I agree, and I do my best to insure this. But I'm only one person.
What gets me is that most people agree with me on most issues. I mean, how many people are going to agree with the latest ruling, if they read it at least somewhat closely?
The fact that you dismiss the intelligence of the Justices
I don't dismiss their intelligence. I question their judgement and honor. They swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Some of them seem to be doing their best to ignore it.
Like I said in another post, I am for strict interpretation of the constitution. You want to expand federal/state power, you should amend the constitution.
as well as case precedent shows you are completely clueless when it comes to the law.
What case precedence? I'm not judging a law based on other laws (common law heritage), I'm basing it on the constitution. Besides, the defending/prosecuting attornies would bring past precidences to my attention, if it was that important.
Would it only take me a day to make a ruling, if I was on the citizen consitutional jury? Depends on when you start the timer. I was meaning once all arguements have been presented. Within 24 hours, you'd have your ruling. I wouldn't have a huge caseload, that would be my only case.
For example: A guy brings before the court that the NFA restrictions on firearms are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. I'd agree with him. And there's even some case law that I'd look at. Why?
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
A new M16A2 is a military weapon. Therefore, it is a likely weapon for a militia. The NFA infringes upon the people's right to keep them. Therefore, it's unconstitutional. Heck, there was even a case where the court decided that short barreled shotguns, having no military use, can be regulated. Guess what they're frequently using to clear houses in the Middle-east?
Simple, yes? Kinda like the Raich case, where I would have found that, no, it's not interstate commerace, therefore the federal government can't stick their noses into it.
And on the most recent three cases that I followed, based on my plain english reading of the constitution (strict interpretation), would have made a ruling in less than a day. They take three months to render a decision opposite of what the constitution says about the matter, using torturous interpretations of the constitution. We're not making a ruling based on the tax code of the USA (2.8 million words, 6000 pages), we're making a ruling based on the constitution, 4,616 words, 11 pages, not including amendments. Amendments add another 3,069 words, 10 pages.
When was the last time 21 pages of text required more than a weeks study by adults?
It's already happened. One millionaire was killed by police during a 'drug raid'. Turned out they were trying to seize his land through the drug seizure laws because the sheriff wanted it...
It just keeps moving up. This is why I'm pissed at government right now, because they keep trying this sort of stuff, and the courts keep ruling for them, sooner or later.
Pretty much everybody has some weirdness somewhere. I'm just pissed as all getout because the last three Supreme court decisions that I was tracking all went the wrong way as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, I consider myself a strong-defense libertaran because of all the insanity both the democrats and republicans are engaging in.
While people do indeed click on them, just like people fall for pyramid schemes and fraud all the time. Tt's generally the 'new to the internet' crowd, and those who deliberatly stay that way.
The percentage though, has been dropping, and is already very low. I have a policy of never clicking on a popup. They aren't getting any benefit from showing me a pop-up ad, because I'm actually less likely to buy anything from them. That's the very reason that I'd never buy X10 stuff.
Do your parents buy anything from those sites? Do they even buy anything from the internet? Because if they don't, ultimately they're just as worthless to the business model as I am. At least I'm marked as a non very quickly.
Yeah, that's sounding near-exactly how I understand national sales tax works in Australia
Well, I'm trying to think of some way to keep it from being a true VAT, which ties an awfull lot of money up with the government.
In reality, that's probably a good part of what seperates the middle and lower class.
True. A 'rich' man can often live comfortably on the same amount of money that a 'poor' man starves on. Take those post-dated check loan places. They often charge $20+ fees on under $1000 of cash advance. They put credit cards to shame! If you simply avoid late fees, poor credit, etc, you can shave hundreds of dollars of expenses off of monthly living. A couple hundred dollars that can either go towards savings/investment, or to pay the other bills off.
Aside from being punished for spending on non-deductible (on a car perhaps) items by a fair amout (almost $2,00 on a person making 24,000 yearly), it seems sane.
Actually, your example of a car would be a poor one. Somebody making $24k shouldn't be buying a new car, which is the only type that would be taxed. Of course, junior enlisted military members do it all the time, but at least they're usually single, eat at the dining facility, and have housing provided in the form of a dormatory.
wouldn't be getting paid weekly/bi-weekly
I've seen these people and shook my head as well.
