How do they get a massive tax break? Most of the "very rich" don't even pay income taxes today. Haven't you heard Warren Buffet making the statement that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does? Their profits are from capital gains, which are not taxed as income. You're saying you like that system better?
That's a separate issue, the classification of income. One does not need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. While people like Warren Buffet are an exception, there are many, many thousands of people at the highest end that would see their tax burden decrease under the so-called "fair" tax. Furthermore, Warren Buffet does pay capital gains tax. His tax burden is not zero; just his income tax burden. Are you deliberately misconstruing his tax burden to support your argument, or was it an honest mistake?
Huh? We're not talking about a flat income tax.
Sorry, typo. I think I did that a couple times, it comes from my aversion to calling the so-called "fair" tax the fair tax. It's not a fair tax in my opinion, and I think the misnomer is a disingenuous way of lending the idea merit.
If the more you spend (and you can't spend what you don't have), the higher your percentage of taxation is, HOW CAN THAT BE REGRESSIVE? Regressive means the rate of taxation increases as what is taxed decreases. You may not like the tax, but you can't redefine words to argue against it.
I'm not redefining words. You are redefining contexts. Consumption taxes are regressive as a function of income... perhaps for some reason it was not clear to you, despite the fact that both your examples, and my writings, and general discussion of progressive taxes, are based on comparisons of income?
I don't think you really do understand the current system or the fair tax. That's fine if you are open to looking, but your statements make it clear that you have some bias against the idea, which means you're ignorant, not stupid.
No. My statements make it clear that I do not agree with the premise of the "fair" tax. It is possible for someone to understand an idea, without agreeing with that idea. Your error here is a classic one that intelligent people often make... that if people understand an issue, they must come to the same conclusion you have. I would actually posit that the ignorance here is on your side, because not once have you touched on the economic impacts of the "fair" tax. In addition, it is clear to me that you are making a lot of assumptions about my knowledge of the subject, and about my motivations. More on that below.
The fair tax is specifically designed to have a net neutral effect on people's current tax situation. It just changes how it's collected and eliminates the loopholes that the "rich" keep getting in our current system.
And yet every proposal for a "fair" tax on consumption results in a lower tax burden on the extremely wealthy, and a higher tax burden on the middle class. EVERY single proposal I've seen for a "fair" tax results in this under analysis. If you can cite a single proposal where this is not the case, please share it... I'd be very interested in seeing one that doesn't shift the tax burden like this.
It seems like you just have a grudge with people that have money. That's ok if you do, but you just need to be honest that you think that people that have reached a certain level of financial success could have only done it through nefarious means. Otherwise, why would you feel so compelled that they be punished?
You certainly have issues with having reasoned debate. I am relatively wealthy; I do not want for anything; I will be able to pay for my kids' college tuitions; I will be able to retire comfortably in my late fifties or early sixties, depending on returns on investments. I also understand that a signif
This is exactly the situation I'm in now. My town was reassessed this year, and my taxes went down, even though our budget went up. Why? Because the total ratables went up more than the budget did, largely because of improvements to existing houses (almost no new construction in my town).
I don't have a problem with regulation - so long as it's useful and doesn't create a Housing Boom (followed by a crash) as happened with the 1997 "you must loan to poor people" regulation. That was the root cause of the financial collapse from 2007 to 2009.
If you believe that was the root cause of the crash, then you are severely undereducated about the crash.
The root problem was excess capital from the previous bubbles (tech especially) that had nowhere to go... it went into real estate, and there we finally bled off the excess capital (painfully). This was compounded by the relaxing of regulation of the banking and financial insurance industries, coupled with a systemic issue of poor risk evaluation on derivatives.
Your "you must loan to poor people" regulation is a red herring.
Or switch to catastrophic insurance for emergencies (like cancer), and pay cash for everything else.
Good luck on getting any claims on that catastrophic insurance paid.
Now there's collusion between our Congress and the Insurance sector.
Yeah, that's a problem. But the government's collusion comes with strings attached that benefit the public. Less than liberals like me wanted, but better than an unregulated insurance industry.
