and Bush is now asking for $87 billion more. Iraq oil could generate $12 billion next year and $20 billion/year for the next two years (can't find the article, I read it last week). Given this, we would need to appropriate 100% of Iraq's oil revenues for ourselves for 7-10 years in order to "pay for" our military action. I don't think we're going to see that money, which is why I recommend getting out fast and letting the UN clean it up.
• War on Drugs: Pot should be legal, agreed -- then we'd spend far less money enforcing laws that a majority don't want in the first place; and we'd also enjoy increased tax revenue. Treat it just like alcohol: enjoy your body and mind on your own time, but if you're in

We want to fix the flaws so that the country, like our dogs, can live a long and healthy life.

I agree, for the most part. Except that all the "fixes" for the "flaws" of this counry that I've heard from certain people, including Tom Daschle, Bill & Hillary Clinton, etc., and eventually down to Michael Moore, generally include comparisons to other countries, specifically in Europe. That's one part I disagree with. With children in education, the Left (speaking generally here) thinks that each child is special, and shouldn't be held accountable to the achievements of other, more "lucky" children.

We're always hearing about children that pass a grade, even when they get straight F's and can't speak basic English. (Now we're hearing about TEACHERS who can't pass a basic English test.) My point is this: If children must be judged by their own accomplishments, with no referencing of others, why must this country be judged passed only on the failures? There are a few things in Europe that work better than in the United States, although I can't think of any right off the top of my head.

One example that springs to mind is health care. The government now wants to set up a giant medicare system to make hospital visits and doctor appointments "free"... except that it's not free. The taxpayers will have to pay for it. The problem with that is that the taxpayers are an increasingly decreasing group. Half the people pay almost all the taxes. The people that don't pay any taxes generally don't have jobs, and collect unemployment and/or welfare (which isn't counted in the unemployment rate). Since they don't have jobs, they'll go to the hospital for any reason, since it's "free". I, and you, and others like us end up paying for it. We got this wonderful idea from places like the USSR (where it didn't work, never has worked, and never will work).

When I hear a solution to a problem that makes sense, I'll consider it... no matter where the idea comes from. One idea I definitely agree with to help with the tax situation is the FairTax. It abolishes the IRS, eliminates paperwork on April 15 (for individuals and a lot of businesses), and makes all necessary items non-taxable. Food, rent, etc. wouldn't be taxable. To replace those prices, a nation-wide sales tax would be enacted at around 22%. Corporations would save more than 25% because of the lack of taxes they'd have to pay, and prices would come down because of it. In the end, a $.99 2-liter of soda would still cost $.99... after taxes (if soda were taxable, which it wouldn't be). It would also make credit card payments non-taxable... so I could pay several hundred dollars more per month towards my debt... and that makes me happy.

If any of this post is slightly unintelligable, I apologize. It's 1:15am, and I'm quite tired...

Before you go much further, have a look at the plan for a national sales tax. It's at Fairtax. It would be about 23%, but it would replace all other taxes and would refund (by way of a monthly check) those taxes paid on essentials. Looks damned good to me.

More info here

As many as it takes to make the individual amounts of the taxes look small enough to the average consumer.

I guess I think I more or less had it in my head that this was, so but I've not seen it articulated so crisply...

I tend to favor something like fairtax proposes.

I'll peruse that more later, but at first blush it looks quite interesting. Thanks for the pointer!

(IMO, somebody with moderator points should mod up the parent of this message as 'informative' and/or 'insightful'.)

How many different ways does the government have to tax the exact same transaction before it becomes too much

As many as it takes to make the individual amounts of the taxes look small enough to the average consumer.

I tend to favor something like whatfairtax proposes, particularly if there is a per person rebait (to keep the 'poor people' from paying too much tax on the basics), and a very explicit 'no exceptions' rule so nobody can pay congress to exempt their products (and to tax other products more for thus-and-such reason, etc).

Book-keeping for multitudes of taxes on hundreds of millions of people is a rediculious thing to even attempt, it would cost way to much to make it work properly. It would be a much better idea to design the system to require minimal bookkeeping and spend the effort on something more worthwhile.

2. FairTax. Flat tax rate. Let the social programs take care of people where they need to, and even keep those below the defined poverty line off of income tax rolls. Fine. But otherwise, despite that it seems like it should be okay to tax the wealthy at a higher tax rate, it violates the American principle of "equal treatment under the laws" that we fight so hard to attain. Do you ever wonder why it's so hard to get that in other aspects of the law? I don't. It's because of all the double standards. If the law isn't absolute, then where's the "law" in it, or isn't it just a theory?