In hindsight, if food/medicine were the main expenditure of a lower class household Not really. The major expenses for low/middle income familys are: Housing, Food, Medical, and transportation(including insurance).
Of those, housing is only taxed if they're buying a new home, same with transportation. Insurance isn't a good, so it's not taxed.
with your idea that food shouldn't be taxed, it might not be so bad. On the FairTax FAQ, though, it seems they don't want to distinguish between different goods at point of sale
I never said that I agree with them 100%.;) I do draw the line at clothing, vehicles and such, because I feel that everybody should have to pay for something.
but when it comes time for the rebate. 23 cents on the dollar over a month seems to be a little more drastic than 15% over a year from my perspective.
Maybe for you, but for me it's alot more gentle. 23% of 30 days is less than 15% over 365, or even 90. So when you get your rebate check, within two months the fed.gov has more of your money than under the proposed system
It leaves me wondering, however, if this plan is more a sneak attack aimed at people without valid SSNs rather than good 'ol tax reform... I.e. illegal immigrants...
Hey! I knew I liked it, but sheesh, that's a good one.;)
*NOTE: I'm seriously for easier legal immigration, but against illegal immigration. I almost think that we'll have to lock down illegal immigration before officials will realize that legal immigration is broken.
Because suddenly it would become very expensive very quickly to live here without some compensation--not that I have a particular problem with that, they cost us quite a bit in a variety of ways--but I fear they're propping the economy up. If that's the guise, why not call it what it is? I'm sure lots of people will support an anti-illegal tax plan, even if it meant the quiche would fall shortly thereafter.
Fairtax preceded the huge illegal immigration scenario. The only mention is that people who get revenue in illegal ways will end up paying more taxes.
It would certianly make for some interesting possibilities on the black market if there wasn't adequate policing of imports, though. The mob wouldn't have had it so well since prohibition!
Again, it'd be harder to loose alot of money due to this sort of black market than you think. 30%, while substantial, isn't enough for huge amounts of black market goods, especially wh
In that sense, yes, the price of goods will increase. But don't forget that you'll also have no withholding, social security, or medicare taxes. So your raw income will be more.
powers at large are enjoying the benefits of the law as it is
I agree. All the communists and socialists love it because it's 'progressive', and the rich love it because it has so many shelters and loopholes and is so complicated that they can save money by simply hiring a number of accountants and lawyers. Who ends up paying for the government? The middle class.
As you point out, you'd have to have a registered business to lower your tax liability; most people smart enough to have a small fortune (assets greater than a couple million or so) already have their own registered small business, and use it as some type of tax-shelter. As far as I'm concerned, you'd be stupid not to--unless you actually like paying Uncle Sam for thousand dollar toliet seats! Most people that have lots of money didn't get there by not being smart about it.
I mean, unless the government actually required businesses to have some sort of consistent profit, this wouldn't change anything.
This is where some complicated regulations would come into play. Trick is, only the millionares would have to worry about them, as they're the only ones who'd have something to gain by using them. My initial idea is to simply require books to be kept, and sales must exceed otherwise taxable material costs. Sales to other businesses must be tracked, and tax collected if you sell to a consumer. If you want, we can argue about depreciation of large capital startup costs, such as buildings.;)
The idea is that the tax ends up being paid somewhere along the line. Either by a seriously unprofitable company(and that would be serious, as the major expense at most companies is payroll, which isn't taxed anymore), a cutout company that can't cook the books anymore, or the consumers who bought product from a company whose owner/CEO is 'grifting'. But that's what auditing and free market is for;). Don't want to be audited? Don't run a business.
Some small businesses might even find it easier/cheaper to simply have their supplier pay the tax. Such as repair shops, maybe.
For instance, it WOULD hurt people that live paycheck to paycheck--which is quite alot of people.
While it's very easy to hurt somebody living 'paycheck to paycheck', as they have no safety barrier, I should note that it's not really any different than the situation as it is right now - Where they often have to wait an entire year to get their refund for any income taxes. I would also note that they only pay tax when they spend money, so the most they'll have to 'wait' is thirty days. Also, I'd like to note that living 'paycheck to paycheck' is far more often a result of poor money management, than substinance level income. Money management should be taught far more, but it's something that I feel the parents need to teach, as a school teaches skills, it takes parents to actually teach a kid to use them.