The best way to fix it is to... not give handouts, special privileges, or otherwise interfere with private enterprise. Every time the government does it, it fucks up the economy. Every. Single. Time.
Except, of course, the times where it didn't fuck up the economy. Or the times where government action was necessary to prevent a fucked-up economy that would have run unchecked if private enterprise was allowed to run amok.
Anti-trust and public infrastructure (roads, canals, harbors, etc) being the most glaring exceptions to your "Every. Single. Time." malarkey.
Dude, I understand the fair tax. I've researched it. It's regressive at the highest levels... even with your prebates or whatever you want to call them.
What happens under the "fair tax" is that the very rich get a MASSIVE tax break. That is the net impact, and why the flat tax gets so much support among the wealthy.
A flat tax shifts some of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, even with an exemption level or "prebates".
When you consume, you pay.
And that's the crux of why a flat tax on consumption is a bad idea. It's a disincentive to consume, and it would choke the economy. This is the problem with transactional taxes -- they directly inhibit the activity they tax.
Indirect taxes, like income tax, do not have this problem to the same extent.
Maye you got modded down because of your selective quoting. The parent to your post was talking about streetcars and trolleys, not the DC Metro system, which is trains on dedicated tracks.
And also maybe because you used your tangential complaint to segue into your personal desire to use a car, based on fallacies in your post, which no one really gives a flying fuck about.
If it's not increasing taxes, how's it "paying their fair share".
This is without the permit in the picture since that covers the inspection and city updates of documentation. The latter being to make sure that taxation is increased accordingly.
Because when the next tax assessment cycle hits, all the people without pools will need to pay less.
Ex. Total budget = 2,000,000 Total ratables = 100,000,000 Tax rate = 2%; if I have a 100,000 house, I'd need to pay $2,000 in property taxes.
Now, because of these pools, total ratables is 100,050,000. Tax rate is slightly lower -- so I pay $1,995 or something, because the people with pools are paying their fair share.
But it doesn't really matter, they would have been finding these pools at the time of reassessment anyway, and probably fining the owners at that time.
But, if you think the current system is better than the fair tax, you don't understand what they both really are or you're a lobbyist or politician that derives all their power from the current system with it's convoluted calculations and loopholes.
I'm neither of those things, and I still believe the "fair tax" is worse than the current system. I believe the "fair tax" to be a misnomer, since it is a regressive tax.
I'll go so far as to throw your logic back on you -- if you believe the fair tax is an improvement on the current situation, then you must be either extremely wealthy (these are the true beneficiaries of the "fair" tax) or you must have been bamboozled by people who are extremely wealthy. How's that for turnabout and fair play?
Of course, if you're one of those people who keeps a dozen filing cabinets and spends 30 minutes a day doing personal finance and bookkeeping, sure it's trivial. Most people aren't like that and shouldn't be required to be like that.
One filing cabinet... an hour or two month, including balancing the checkbooks and reconciling the bank accounts, budgeting, and filing.
Not weasel words. As a matter of fact, even if you don't pay the estimated amount, they'll still calculate them for you -- you'll just have to pay a penalty, in addition to the amount you owe, if you owe too much.
If you are in deep shit with the IRS they will not tell you what they think you owe.
If you're in deep shit with the IRS, you have other problems. Namely, being a scofflaw.
No, that's a cop out. It most certainly is not "too much to ask for."
You mistake my thought here; sorry for not being clearer.
It's too much to ask for from wikileaks due to the nature of wikileaks; thus, we will be without their services, since they will be shut down. It's not that I don't hold wikileaks to the high standard; it's that wikileaks will likely not be able to comply.
Wikileaks will be shut down, and this will have a chilling effect (depending on how they are shut down) on people who would responsibly disclose. At the very least, we'll be losing the efforts of several or many individuals working to bring information to light.
Ok, I'll respond without insulting you, since apparently a moderator decided I was trolling -- and it's important that people know the truth.
Its even worse than that.. Our government is the only organization I have ever heard of that refuses to tell you how much you owe!