Check out FairTax.org for information on a group that's trying to eliminate the IRS. (For those outside the USA, the IRS is the federal government's bureau for tax collection)

Anyone see any problem with this?

If not, sign the petition.

Puts a bunch of accountants, tax lawyers, etc. out of business. (Or at least makes them re-structure their businesses.)

This is a Good Thing. The vast resources that we spend on compliance with the current convoluted tax system will be redirected toward economically productive activities. Some people will have to make changes, like candlemakers did after the advent of the light bulb.

What we need is some kind of reform

I have a radical idea. What currently controls the government? Individuals, and corporations, which donate money to the elected officials.

These "bribes" may be illegal, but they'll be done. There's no stopping it; whether it's to "rent" a night in the White House, or a flight on Air Force One (haven't seen them do that yet, wouldn't put it past them), or cash in briefcases, it'll happen.

Rather than fighting that urge, then, why don't we use it to benefit the system?

We can do away with taxes of all kinds (see FairTax, it's a great idea -- and this is completely different; I'd keep tarrifs and fees but eliminate all income, sales, estate, ad nauseum taxes), and simply use the following algorithm:

For every dollar that you donate to the government, you'll get one vote.

Read further -- I know a lot of you stopped when you saw that.

What I'm proposing is not "the richest gets the most votes." Because their money supply will run out; they have to contribute every time we hold a vote.

What will end up happening is, the most efficient person/organization will end up having better profit margins, and will be able to make a difference.

If the person or organization strives toward efficiency, what type of politician do you think they'll want to vote for?

My guess is Libertarian, which leads to a disclaimer: I'm going to vote Libertarian, for the first time, this year; I'm not sure I agree with the radical extremists, but I do agree with eliminating unconstitutional TLAs (Three Letter Agencies).

However, since this idea makes too much sense to me (please -- poke holes in it, I'd like to discuss it), I'm sure it'll never be accepted by The Powers That Be -- who have decided not to allow third parties any chance at winning.

But one can hope, and dream. ;-)

Besides, nanotech is coming fast -- we'll be off the planet before the next President is elected (i.e. the 2004 election season). So what the meek are doing now doesn't concern me -- they can and will inherit the Earth. The rest of us are going to the stars.
--

Everything else is perception only. It's far easier for the government to raise taxes as long as they can convince the majority of the people that "someone else" is paying for it.

The only way to simplify the tax system and to make it truly fair is to eliminate hidden taxes (e.g., exise taxes and corporate taxes) and double- or triple-taxation (e.g., inheritance taxes), and impose a single rate on everybody with some form of exemption. (The exemption would "untax" the poorest people and basically make the rest of the system progressive.) I personally prefer the mechanism to be a retail sales tax with a rebate mechanism.

--

The Fair Tax avoids the problem of the poor picking up a larger percentage of the tax burden by providing a refund to everyone monthly equal to the tax paid on autonomous consumption.

The European taxes are actually value-added taxes, not sales taxes, and therefore the true costs are higher, but hidden. Additionally, they cascade on each other, so that you have tax on tax.

There are actually two proposals active in the U.S. House to eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a single-rate, single-stagenational sales tax on first-use retail goods and services only. One plan sets the rate at 15%, the other at 23% and also elminates Social Security and Medicare payroll withholding.

"Holy sh*t!" might be a common reaction to rates that high, but the fact is that corporate income taxes, other hidden taxes, and complaince costs already add 20-40% to the price of everthing we buy -- and buy with after-tax dollars. Of course, it's also a good kick in the pants to Congress to think about trimming down some of that pork-barrel spending so everyone can get a tax cut.

As to regressivity, there are two ways to eliminate that. One can either exempt certain items from the tax, which is a bad idea because it sets a precedent for loopholes and exceptions, and is horrendously complicated to administer. The better way is to provide a rebate to everyone, based on family size instead of income, that refunds the amount of tax paid on subsistence-level spending. The NRST proposals do this latter approach, and even pay the rebate in advance. As such, a family living at the poverty line pays, in effect, no taxes yet still has a 23% tax rate at the register.

For more information on the national retail sales tax proposals, see Americans for Fair Taxation (AFT) or Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS).

--

(This was most likely a troll but I'll reply anyway.)

The ideas of capitalism and inheritance are not mutually exclusive. Or are you saying that people get to build their empire however they like while they're here, but when they die they have to give it all up?

What incentive would they then have to provide for their children, and their children's children? I'm not anti-freedom; I think you should have the freedom to do whatever you like with your own money, including giving it to your family, before or after you die.