With all of the monthly sending of checks and whatnot, it's going to make it's own new level of bureaucracy--even if it does eliminate the IRS, and that's never a good thing.
We already send monthly checks to a substantial portion of the population. Everybody on Welfare, Social Security, or Medicare for one. Much of the working population receives a refund each year. Technically speaking, you wouldn't get rid of the IRS, though it'll be severly retasked. And rather than sending checks, I imagine that the majority of households today would go for electronic deposit, which would be quite easy to set up. Also, you'd reduce the amount of paper they have to process, from a glut the first quarter of every year, to a steady stream from people filing when their status changes, such as moving, changing banks, having a new kid, kid moves out(and gets his/her own credit), etc. Most people stay stable for these variables for years. Given that each household would get a monthly deposit of a set amount, of which maybe 5 different amounts would cover 90% of the population (single through married with three), it'd be easy to program the computers to do it. then you'd have the entire collection end, but they'd all be dealing with businesses, who are far better equiped to deal with the tape.
And I was simply sticking a one-liner out there. Sheesh, I need to add Fairtax to my sig too.
My general idea of a good tax system would be one that taxes new goods, except for food and medicine.
In order to avoid paying the tax on what you buy(so you can't go and buy a TV and claim it's for your office), you'd have to be a registered business and file some sort of return(That means that you should have some sort of sales, and you'd be taxed on those).
Moreover food and clothing are hardly the top expenses for anyone. For most people it's (1) housing (2) transportation (3) insurance with education and retirement savings being somewhere near the top depending on how old one is and whether one has children. A car is hardly a luxury for most people, yet this would presumably be Fair Taxable. And clothing is taxable in my state, at least (California).
1. Housing: Tax would only be paid on new buildings, if any. Renting wouldn't be taxed. 2. Transportation: Tax only on new cars. If you're buying a used car, another chunk of change won't go to the government. Used car prices would increase somewhat due to the increase in new cars, but would remain very competitive(more reasons to keep using still working items). 3. Insurance: Again, not taxed. 4. Education, Retirement savings: Not taxed at all?
Food is iffy, I'd like to see food&medicene exempt. Unlike the parent poster, I've lived in a number of states. All tax clothing, none tax food(non-restraunt). Why? Not including restraunt bills, food is one of the more static items. The person with $10k income tends to spend a high percentage of what somebody with $1M income. It's not in the factor of 100's like homes, cars, and even clothing can be. If it is, it's generally because the Rich guy is ordering commercial food preperation, which is taxed. Thus, you don't loose as much money when you make it non-taxed, and it tends to make the tax progressive.
Defenders of these regressive taxes always point out that their tax is progressive for the poorest of the poor. Maybe 5 percent of the population. They conveniently ignore the middle 80 percent for whom the tax is regressive. People making $40,000 a year pay a larger proportion of their income than people making $1 million. Think that's "Fair"? 'Cause I don't.
A: It's very much progressive as long as both are spending an equal percentage of their income. B: People having million+ yearly incomes from investments are already seriously gaming today's system. The best way to 'prevent' this is to keep the system simple without loopholes. That way they can spend more time looking for seriously profitable investments(helps society as a whole), not gaming the tax system.
Assume Family of four: Income: $40,000, Spending: $35,000(87.5% income) on taxable items Pays: $8,050 tax, Poverty level credit: $4,336(2004 figure). Total tax cost: $3714 Tax burden as percentage of income: 9.3%
Income: $1,000,000 Spending: $800,000(80% income) on taxable items Pays: $184,000 tax Poverty level credit: $4,336 Total Tax cost: $179,664 Tax burden as percentage of income: 18.0%
Tell me again how it's not progressive? Just because it's not [i]progressive[/i] enough for you doesn't mean that it's not progressive. Sure, consumption taxes tends to mean that misers pay less taxes. But then, aren't we constantly trying to get people to save?
I was stating 30%, not the 23% figure that fairtax quotes. The 23% figure is if you end up figuring the tax into the price, which I admit, is probably an attempt to make it look nicer. It's 30% the way Americans normally figure sales tax.
Do you have a link that shows where they figure this?