This is a falsehood. The IRS will calculate your taxes for you, you just need to provide the necessary data (since they don't collect it as a matter of course).
If you choose, you can report a minimum of data, and though you will miss out on some deductions/credits, you don't have to perform a single calculation.
Claiming that the government refuses to tell you how much you owe is a falsehood.
I don't normally complain about moderations... but parent to my post wrote a blatant falsehood, and I corrected their lie/falsehood. Sure, I insulted them while I was at it -- lying is reprehensible, and people who lie in order to promote an agenda (like fairtax or anything else) deserve to be insulted.
Whatever. I hope people reading this thread are at least aware that parent to my OP was lying through his teeth.
Citizens United said that corporations can take part in the political process. It did not say that they can donate money to political campaigns. They can print fliers, buy TV/radio advertisements, take out newspaper ads, etc. They can't write a check to "Obama for America"
What the hell is the difference? Either way, the candidate gets something of value.
Oh, and FYI -- they sure can write a check to "Obama for America" as long as "Obama for America" is a PAC.
Its even worse than that.. Our government is the only organization I have ever heard of that refuses to tell you how much you owe!
They don't refuse to do that. They just allow you to calculate it yourself.
You can always ask the IRS to calculate your tax for you... they'll be glad to do so, as long as you make an estimated payment of net taxes due at filing time.
Seriously, where do you wingnuts get your "facts" from? A cracker-jack box?
I find it silly that we have to hire people to tell us how much we owe....
If you need to hire someone to calculate how much you owe, you must be stupid. It's ridiculously easy, you just need to follow some instructions. What's silly is that so many people are so bad at basic arithmetic and language that they can't follow a form that was written to a seventh-grade level.
And yes, I've been self-employed and received a W2 in the same year, along with capital gains tax due. It's not hard. It takes some time. People pay others to do it because it's convenient, or because they have an irrational fear of forms and numbers.
I won't comment on fairtax, arguing about it with you would be a waste of time. But the reason you cite... it's just false.
The danger is not revealing cover-ups. The danger is some of the ancillary information also revealed.
I feel that wikileaks is a Good Thing; but I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
Responsible disclosure may be too much to ask for -- but I wish that dangerous information was redacted, unless there was some clear benefit to that information becoming public.
I guess that would run counter to what wikileaks is all about... and it's a shame, because without responsible disclosure, wikileaks will, in effect, be shut down by the PTB.
WTH is the "communist block"? You are conflating "Eastern Bloc" and "Communist".
2. India still has a lot of Communist relics in their government -- they only moved away from Communism in the 1990s, and the Communist Party still has a lot of influence, particularly in the poorer states.
And in case you have not heard, people of been reporting their neighbors forever in the US.
Yeah, that's pretty much global human nature, I think.
Where did you get "end of violence" from? It's the end of combat operations, not the end of military presence. I suggest you look into the meaning of the term "combat operations" before making assumptions. We'll still have 50,000 troops there... essentially to prevent exactly what you are foreseeing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a separate issue, the classification of income. One does not need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. While people like Warren Buffet are an exception, there are many, many thousands of people at the highest end that would see their tax burden decrease under the so-called "fair" tax. Furthermore, Warren Buffet does pay capital gains tax. His tax burden is not zero; just his income tax burden. Are you deliberately misconstruing his tax burden to support your argument, or was it an honest mistake?
Sorry, typo. I think I did that a couple times, it comes from my aversion to calling the so-called "fair" tax the fair tax. It's not a fair tax in my opinion, and I think the misnomer is a disingenuous way of lending the idea merit.
I'm not redefining words. You are redefining contexts. Consumption taxes are regressive as a function of income... perhaps for some reason it was not clear to you, despite the fact that both your examples, and my writings, and general discussion of progressive taxes, are based on comparisons of income?
