Except under Fair Tax the guy making $30k a year pays no taxes...
Why does everyone stop reading at the words "consumption tax" and ignore the actual facts related to the proposal? The system includes prebates to cover the taxes incurred on necessities. Thus you spend your $30k but also get a check in the mail to cover the taxes you are paying when spending your $30k.
So, rather than have a cumbersome income tax system whereby the guy on $30K would simply tick an electronic box saying "I don't earn enough money to pay income tax" you have a lightweight, agile system that tracks all his spending on "necessities" and calculates a rebate before refunding him at a later date, since poor people are well known for having deposits set aside to cover such eventualities? Brilliant.
Obviously, it's not just a plan to let rich people pay less of a proportion of their earnings in tax.
You avoid all these problems by taxing consumption instead of income. Not to mention, rich people consume quite a bit more than poor people so this nebulously-defined "fair share" would be achieved. The Fair Tax Act would take care of all of this neatly without burdening the poor, since those at or below the poverty level would pay no net taxes.
First, rich people do not consume as much as poor people relative to their income.
Second, any non-progressive system of tax is inherently objectionable to those of us who believe in equality and fraternity, and not just liberty.
Finally, not taxing people "below the poverty level" is hardly a stunning concession to fairness. People at the bottom end don't pay income tax anyway.
It puts me in the camp of those have personal responsibility and at odds with crooks. I am often at odds with crooks and cheats.
Ah, so now people who take legal deductions are crooks and cheats. Let's just be clear, because you don't like it, you've resorted to name calling instead of taking some real responsibility, and trying to get the rules changed legitimately. So, keep on smiling. I'll keep on taking my mortgage deduction, thanks.
GP was responding to an AC jibe that he was a "sheeple" for not wanting to avoid all tax.
If you simplify the tax rules you find more people paying tax.
The reason for this is twofold,
1. Fewer people will put off doing tax as it's no longer such a massive chore.
2. Fewer loopholes to help dodgy people who can hire high priced accountants to exploit them.
1. There is a difference between simplifying the tax rules and reducing tax rates/levels. Nobody apart from tax lawyers thinks complicated tax rules are a good idea in themselves.
2. The main reason for the complexity of tax rules is precisely because (rich) people keep exploiting the existing, simple rules.
3. In the UK, as an employee you get income tax deducted at source, and basic rate taxpayers don't even have to fill in a tax return. Seems about as simple as you can get to me.
4. But of course any attempt to extend this simplicity to higher rate tax payers would be met with squeals of anguish by so-called self-employed people with large amounts of investment income (or whatever). It's rich people who want to keep tax rules complicated.
WTH does Fox News have to do with anything in this ?
It's a bit like the Roman senator who always ended his speeches with "Carthage must be destroyed". Whatever the subject in hand, it is always worth pointing out how shit Fox News is.
Say a company earns 10 billion in the US, 5 billion in the EU and 2 billion in Asia/elsewhere. It should pay tax on 1 billion in the US and so on. It doesn't matter where the corporate HQ is. If there were 10 billion sales within the US it should be taxed on them at US tax rates.
The ridiculousness of some imaginary service charge being levied from the foreign parent company to wipe out all the profit in the US should simply be made illegal. If the corporation has a Cayman Islands HQ, it should pay Cayman Islands tax on the economic activity generated within the Cayman Islands, which will amount to a few lawyers' fees.
I work hard to get a somewhat bigger share of the pie than the clown next to me who 9 to 5's it and takes 3 hour lunch breaks.
Fair enough about the lunch break thing, but 9 to 5 is more than enough time to work in one day. If everybody was limited to 40 hours a week (or even better 30) you'd have a lot more people employed, simple as that.
The notion that you should be working 60+ hours a week in order to "get on" is part of the problem with our society. It's much better to have two people working 30 hours each, as then neither of them is on welfare or whatever.
Taxing a corporation results in those taxes (if paid) being classified as expenses. Added to costs. Added to prices. Paid by you and me.
As long as all corporations are taxed equally (fairly) it doesn't make any difference. If Corporation A and B both make X in net profit they pay the same tax. The tax doesn't make one corporation poorer than the other.
It's when some corporations avoid tax that they can gain an unfair competitive advantage over those corporations who do pay the tax. This is what is pissing people off in the UK at the moment.