Now the European VAT could be considers a gross income tax, with the only deduction being on purchased equipment/supplies. A business is far better equiped to keep track of financial matters than personal households anyways.
Bingo. Income tax makes US employees more expensive. If you go to a straight sales tax, the tax would have to be paid on imported goods as well, making them more expensive, thus reducing the benefit of moving overseas.
It does not deduct an increasing proportion from wealthier taxpayers
No it's NOT regressive. A tax doest not have to be either regressive or progressive. It can be neutral. There are people out there who would like the tax to be a flat charge.
As for the sufficiently wealthy, sure, they could buy stuff abroad(like they already do), but that's what customs is for.
The 'sufficiently wealthly' class will always be able to game the system one way or another. They always have, and always will. After all, they have the money to make it worth it to hire people to figure out ways to pay less. The byzantine system we have just makes it easier for them.
Do those figures account for the likely effect on the economy of a 20%+ price hike on everything?
Why would the price of everything have a 20% hike?
Remember, this is replacing corporate income taxes as well. Thus, profitable companies will see reduced expenses. There'll be less incentive to cook books Enron style.
You wouldn't have any withholding on your income. When you look at your paycheck stub, try adding back in your federal witholding and FICAx2(employer pays an equal amount).
You could also call it a gross income commercial business tax. IE you have to pay it if you're a business selling to end users.
IRA's and some mutual funds are tax free. The Tax-free mutual funds are very restricted in what they purchase, because the way they're tax free is that they invest in tax-free bonds and such, which are typically government. You are limited in how much you can invest in IRA's and are also limited in moving or withdrawing them.
Dropping the overall tax rate, while eliminating at least some of the 'shelters', removes the artificial limitations on investments. Far more investments are worth it when the tax rate drops.
[i]The key is to have a fair distribution of money. Notice I do not say equal distribution as then there is no incentive. To maintain a good society the rich can not be too rich and the poor can not be too poor. Just look at your average Scandenavian country in which you are 2x as likely to move up in the class structure than in the United States.[/i]
Your average Scandenavian is both far smaller and more homogeneous than the USA.
Not the fairtax proposal. It's mildly progressive, within the caveat that anybody who's spending a higher percentage of their income will pay more taxes, at least at the same income level.
Also, don't you think that even the current tax system is fairly regressive, given that high-income people can and do shelter large amounts of income? For example, IRA's, tax-free bonds & mutual funds, housing write-offs, etc?
Under the fair-tax system, or even my simple formula, the rich will have to pay taxes on far more than they currently do, allowing the actual rate to be dropped.
Each person gets a monthly rebate equal to the tax for poverty level spending.
The point to remember is that when rich people invest their money, that opens up investing for jobs and such.
It all depends on how you look at it. I mean, even 'rich' people go broke all the time.
Dang enter key! (Can we at least swap the preview and submit buttons?).
would have to be around 70% to replace other taxes
Now, this says one of two things: Either the government is spending way, way too much of our money, or you're wrong. According to the figures I've seen, the federal government can comfortly replace every income tax including corporate, as well as social security and medicare, with a 30% tax. While still substantial and indicative, it does give a much more reasonable figure, especially when you figure that it would only be charged on new goods.
but you'll have to document all of your purchases to qualify for the "spending up to the poverty level" rebate
Nope. It's automatically assumed. If you're living below the poverty line, the monthly check will rebate you more than what you paid in tax. The cost savings from not having to document all that would easily exceed the costs. As to who gets it, well, the idea is for all US Citizens and legal (Working?) immigrants.
True, but it's so much 'flatter' than the current system. I mean, at least it's a straight line!
Income-deductable*taxratepercentage=taxesowed
It would actually hit the 'rich' far harder than you might think, because the rich are notorious for hiding income, which they wouldn't be able to do under this system.
Better yet, make it a sales tax. That way the average person doesn't have to file taxes at all!
Just think about the billions that would be saved from not having to do all that paperwork.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that the AED's actually have a voice synthizer that tells you what to do. Available in multiple languages with some versions.
I agree, and I do my best to insure this. But I'm only one person.
What gets me is that most people agree with me on most issues. I mean, how many people are going to agree with the latest ruling, if they read it at least somewhat closely?
The fact that you dismiss the intelligence of the Justices
I don't dismiss their intelligence. I question their judgement and honor. They swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Some of them seem to be doing their best to ignore it.
