Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-28-2005, 03:07 PM
bookie socks bookie socks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 61
Default Re: \"Fair Tax\"-a better alternative than \"Flat Tax\"

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem is that people endorse it before fully understanding it. I love the comments that the current system unfairly punishes those who dare to achieve and rewards underachievers. If I understand correctly, the basis for that claim comes from the fact that those who earn more are taxed at a higher percentage of income.

[/ QUOTE ] That and the fact that their money they spent time earning is taken from them and given to the underachievers.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, by that same line of logic, then the rich are unfairly rewarded by the system of LIFE because they get to use such a comparatively small percentage of income to purchase the basic needs (food/housing, etc) and the poor are unfairly punished there.

[/ QUOTE ] THAT IS NOT A REWARD OF LIFE, THAT IS A REWARD OF HARD WORK AND ACHIEVING SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST WANTING TO GET BY. The poor are not rewarded because they chose to be lazy or party and just accecept getting by.

[ QUOTE ]
Like it or not, there is a cost to running this federal government (although the current administration and congress doesn't seem to fully grasp the concept with the massive continual debts they run up from the reduced revenue streams resulting from their current tax breaks).

The evaluation of any alternative taxation plan is simple, you start with the baseline of the current system and ask yourself, will the new system continue to bring in the same revenue stream as the current system? I believe Boortz calls this concept "revenue-neutrality".

So question one is, what is the required flat-tax rate required to keep us revenue neutral? I'm not sure if the book defines this or not, I haven't read it. But whatever it is, we have to assume the system is revenue neutral because not taking in as much money as we do currently would add to even larger debts than are currently projected and hopefully no one would find that acceptable (although you would may have a hard time convincing Republicans on this point).

So once you have determined it is revenue neutral, now you need to ask yourself, what is the current breakdown of % of revenue paid into the system by each quadrant of taxpayers? What % of tax revenue do the top 20% of earners pay? What do the bottom 20% currently pay?

Now the million dollar question, how do those percentages change with this new system? Again, I have not read the book, but my understanding of any flat/fair tax scheme is that they are designed to allow rich people to pay less in taxes. If we have revenue neutrality, then if someone is paying less, then someone else must be paying more.

This is the inherient flaw in flat tax schemes. You presumably have done nothing to change the percentage of money that the poor need to spend on essentials yet you are now asking them to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Numerous studies have shown what the percentage needs to be. The "poor" would be able to 1) spend all of their money up to the poverty level tax free 2) they would get a pay raise in their checks equal to the amount of SS, Medicare and federal income tax that has been taken from them under the current tax system. 3)their dollars would go further because of the removal of the embedded taxes in the products they buy.
Any spending by them above the poverty level and they would pay the same tax as everyone else in this country.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-28-2005, 03:23 PM
bookie socks bookie socks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 61
Default Re: \"Fair Tax\"-a better alternative than \"Flat Tax\"

Do you think people will stop buying things, expensive things? There have been studies to determine what the tax rate needs to be to cover the current $1.7 trillion in tax already collected.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-28-2005, 03:24 PM
bookie socks bookie socks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 61
Default Re: \"Fair Tax\"-a better alternative than \"Flat Tax\"

[ QUOTE ]
, you just gave a paragraph full of smoke screen and rhetoric with no facts to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-29-2005, 06:26 PM
tread tread is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2
Default Re: \"Fair Tax\"-a better alternative than \"Flat Tax\"

[ QUOTE ]
THAT IS NOT A REWARD OF LIFE, THAT IS A REWARD OF HARD WORK AND ACHIEVING SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST WANTING TO GET BY. The poor are not rewarded because they chose to be lazy or party and just accecept getting by.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your characterization of poor people is so despicable it hardly even warrants a response, but I do need to defend the honor of my grandmother. My grandfather died when he was 35, leaving my grandmother (who was a carrer homemaker with no job skills) to raise 4 children between the ages of 2 and 10. She did not have the luxury or finances to take time off for job training or go to school to get a degree. She instead worked two jobs, one as a receptionist in a DR office and another cleaning offices, and unfortunately neither one had retirement programs for her.

She is now 82 and has a variety of medical conditions, the only income/assitance she has is social security, medicare, and an additional monthly stiped from her son-in-law (my dad), which by the way, takes away from HIS ability to save for his own retirement.

For you to characterize her and those like her as someone who is lazy or "just wanted to get by" is down right insulting. I guess I can see the intelligence factor of those supporting this movement now.

For those interested in reading a more in-depth analysis of why this scheme is unfair and not properly thought thru, check out this website.

http://www.pandagon.net/archives/200...ax_pt_4_-.html

After reading this, just the mere fact that they categorize the needed tax rate as 23% when any reasonable person considers it a 30% tax rate tells me they are trying to hide things in laying this scheme out from the very get go and causes me to be untrustworthy.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-30-2005, 12:05 PM
bookie socks bookie socks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 61
Default Re: \"Fair Tax\"-a better alternative than \"Flat Tax\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THAT IS NOT A REWARD OF LIFE, THAT IS A REWARD OF HARD WORK AND ACHIEVING SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST WANTING TO GET BY. The poor are not rewarded because they chose to be lazy or party and just accecept getting by.


[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize. I didn't intend to offend anyone. Your characterization of people who are well off is insulting their hard work. Like they just got lucky and won the game of life. Some people have got rich because of the lottery and such. But for the most part those folks busted their buttts and sacraficed to get where they are. Now to take that money from them and just give it to the "less fortunate" is unfair.

[ QUOTE ]
Your characterization of poor people is so despicable it hardly even warrants a response, but I do need to defend the honor of my grandmother. My grandfather died when he was 35, leaving my grandmother (who was a carrer homemaker with no job skills)

[/ QUOTE ]


You just verified my characterization. No job skills. Never worked. Just stay home and make babies.

[ QUOTE ]
to raise 4 children between the ages of 2 and 10. She did not have the luxury or finances to take time off for job training or go to school to get a degree. She instead worked two jobs, one as a receptionist in a DR office and another cleaning offices, and unfortunately neither one had retirement programs for her.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why depend on an employer for retirement? Why didn't she do her own investing? With the Fairtax she would have had more money to invest and the proceeds from those investments would not be taxed.

[ QUOTE ]


She is now 82 and has a variety of medical conditions, the only income/assitance she has is social security, medicare, and an additional monthly stiped from her son-in-law (my dad), which by the way, takes away from HIS ability to save for his own retirement.

For you to characterize her and those like her as someone who is lazy or "just wanted to get by" is down right insulting. I guess I can see the intelligence factor of those supporting this movement now.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words. She didn't take the time to further educate herself when she was young, instead of getting a job she decided to stay home and have more kids than she could afford, her husband didn't put any money into life insurance, she didn't save any money for retirement. And now money is being taken or has been taken from those that furthered their education, got their job skills, had children when they could afford it, have life insurance and have saved for their retirement to give to her.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.