No, I don't live in a democracy, I live in a democratic republic
That's splitting hairs, a true democracy would only be possible in a similar situation that the Ancient Greeks had, i.e. small city states with everyone voting.
Yes, I know they had slaves, women couldn't vote and so on.
In any country (even somewhere small like Switzerland) you can't have pure democracy, or everyone would spend all their time in discussions and voting. But you can get as close as possible.
The fact is, that if enough people in the US or anywhere else were bothered, they could change things. It happened with the Civil Rights movement in the 60s after all.
All taxes are regressive, because the "rich" can avoid them where the poor and middle class cannot
Then you change the tax regime so they can't avoid them. You don't allow someone living in your country to pretend he is a citizen of the Cayman Islands or wherever. If he has money in your country, you tax him on it. You tax land ownership, since no one can hide land, and again you don't allow people to hind behind corporate tax-avoidance schemes.
If this causes a few unpatriiotic, selfish psychopaths out of your country, so much the better.
It's because its a stealth tax, as you say you don't see it being take.
However, consider the UK. We have taxes on insurance. VAT (sales tax), taxes on fuel, taxes on new cars, and taxes to own a car.
Get rid of them all, and put it on fuel.
1. Cheap to collect, there aren't many fuel companies.
2. It's very hard to avoid.
3. It's proportionate to your use of the roads.
4. It's transparent - almost.
Ideally it should be hypothecated. That tax pays for the roads, no more, no less.
Things like road fuel tax are regressive taxes, i.e. they are more of a burden on the poor than the rich. if someone earning GBP200 a week spends GBP20 a week on petrol, that is 10% of his income. For someone earning GBP 2000 a week it is 1%.
It is why right wingers love sales taxes (and in the UK VAT): they are not progressive or distributive taxes, in fact they are the exact opposite.
I don't know who thought taxing companies was a good idea, I haven't heard a single reason why we should be doing it
How about, because companies get full advantage of the following: an educated workforce, access to the police and justice system, infrastructure such as water and electricity and roads/rail/airports to distribute their goods?
At some point, you run out of people working and being taxed to pay the ones who aren't working.
That is the point at which capitalism eats itself.
Hell, look at our Social Security system to see that problem in full action. We have fewer and fewer people working to subsidize each retiree on the program, and it is running out of money.
If there are is a consistent downward trend of people working, you need to do something about your economy. That does not mean abandoning social responsibility and reverting to the Victorian era.
There is a line of argument which goes: in Medieval times, even monarchs didn't have cars, computers. Nowadays, even quite moderately off people have cars and computers. Therefore, everybody nowadays is better off than a King, and should stop complaining.
It is fallacious, because you can only look at poverty relatively.
This is an argument that can just keep going in circles then. I for one would prefer the simpler system of just taking home what you earn, rather then listening to politicians argue over which group is "poorer" and how much they need to be given, so as to compensate them for what they don't have because they world is not always "fair".
At some point, if you allow a large enough underclass to grow, you will end up with violent revolution. You don't have to be a Marxist to realise this is true.
Since the end of the Nineteenth Century (more or less) Western governments have realised that they have to make some form of compromise between pure laissez faire capitalism and socialism, for the simple reason that a sufficient mass of poor, hungry, pissed off and reasonably educated people can always at some point band together to overthrow those in power.
One could argue that the extra benefits are artificially raising the cost of living for everyone. I don't mind programs that temporarily help people "down on their luck", but to give such benefits, year over year is irresponsible.
Most people on benefits can't get work, or can only get part time, shitty paid work.
To say that the solution to this is for everyone to go out and get well paid jobs, or start their own profitable business, is simply begging the question.
Slashdot Mirror
Except under Fair Tax the guy making $30k a year pays no taxes...
Why does everyone stop reading at the words "consumption tax" and ignore the actual facts related to the proposal? The system includes prebates to cover the taxes incurred on necessities. Thus you spend your $30k but also get a check in the mail to cover the taxes you are paying when spending your $30k.
So, rather than have a cumbersome income tax system whereby the guy on $30K would simply tick an electronic box saying "I don't earn enough money to pay income tax" you have a lightweight, agile system that tracks all his spending on "necessities" and calculates a rebate before refunding him at a later date, since poor people are well known for having deposits set aside to cover such eventualities? Brilliant.