Like I said in another post, I am for strict interpretation of the constitution. You want to expand federal/state power, you should amend the constitution.
as well as case precedent shows you are completely clueless when it comes to the law.
What case precedence? I'm not judging a law based on other laws (common law heritage), I'm basing it on the constitution. Besides, the defending/prosecuting attornies would bring past precidences to my attention, if it was that important.
Would it only take me a day to make a ruling, if I was on the citizen consitutional jury? Depends on when you start the timer. I was meaning once all arguements have been presented. Within 24 hours, you'd have your ruling. I wouldn't have a huge caseload, that would be my only case.
For example: A guy brings before the court that the NFA restrictions on firearms are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. I'd agree with him. And there's even some case law that I'd look at. Why?
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
A new M16A2 is a military weapon. Therefore, it is a likely weapon for a militia. The NFA infringes upon the people's right to keep them. Therefore, it's unconstitutional. Heck, there was even a case where the court decided that short barreled shotguns, having no military use, can be regulated. Guess what they're frequently using to clear houses in the Middle-east?
Simple, yes? Kinda like the Raich case, where I would have found that, no, it's not interstate commerace, therefore the federal government can't stick their noses into it.
Vinnie wouldn't have much say, not being one of the first two hundred names... ;)
Or the last two hundred for that matter.
And on the most recent three cases that I followed, based on my plain english reading of the constitution (strict interpretation), would have made a ruling in less than a day. They take three months to render a decision opposite of what the constitution says about the matter, using torturous interpretations of the constitution. We're not making a ruling based on the tax code of the USA (2.8 million words, 6000 pages), we're making a ruling based on the constitution, 4,616 words, 11 pages, not including amendments. Amendments add another 3,069 words, 10 pages.
When was the last time 21 pages of text required more than a weeks study by adults?
victory for states rights
Over the people.
This is the opposite of what the founders intended. The court has recently, consistantly been ruling:
Federal Government > State Government > The People
It should be:
The People > The State Governments > The Federal Government
It's already happened. One millionaire was killed by police during a 'drug raid'. Turned out they were trying to seize his land through the drug seizure laws because the sheriff wanted it...
It just keeps moving up. This is why I'm pissed at government right now, because they keep trying this sort of stuff, and the courts keep ruling for them, sooner or later.
Pretty much everybody has some weirdness somewhere. I'm just pissed as all getout because the last three Supreme court decisions that I was tracking all went the wrong way as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, I consider myself a strong-defense libertaran because of all the insanity both the democrats and republicans are engaging in.
While people do indeed click on them, just like people fall for pyramid schemes and fraud all the time. Tt's generally the 'new to the internet' crowd, and those who deliberatly stay that way.
The percentage though, has been dropping, and is already very low. I have a policy of never clicking on a popup. They aren't getting any benefit from showing me a pop-up ad, because I'm actually less likely to buy anything from them. That's the very reason that I'd never buy X10 stuff.
Do your parents buy anything from those sites? Do they even buy anything from the internet? Because if they don't, ultimately they're just as worthless to the business model as I am. At least I'm marked as a non very quickly.
Yeah, that's sounding near-exactly how I understand national sales tax works in Australia
;)
;)
Well, I'm trying to think of some way to keep it from being a true VAT, which ties an awfull lot of money up with the government.
In reality, that's probably a good part of what seperates the middle and lower class.
True. A 'rich' man can often live comfortably on the same amount of money that a 'poor' man starves on. Take those post-dated check loan places. They often charge $20+ fees on under $1000 of cash advance. They put credit cards to shame! If you simply avoid late fees, poor credit, etc, you can shave hundreds of dollars of expenses off of monthly living. A couple hundred dollars that can either go towards savings/investment, or to pay the other bills off.
Aside from being punished for spending on non-deductible (on a car perhaps) items by a fair amout (almost $2,00 on a person making 24,000 yearly), it seems sane.
Actually, your example of a car would be a poor one. Somebody making $24k shouldn't be buying a new car, which is the only type that would be taxed. Of course, junior enlisted military members do it all the time, but at least they're usually single, eat at the dining facility, and have housing provided in the form of a dormatory.
wouldn't be getting paid weekly/bi-weekly
I've seen these people and shook my head as well.