No. My statements make it clear that I do not agree with the premise of the "fair" tax. It is possible for someone to understand an idea, without agreeing with that idea. Your error here is a classic one that intelligent people often make... that if people understand an issue, they must come to the same conclusion you have. I would actually posit that the ignorance here is on your side, because not once have you touched on the economic impacts of the "fair" tax. In addition, it is clear to me that you are making a lot of assumptions about my knowledge of the subject, and about my motivations. More on that below.
And yet every proposal for a "fair" tax on consumption results in a lower tax burden on the extremely wealthy, and a higher tax burden on the middle class. EVERY single proposal I've seen for a "fair" tax results in this under analysis. If you can cite a single proposal where this is not the case, please share it... I'd be very interested in seeing one that doesn't shift the tax burden like this.
You certainly have issues with having reasoned debate. I am relatively wealthy; I do not want for anything; I will be able to pay for my kids' college tuitions; I will be able to retire comfortably in my late fifties or early sixties, depending on returns on investments. I also understand that a signif
It works out just fine.
This is exactly the situation I'm in now. My town was reassessed this year, and my taxes went down, even though our budget went up. Why? Because the total ratables went up more than the budget did, largely because of improvements to existing houses (almost no new construction in my town).
If you believe that was the root cause of the crash, then you are severely undereducated about the crash.
The root problem was excess capital from the previous bubbles (tech especially) that had nowhere to go... it went into real estate, and there we finally bled off the excess capital (painfully). This was compounded by the relaxing of regulation of the banking and financial insurance industries, coupled with a systemic issue of poor risk evaluation on derivatives.
Your "you must loan to poor people" regulation is a red herring.
Good luck on getting any claims on that catastrophic insurance paid.
Yeah, that's a problem. But the government's collusion comes with strings attached that benefit the public. Less than liberals like me wanted, but better than an unregulated insurance industry.
Except, of course, the times where it didn't fuck up the economy. Or the times where government action was necessary to prevent a fucked-up economy that would have run unchecked if private enterprise was allowed to run amok.
Anti-trust and public infrastructure (roads, canals, harbors, etc) being the most glaring exceptions to your "Every. Single. Time." malarkey.
What happens under the "fair tax" is that the very rich get a MASSIVE tax break. That is the net impact, and why the flat tax gets so much support among the wealthy.
A flat tax shifts some of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, even with an exemption level or "prebates".
And that's the crux of why a flat tax on consumption is a bad idea. It's a disincentive to consume, and it would choke the economy. This is the problem with transactional taxes -- they directly inhibit the activity they tax.
Indirect taxes, like income tax, do not have this problem to the same extent.
You're still missing my point. You're not quoting the relevant parts that explain it -- I wonder why?
You could ask that of wikileaks, but they wouldn't comply. Therefore asking that is futile, and instead wikileaks will be shut down.
Maye you got modded down because of your selective quoting. The parent to your post was talking about streetcars and trolleys, not the DC Metro system, which is trains on dedicated tracks.
And also maybe because you used your tangential complaint to segue into your personal desire to use a car, based on fallacies in your post, which no one really gives a flying fuck about.
Because when the next tax assessment cycle hits, all the people without pools will need to pay less.
Ex.
Total budget = 2,000,000
Total ratables = 100,000,000
Tax rate = 2%; if I have a 100,000 house, I'd need to pay $2,000 in property taxes.
Now, because of these pools, total ratables is 100,050,000. Tax rate is slightly lower -- so I pay $1,995 or something, because the people with pools are paying their fair share.
But it doesn't really matter, they would have been finding these pools at the time of reassessment anyway, and probably fining the owners at that time.
I'm neither of those things, and I still believe the "fair tax" is worse than the current system. I believe the "fair tax" to be a misnomer, since it is a regressive tax.
I'll go so far as to throw your logic back on you -- if you believe the fair tax is an improvement on the current situation, then you must be either extremely wealthy (these are the true beneficiaries of the "fair" tax) or you must have been bamboozled by people who are extremely wealthy. How's that for turnabout and fair play?
One filing cabinet... an hour or two month, including balancing the checkbooks and reconciling the bank accounts, budgeting, and filing.