Obviously, it's not just a plan to let rich people pay less of a proportion of their earnings in tax.
"Fuck off, commie" is pure class.
As soon as you eliminate the government, my friends and I will be over with our guns to take everything you own.
Sadly, for a lot of the libertarians here this would be a feature, rather than a bug.
It would just serve you right for not being rich enough to afford to pay a bigger bunch of "friends" to protect yourself.
You avoid all these problems by taxing consumption instead of income. Not to mention, rich people consume quite a bit more than poor people so this nebulously-defined "fair share" would be achieved. The Fair Tax Act would take care of all of this neatly without burdening the poor, since those at or below the poverty level would pay no net taxes.
First, rich people do not consume as much as poor people relative to their income.
Second, any non-progressive system of tax is inherently objectionable to those of us who believe in equality and fraternity, and not just liberty.
Finally, not taxing people "below the poverty level" is hardly a stunning concession to fairness. People at the bottom end don't pay income tax anyway.
How cute.
It puts me in the camp of those have personal responsibility and at odds with crooks. I am often at odds with crooks and cheats.
Ah, so now people who take legal deductions are crooks and cheats. Let's just be clear, because you don't like it, you've resorted to name calling instead of taking some real responsibility, and trying to get the rules changed legitimately. So, keep on smiling. I'll keep on taking my mortgage deduction, thanks.
GP was responding to an AC jibe that he was a "sheeple" for not wanting to avoid all tax.
If you simplify the tax rules you find more people paying tax.
The reason for this is twofold,
1. Fewer people will put off doing tax as it's no longer such a massive chore.
2. Fewer loopholes to help dodgy people who can hire high priced accountants to exploit them.
1. There is a difference between simplifying the tax rules and reducing tax rates/levels. Nobody apart from tax lawyers thinks complicated tax rules are a good idea in themselves.
2. The main reason for the complexity of tax rules is precisely because (rich) people keep exploiting the existing, simple rules.
3. In the UK, as an employee you get income tax deducted at source, and basic rate taxpayers don't even have to fill in a tax return. Seems about as simple as you can get to me.
4. But of course any attempt to extend this simplicity to higher rate tax payers would be met with squeals of anguish by so-called self-employed people with large amounts of investment income (or whatever). It's rich people who want to keep tax rules complicated.
I'm not a big fox news fan, but I don't think they deserve the rep they get here, as they provide a little balance to an otherwise left leaning media
Yeah, and Barack Obama's a communist.
Do they actually teach any history, politics or philosophy in US schools? I'm genuinely curious.
WTH does Fox News have to do with anything in this ?
It's a bit like the Roman senator who always ended his speeches with "Carthage must be destroyed". Whatever the subject in hand, it is always worth pointing out how shit Fox News is.
You have no idea what you are talking about regarding crime. Its MUCH worse in DFW. In fact you guys seem to be really big on rape. WTF?
Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Cowboy: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Cowboy: I like rape.
I can see why the rest of the US wants Texas to declare independence.
I have no desire to benefit from the Civilization of any of the major urban centers.
Am I allowed to say "go and live in Somalia" now?
The ridiculousness of some imaginary service charge being levied from the foreign parent company to wipe out all the profit in the US should simply be made illegal. If the corporation has a Cayman Islands HQ, it should pay Cayman Islands tax on the economic activity generated within the Cayman Islands, which will amount to a few lawyers' fees.
I work hard to get a somewhat bigger share of the pie than the clown next to me who 9 to 5's it and takes 3 hour lunch breaks.
Fair enough about the lunch break thing, but 9 to 5 is more than enough time to work in one day. If everybody was limited to 40 hours a week (or even better 30) you'd have a lot more people employed, simple as that.
The notion that you should be working 60+ hours a week in order to "get on" is part of the problem with our society. It's much better to have two people working 30 hours each, as then neither of them is on welfare or whatever.
Taxing a corporation results in those taxes (if paid) being classified as expenses. Added to costs. Added to prices. Paid by you and me.
As long as all corporations are taxed equally (fairly) it doesn't make any difference. If Corporation A and B both make X in net profit they pay the same tax. The tax doesn't make one corporation poorer than the other.