In hindsight, if food/medicine were the main expenditure of a lower class household
Not really. The major expenses for low/middle income familys are:
Housing, Food, Medical, and transportation(including insurance).
Of those, housing is only taxed if they're buying a new home, same with transportation. Insurance isn't a good, so it's not taxed.
with your idea that food shouldn't be taxed, it might not be so bad. On the FairTax FAQ, though, it seems they don't want to distinguish between different goods at point of sale
I never said that I agree with them 100%.
I do draw the line at clothing, vehicles and such, because I feel that everybody should have to pay for something.
but when it comes time for the rebate. 23 cents on the dollar over a month seems to be a little more drastic than 15% over a year from my perspective.
Maybe for you, but for me it's alot more gentle. 23% of 30 days is less than 15% over 365, or even 90. So when you get your rebate check, within two months the fed.gov has more of your money than under the proposed system
It leaves me wondering, however, if this plan is more a sneak attack aimed at people without valid SSNs rather than good 'ol tax reform... I.e. illegal immigrants...
Hey! I knew I liked it, but sheesh, that's a good one.
*NOTE: I'm seriously for easier legal immigration, but against illegal immigration. I almost think that we'll have to lock down illegal immigration before officials will realize that legal immigration is broken.
Because suddenly it would become very expensive very quickly to live here without some compensation--not that I have a particular problem with that, they cost us quite a bit in a variety of ways--but I fear they're propping the economy up. If that's the guise, why not call it what it is? I'm sure lots of people will support an anti-illegal tax plan, even if it meant the quiche would fall shortly thereafter.
Fairtax preceded the huge illegal immigration scenario. The only mention is that people who get revenue in illegal ways will end up paying more taxes.
It would certianly make for some interesting possibilities on the black market if there wasn't adequate policing of imports, though. The mob wouldn't have had it so well since prohibition!
Again, it'd be harder to loose alot of money due to this sort of black market than you think. 30%, while substantial, isn't enough for huge amounts of black market goods, especially wh
In that sense, yes, the price of goods will increase. But don't forget that you'll also have no withholding, social security, or medicare taxes. So your raw income will be more.
powers at large are enjoying the benefits of the law as it is
;)
;). Don't want to be audited? Don't run a business.
I agree. All the communists and socialists love it because it's 'progressive', and the rich love it because it has so many shelters and loopholes and is so complicated that they can save money by simply hiring a number of accountants and lawyers.
Who ends up paying for the government? The middle class.
As you point out, you'd have to have a registered business to lower your tax liability; most people smart enough to have a small fortune (assets greater than a couple million or so) already have their own registered small business, and use it as some type of tax-shelter. As far as I'm concerned, you'd be stupid not to--unless you actually like paying Uncle Sam for thousand dollar toliet seats! Most people that have lots of money didn't get there by not being smart about it.
I mean, unless the government actually required businesses to have some sort of consistent profit, this wouldn't change anything.
This is where some complicated regulations would come into play. Trick is, only the millionares would have to worry about them, as they're the only ones who'd have something to gain by using them. My initial idea is to simply require books to be kept, and sales must exceed otherwise taxable material costs. Sales to other businesses must be tracked, and tax collected if you sell to a consumer. If you want, we can argue about depreciation of large capital startup costs, such as buildings.
The idea is that the tax ends up being paid somewhere along the line. Either by a seriously unprofitable company(and that would be serious, as the major expense at most companies is payroll, which isn't taxed anymore), a cutout company that can't cook the books anymore, or the consumers who bought product from a company whose owner/CEO is 'grifting'. But that's what auditing and free market is for
Some small businesses might even find it easier/cheaper to simply have their supplier pay the tax. Such as repair shops, maybe.
For instance, it WOULD hurt people that live paycheck to paycheck--which is quite alot of people.
While it's very easy to hurt somebody living 'paycheck to paycheck', as they have no safety barrier, I should note that it's not really any different than the situation as it is right now - Where they often have to wait an entire year to get their refund for any income taxes. I would also note that they only pay tax when they spend money, so the most they'll have to 'wait' is thirty days. Also, I'd like to note that living 'paycheck to paycheck' is far more often a result of poor money management, than substinance level income. Money management should be taught far more, but it's something that I feel the parents need to teach, as a school teaches skills, it takes parents to actually teach a kid to use them.