Not weasel words. As a matter of fact, even if you don't pay the estimated amount, they'll still calculate them for you -- you'll just have to pay a penalty, in addition to the amount you owe, if you owe too much.
If you're in deep shit with the IRS, you have other problems. Namely, being a scofflaw.
It's scary to a lot of us over here in the US, too.
I think we liberals (in the US sense) need to coin some new vocab for our policies so that the rabid right doesn't get to narrate the debate.
You mistake my thought here; sorry for not being clearer.
It's too much to ask for from wikileaks due to the nature of wikileaks; thus, we will be without their services, since they will be shut down. It's not that I don't hold wikileaks to the high standard; it's that wikileaks will likely not be able to comply.
Wikileaks will be shut down, and this will have a chilling effect (depending on how they are shut down) on people who would responsibly disclose. At the very least, we'll be losing the efforts of several or many individuals working to bring information to light.
This is a falsehood. The IRS will calculate your taxes for you, you just need to provide the necessary data (since they don't collect it as a matter of course).
If you choose, you can report a minimum of data, and though you will miss out on some deductions/credits, you don't have to perform a single calculation.
Claiming that the government refuses to tell you how much you owe is a falsehood.
I don't normally complain about moderations... but parent to my post wrote a blatant falsehood, and I corrected their lie/falsehood. Sure, I insulted them while I was at it -- lying is reprehensible, and people who lie in order to promote an agenda (like fairtax or anything else) deserve to be insulted.
Whatever. I hope people reading this thread are at least aware that parent to my OP was lying through his teeth.
Don't worry, it would be a VAT -- so your exemption form would go away.
Collect 18% -- deduct the VAT you paid to your vendors -- remit the balance (18% on your markup).
What the hell is the difference? Either way, the candidate gets something of value.
Oh, and FYI -- they sure can write a check to "Obama for America" as long as "Obama for America" is a PAC.
They don't refuse to do that. They just allow you to calculate it yourself.
You can always ask the IRS to calculate your tax for you... they'll be glad to do so, as long as you make an estimated payment of net taxes due at filing time.
Seriously, where do you wingnuts get your "facts" from? A cracker-jack box?
If you need to hire someone to calculate how much you owe, you must be stupid. It's ridiculously easy, you just need to follow some instructions. What's silly is that so many people are so bad at basic arithmetic and language that they can't follow a form that was written to a seventh-grade level.
And yes, I've been self-employed and received a W2 in the same year, along with capital gains tax due. It's not hard. It takes some time. People pay others to do it because it's convenient, or because they have an irrational fear of forms and numbers.
I won't comment on fairtax, arguing about it with you would be a waste of time. But the reason you cite... it's just false.
The danger is not revealing cover-ups. The danger is some of the ancillary information also revealed.
I feel that wikileaks is a Good Thing; but I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
Responsible disclosure may be too much to ask for -- but I wish that dangerous information was redacted, unless there was some clear benefit to that information becoming public.
I guess that would run counter to what wikileaks is all about... and it's a shame, because without responsible disclosure, wikileaks will, in effect, be shut down by the PTB.
Only if your definition of "socialized" is the one fed to you by the people who deliberately re-defined the term to enable their scare tactics.
Try using define:socialism as google search terms, and be enlightened.
Well, I read it...
And it's a piece of propaganda. They redefine socialism in order to conclude that Obama supports socialized healthcare.
I could claim in a white paper that the Cato Institute is a fascist think-tank, as long as I redefine fascism for the purpose of my white paper.
WTH is the "communist block"? You are conflating "Eastern Bloc" and "Communist".
2. India still has a lot of Communist relics in their government -- they only moved away from Communism in the 1990s, and the Communist Party still has a lot of influence, particularly in the poorer states.
Yeah, that's pretty much global human nature, I think.
Way to read the article, champ.
Where did you get "end of violence" from? It's the end of combat operations, not the end of military presence. I suggest you look into the meaning of the term "combat operations" before making assumptions. We'll still have 50,000 troops there... essentially to prevent exactly what you are foreseeing.
Thanks for your post -- you're spot on with your interpretation of my post.