It's when some corporations avoid tax that they can gain an unfair competitive advantage over those corporations who do pay the tax. This is what is pissing people off in the UK at the moment.
No, I don't live in a democracy, I live in a democratic republic
That's splitting hairs, a true democracy would only be possible in a similar situation that the Ancient Greeks had, i.e. small city states with everyone voting.
Yes, I know they had slaves, women couldn't vote and so on.
In any country (even somewhere small like Switzerland) you can't have pure democracy, or everyone would spend all their time in discussions and voting. But you can get as close as possible.
The fact is, that if enough people in the US or anywhere else were bothered, they could change things. It happened with the Civil Rights movement in the 60s after all.
All taxes are regressive, because the "rich" can avoid them where the poor and middle class cannot
Then you change the tax regime so they can't avoid them. You don't allow someone living in your country to pretend he is a citizen of the Cayman Islands or wherever. If he has money in your country, you tax him on it. You tax land ownership, since no one can hide land, and again you don't allow people to hind behind corporate tax-avoidance schemes.
If this causes a few unpatriiotic, selfish psychopaths out of your country, so much the better.
It's because its a stealth tax, as you say you don't see it being take. However, consider the UK. We have taxes on insurance. VAT (sales tax), taxes on fuel, taxes on new cars, and taxes to own a car. Get rid of them all, and put it on fuel. 1. Cheap to collect, there aren't many fuel companies. 2. It's very hard to avoid. 3. It's proportionate to your use of the roads. 4. It's transparent - almost. Ideally it should be hypothecated. That tax pays for the roads, no more, no less.
Things like road fuel tax are regressive taxes, i.e. they are more of a burden on the poor than the rich. if someone earning GBP200 a week spends GBP20 a week on petrol, that is 10% of his income. For someone earning GBP 2000 a week it is 1%.
It is why right wingers love sales taxes (and in the UK VAT): they are not progressive or distributive taxes, in fact they are the exact opposite.
I don't know who thought taxing companies was a good idea, I haven't heard a single reason why we should be doing it
How about, because companies get full advantage of the following: an educated workforce, access to the police and justice system, infrastructure such as water and electricity and roads/rail/airports to distribute their goods?
At some point, you run out of people working and being taxed to pay the ones who aren't working.
That is the point at which capitalism eats itself.
Hell, look at our Social Security system to see that problem in full action. We have fewer and fewer people working to subsidize each retiree on the program, and it is running out of money.
If there are is a consistent downward trend of people working, you need to do something about your economy. That does not mean abandoning social responsibility and reverting to the Victorian era.
Yes, but at some point, you run out of enough people working to pay for those that are not.
That's something that only people who have never been poor and/or had to live on welfare say.
Unless you've inherited significant wealth from your parents, not working as an adult is a fucking nightmare.
Old people were found dead from malnutrition and starvation, and children grew up with development issues from poor nutrition
Yes, but at least they were free to make the choice to starve themselves and their children to death!
It is fallacious, because you can only look at poverty relatively.
This is an argument that can just keep going in circles then. I for one would prefer the simpler system of just taking home what you earn, rather then listening to politicians argue over which group is "poorer" and how much they need to be given, so as to compensate them for what they don't have because they world is not always "fair".
At some point, if you allow a large enough underclass to grow, you will end up with violent revolution. You don't have to be a Marxist to realise this is true.
Since the end of the Nineteenth Century (more or less) Western governments have realised that they have to make some form of compromise between pure laissez faire capitalism and socialism, for the simple reason that a sufficient mass of poor, hungry, pissed off and reasonably educated people can always at some point band together to overthrow those in power.
One could argue that the extra benefits are artificially raising the cost of living for everyone. I don't mind programs that temporarily help people "down on their luck", but to give such benefits, year over year is irresponsible.
Most people on benefits can't get work, or can only get part time, shitty paid work.
To say that the solution to this is for everyone to go out and get well paid jobs, or start their own profitable business, is simply begging the question.
I would gladly settle for collecting the revenue in the same fiscal year + 1 quarter.
Fat chance.
Yes, because a country's economy runs just like a corner shop. Cash in less cash out = profit.