With all of the monthly sending of checks and whatnot, it's going to make it's own new level of bureaucracy--even if it does eliminate the IRS, and that's never a good thing.
We already send monthly checks to a substantial portion of the population. Everybody on Welfare, Social Security, or Medicare for one. Much of the working population receives a refund each year. Technically speaking, you wouldn't get rid of the IRS, though it'll be severly retasked. And rather than sending checks, I imagine that the majority of households today would go for electronic deposit, which would be quite easy to set up. Also, you'd reduce the amount of paper they have to process, from a glut the first quarter of every year, to a steady stream from people filing when their status changes, such as moving, changing banks, having a new kid, kid moves out(and gets his/her own credit), etc. Most people stay stable for these variables for years. Given that each household would get a monthly deposit of a set amount, of which maybe 5 different amounts would cover 90% of the population (single through married with three), it'd be easy to program the computers to do it. then you'd have the entire collection end, but they'd all be dealing with businesses, who are far better equiped to deal with the tape.
And I was simply sticking a one-liner out there. Sheesh, I need to add Fairtax to my sig too.
My general idea of a good tax system would be one that taxes new goods, except for food and medicine.
In order to avoid paying the tax on what you buy(so you can't go and buy a TV and claim it's for your office), you'd have to be a registered business and file some sort of return(That means that you should have some sort of sales, and you'd be taxed on those).
Moreover food and clothing are hardly the top expenses for anyone. For most people it's (1) housing (2) transportation (3) insurance with education and retirement savings being somewhere near the top depending on how old one is and whether one has children. A car is hardly a luxury for most people, yet this would presumably be Fair Taxable. And clothing is taxable in my state, at least (California).
1. Housing: Tax would only be paid on new buildings, if any. Renting wouldn't be taxed.
2. Transportation: Tax only on new cars. If you're buying a used car, another chunk of change won't go to the government. Used car prices would increase somewhat due to the increase in new cars, but would remain very competitive(more reasons to keep using still working items).
3. Insurance: Again, not taxed.
4. Education, Retirement savings: Not taxed at all?
Food is iffy, I'd like to see food&medicene exempt. Unlike the parent poster, I've lived in a number of states. All tax clothing, none tax food(non-restraunt). Why? Not including restraunt bills, food is one of the more static items. The person with $10k income tends to spend a high percentage of what somebody with $1M income. It's not in the factor of 100's like homes, cars, and even clothing can be. If it is, it's generally because the Rich guy is ordering commercial food preperation, which is taxed. Thus, you don't loose as much money when you make it non-taxed, and it tends to make the tax progressive.
Defenders of these regressive taxes always point out that their tax is progressive for the poorest of the poor. Maybe 5 percent of the population. They conveniently ignore the middle 80 percent for whom the tax is regressive. People making $40,000 a year pay a larger proportion of their income than people making $1 million. Think that's "Fair"? 'Cause I don't.
A: It's very much progressive as long as both are spending an equal percentage of their income.
B: People having million+ yearly incomes from investments are already seriously gaming today's system. The best way to 'prevent' this is to keep the system simple without loopholes. That way they can spend more time looking for seriously profitable investments(helps society as a whole), not gaming the tax system.
Assume Family of four:
Income: $40,000,
Spending: $35,000(87.5% income) on taxable items
Pays: $8,050 tax,
Poverty level credit: $4,336(2004 figure).
Total tax cost: $3714
Tax burden as percentage of income: 9.3%
Income: $1,000,000
Spending: $800,000(80% income) on taxable items Pays: $184,000 tax
Poverty level credit: $4,336
Total Tax cost: $179,664
Tax burden as percentage of income: 18.0%
Tell me again how it's not progressive? Just because it's not [i]progressive[/i] enough for you doesn't mean that it's not progressive. Sure, consumption taxes tends to mean that misers pay less taxes. But then, aren't we constantly trying to get people to save?
I was stating 30%, not the 23% figure that fairtax quotes. The 23% figure is if you end up figuring the tax into the price, which I admit, is probably an attempt to make it look nicer. It's 30% the way Americans normally figure sales tax.
Do you have a link that shows where they figure this?