I didn't say anything about monarchy, knights, or titles. All I said was let's make the system more efficient and reward recycling and reuse.

You can get the details at their site.

--

The FairTax has a provision for the poor and for essentials. No DoubleSpeak involved. See their site for the details.

The point being, those who want to purchase a luxury car can -- and those who want to be frugal and purchase a Honda Civic will get to keep more of their earnings. So it rewards efficiency, and puts the system in line with reality -- rather than the current system which rewards lying (and hoping you don't get audited).

I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly prefer the carrot to the stick.

I'm not trolling, I'm putting my mouth where my money is -- I've already donated heavily to them in the hopes of keeping more of my IPO stock options.

--

Check out http://www.fairtax.org -- they're pushing for a sales tax on all new goods, and services (used goods won't be taxed). They'd eliminate the income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, and gift tax.

The benefits to most of the people reading this are huge. First of all, it's shifting the burden of taxation from income to expense. This is great -- if you waste less, you're "punished" less. Thus we have a system which rewards efficiency, and so recycling would be rewarded, not just something "we should do." (People rarely do something unless it's in their immediate best interest.)

In addition, many of us work for high-tech startups with stock options. Eliminating capital gains taxes gives you effectively 30% more of your millions, since most stock grants from startups prior to IPO are ridiculously low (i.e., buy it for $1 and sell it for $100, and you're taxed on 99% of your proceeds under today's system).

By eliminating capital gains, inheritance, and gift taxes, you can ensure that the wealth that you build throughout the trials and tribulations of your life is preserved for you and yours, not wasted on pork barrel projects in some other city or state that don't affect you at all (so why should you have to pay for it?).

I'm not affiliated with them in any way other than as a sponsor; I urge everyone who's already financially independent to donate (it's tax-deductible). If we can get this passed, then the return on your "investment" (in FairTax) will definitely be worth it.

An example: let's say you've got $100,000 in stock from employee options. If you sell it you'll pay something like $30,000. So donate $1,000 to FairTax, and when it passes you'll get an additional $29,000 when you sell! That's a 2900% return on your money.

ESR, CmdrTaco, Hemos: you've all got millions. You can have even more millions by helping this get passed.

Thanks for listening,
Thing 1

--

Really, unless they attach your own personal information to the viewing data, who really gives a flip? Seems like some people have WAY too much time on their hands dreaming up conspiracy theories.

If you want something WORTHWHILE to spend your energy on, check out our current tax system, and hop over to this site to see what you can do. Or volunteer in a soup kitchen.

-pf

*Sigh*... no, it wouldn't. Once you've eliminated the corporate taxes and compliance costs that are embedded into the price, the retail cost of most goods, including the national tax, will be roughly the same (within a few percent). Check out Americans for Fair Taxation for more details. The bill they sponsor, HR 2525, is a single-stage, single-rate tax on all new retail goods and services (used goods are not taxed, nor are non-retail sales such as business to business). The bill also provides a rebate set by the poverty line that everyone is eligible to receive the same dollar amount. In other words, it is that rarest of laws these days -- one that would treat every single person identically.

--

"...every family would receive a rebate of the sales tax on spending up to the Federal poverty level, to be paid monthly in advance. This would allow a married family of four to spend $22,120 annually without having to pay a single penny in Federal taxes."

Any thoughts?

Americans for Fair Taxation is a group promoting the replacement of federal income tax with a federal sales tax on retail goods.

One of the goals of the group is the repeal of the 16th amendment (the amendment which gives the federal government authority to tax income directly). They also plan to disband the IRS. The proposal is backed by Representatives John Linder (R-GA) and Collin Peterson (D-MN)

I have mixed feelings about a national 23% sales tax. Mostly, I'm afraid that we'll enact the sales tax and never get around to repealing income taxes. At this point, though, I'm starting to think just about anything would be an improvement over the status quo.

There's a better way to arrange our taxes: check out FairTax.

I've given them (FairTax) quite a bit of my paycheck, because I'd like to see their ideas become reality.

The only problem is getting the politicians to agree with it.

Cheers,
KenB

PS I posted this as both a comment to the first post, and as a new topic, to ensure that a wider amount of people would see it: those who view only top-level articles (Threaded), and those who view in Nested mode (like me). I apologize in advance if this double-posting offends anyone. Enjoy!

--

There's a better way to arrange our taxes: check out FairTax.

I've given them (FairTax) quite a bit of my paycheck, because I'd like to see their ideas become reality.

The only problem is getting the politicians to agree with it.

Cheers,
KenB

--