Now the European VAT could be considers a gross income tax, with the only deduction being on purchased equipment/supplies. A business is far better equiped to keep track of financial matters than personal households anyways.
Bingo. Income tax makes US employees more expensive. If you go to a straight sales tax, the tax would have to be paid on imported goods as well, making them more expensive, thus reducing the benefit of moving overseas.
It does not deduct an increasing proportion from wealthier taxpayers
No it's NOT regressive. A tax doest not have to be either regressive or progressive. It can be neutral. There are people out there who would like the tax to be a flat charge.
As for the sufficiently wealthy, sure, they could buy stuff abroad(like they already do), but that's what customs is for.
The 'sufficiently wealthly' class will always be able to game the system one way or another. They always have, and always will. After all, they have the money to make it worth it to hire people to figure out ways to pay less. The byzantine system we have just makes it easier for them.
Do those figures account for the likely effect on the economy of a 20%+ price hike on everything?
Why would the price of everything have a 20% hike?
Remember, this is replacing corporate income taxes as well. Thus, profitable companies will see reduced expenses. There'll be less incentive to cook books Enron style.
You wouldn't have any withholding on your income. When you look at your paycheck stub, try adding back in your federal witholding and FICAx2(employer pays an equal amount).
You could also call it a gross income commercial business tax. IE you have to pay it if you're a business selling to end users.
IRA's and some mutual funds are tax free. The Tax-free mutual funds are very restricted in what they purchase, because the way they're tax free is that they invest in tax-free bonds and such, which are typically government. You are limited in how much you can invest in IRA's and are also limited in moving or withdrawing them.
Dropping the overall tax rate, while eliminating at least some of the 'shelters', removes the artificial limitations on investments. Far more investments are worth it when the tax rate drops.
[i]The key is to have a fair distribution of money. Notice I do not say equal distribution as then there is no incentive. To maintain a good society the rich can not be too rich and the poor can not be too poor. Just look at your average Scandenavian country in which you are 2x as likely to move up in the class structure than in the United States.[/i]
Your average Scandenavian is both far smaller and more homogeneous than the USA.
Not the fairtax proposal. It's mildly progressive, within the caveat that anybody who's spending a higher percentage of their income will pay more taxes, at least at the same income level.
Also, don't you think that even the current tax system is fairly regressive, given that high-income people can and do shelter large amounts of income? For example, IRA's, tax-free bonds & mutual funds, housing write-offs, etc?
Under the fair-tax system, or even my simple formula, the rich will have to pay taxes on far more than they currently do, allowing the actual rate to be dropped.
Each person gets a monthly rebate equal to the tax for poverty level spending.
The point to remember is that when rich people invest their money, that opens up investing for jobs and such.
It all depends on how you look at it. I mean, even 'rich' people go broke all the time.
Dang enter key! (Can we at least swap the preview and submit buttons?).
would have to be around 70% to replace other taxes
Now, this says one of two things: Either the government is spending way, way too much of our money, or you're wrong. According to the figures I've seen, the federal government can comfortly replace every income tax including corporate, as well as social security and medicare, with a 30% tax. While still substantial and indicative, it does give a much more reasonable figure, especially when you figure that it would only be charged on new goods.
Fair tax isn't regressive at all.
A flat sales tax is neither regressive nor progressive.
Don't forget that, in reality, 'gifts' are taxed as income once they exceed a certain level($11,000 federal), so it'd take lots of 'friends'.
;).
Besides, wouldn't you count all the grubby cash individual 'gifts'
but you'll have to document all of your purchases to qualify for the "spending up to the poverty level" rebate
Nope. It's automatically assumed. If you're living below the poverty line, the monthly check will rebate you more than what you paid in tax. The cost savings from not having to document all that would easily exceed the costs. As to who gets it, well, the idea is for all US Citizens and legal (Working?) immigrants.
Fairtax
True, but it's so much 'flatter' than the current system. I mean, at least it's a straight line!
Income-deductable*taxratepercentage=taxesowed
It would actually hit the 'rich' far harder than you might think, because the rich are notorious for hiding income, which they wouldn't be able to do under this system.
Better yet, make it a sales tax. That way the average person doesn't have to file taxes at all!
Just think about the billions that would be saved from not having to do all that paperwork.