Originally posted by StarValleyWyAustralia has managed to implement a goods and services tax which gets anyone who uses goods and services(ie: everyone) to contribute to the tax base. In the 6 or so years of being in operation personal income tax rates have also been radically reduced with the tax thresholds being raised and reduced in number. There was a perception that a black market economy would emerge but in reality all that was black was illicit drugs, and at least the people who profit from that still pay their share of tax through paying the GST on the goods and services that they purchase. I think the biggest thing about the success of it has been the low rate 10% and that certain basic grocery items are exempt and that against all odds the rate has stayed the same since its launch.
So as much as I like my fancy-shmansy plan for a fair tax... it kind of stinks. Just another utopian bit of non-sense that looks good until you put it up against human greed.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyA fair tax should be the same for everyone, once you start making
For several years now, I have espoused a national sales tax as the best way to get an equitable tax going.
In my mind, I keep tweeking it and twisting it and adjusting it and IN THEORY it sure seems like the way to go.
Then I started to think about the psychology of it and I have what I think MIGHT be a killer to the notion.
Firstly, we have to ...[text shortened]... opian bit of non-sense that looks good until you put it up against human greed.
it better for some than others you have broken the level playing
field and are no longer messing with a fair tax.
Kelly
Originally posted by kmax87Thanks. That is good information and much appreciated. I will have to study and reconsider my position.
Australia has managed to implement a goods and services tax which gets anyone who uses goods and services(ie: everyone) to contribute to the tax base. In the 6 or so years of being in operation personal income tax rates have also been radically reduced with the tax thresholds being raised and reduced in number. There was a perception that a black market econo ...[text shortened]... rocery items are exempt and that against all odds the rate has stayed the same since its launch.
Originally posted by KellyJayI guess. But for all of being an old redneck -- I have seen poverty up close and don't WANT poor people to pay as much as I do. And don't go telling anyone that I am soft! We are rich enough to help women and children out of extreme poverty.
A fair tax should be the same for everyone, once you start making
it better for some than others you have broken the level playing
field and are no longer messing with a fair tax.
Kelly
As for all the drunks wandering around... I call them "Bears". My only hope is that we smarten up enough as a culture to give them the same dignity that we gave the Bears of Yellowstone. They finally figured out that feeding the Yellowstone bears made them lazy and dangerous! Imagine that! So why isn't feeding the most friggin dangerous predator on earth just as dangerous? Next to a drugged out male human, a bear looks like a pussycat.
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree with SVW. Why does "fair" have to be "equal"?
A fair tax should be the same for everyone
Kelly
Also are you thinking of the same tax or the same tax rate?
If we said that everyone had to pay the same amount of tax, then either almost all tax revenue would disappear or millions of Americans would be in perpetual (and increasing) debt to the US government.
On the otherhand you could say that everyone has to pay the same tax rate. The problem here is that in order to keep government revenue about the same as it is now, you have to ratchet up the the flat rate that everyone pays. Realistically, you could end up charging the poor nearly 30%! Before you say that that's "fair", let me point out that the rich pay more than the poor under this system. How then would a flat tax rate be "fair" according to what you wrote?
Originally posted by telerionWork out how much it's going to cost to run the gummint for one year and then divide that evenly amongst the population, a poll tax. Yes, imagine it, we'd see a different guvamint if people couldn't vote money out of other peoples pockets. There would be a massive reduction in the size of guvamint and gummint spending, hoorah. In election year the pollies and potential pollies would all be falling over each other with promises of how they would spend less of your money, hoorah again.
I agree with SVW. Why does "fair" have to be "equal"?
Also are you thinking of the same tax or the same tax rate?
If we said that everyone had to pay the same amount of tax, then either almost all tax revenue would disappear or millions of Americans would be in perpetual (and increasing) debt to the US government.
On the otherhand you ...[text shortened]... der this system. How then would a flat tax rate be "fair" according to what you wrote?
No, the only "fair tax" is a user pays system. First look at the alternative to user pays: You use something but make someone else pay. Sure dosen't sound fair to me. Or, alternatively, you don't use something but you HAVE TO, MUST, AGAINST YOUR WILL, pay for it. Nup, that don't sound right.
That leaves: You use it - You pay for it. aka Fair Tax.
I think the word fair is viewed as such:
If I am making 25,000 a yr. And I pay 10% flat tax on my income - A person making 100,000 a yr. will also play 10%
It's equal because of it's stability you would know year in year out your tax base and plan accordingly.
For those of you arguing for the poor - they already don't pay taxes - they are exempt. (read the W2 forms) Clearly states if you make X amount of $$$ you are exempt.
There will never be a clear cut version of a Fair Tax because humans are involved in deciding. In one corner you have 1) The poor - they think they should not pay taxes because they are poor and therefore have no money. In the other corner you have the 2) The rich - they think why should they be punished for making good decisions in life and earning a good income. (Please remember this is the class that creates the jobs for the Poor).
Then there is the ever shrinking 3) Middle Class. - Who end up paying for the slack of the poor and giving that to the rich.
So.... What are we to do?
1) Lets make Insurance companies open game.
This is the one thing that President Bush has actually (IMHO) been right on. If we open the market for insurances to be purchased (Like Auto Insurance) then there will be a bidding war for you and I to choose our insurance and coverage thus our cost.
2) Make Pot legal - Tax at an decent rate - (immense amount of money to be made) No more minor infractions for using marijuana will also leviate some jail space.
Before the holy then thou group chimes in with the dangers...I see Drunk Drivers on a daily basis trust me lets get over that mental hurdle and lets make the government some money.
3) Make child support a tax defered option at the end of the year. You want to see Single Parents get the money from thier spouces and see our Future children get the proper funding....Then allow those that pay childsupport to claim that as lost income on thier taxes.... Be surprised how well that would turn out. This would allow single parents to get the financial support they need and in turn not need to lean on the governement for support.
Just some ideas that were swirling in my head....
If you tax at all, tax everyone equally. Also, make sure there is always an incentive to earn. AND don't leave people with nothing.
In other words, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
"A negative income tax would replace the current progressive income tax system used throughout most of the Western world. This would be replaced by a flat tax of, say, 25%, but each taxpayer would also be given $10,000 by the government.
Thus a person earning only $4000 per year would pay $1000 in taxes for a net income of $13,000.
$10,000 + $4000 - $1000 = $13,000 net income (Overall, they would receive a net gain of $9,000 from the government.)
A person making $40,000 would be at the break-even point, essentially paying no taxes.
$10,000 + $40,000 - $10,000 = $40,000 net income
A person making $1,000,000 per year would pay close to the full 25% tax.
$10,000 + $1,000,000 - $250,000 = $760,000 net income.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyPercentages not the same amout of money, what ever you don't
I guess. But for all of being an old redneck -- I have seen poverty up close and don't WANT poor people to pay as much as I do. And don't go telling anyone that I am soft! We are rich enough to help women and children out of extreme poverty.
As for all the drunks wandering around... I call them "Bears". My only hope is that we smarten up enough as a on earth just as dangerous? Next to a drugged out male human, a bear looks like a pussycat.
want the poor to pay, stop there. Let the govenment do with what
the country can give instead of making the people make do with what
the govenment lets them keep.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionOne size fits all, the same rate. That does away with the class envy
I agree with SVW. Why does "fair" have to be "equal"?
Also are you thinking of the same tax or the same tax rate?
If we said that everyone had to pay the same amount of tax, then either almost all tax revenue would disappear or millions of Americans would be in perpetual (and increasing) debt to the US government.
On the otherhand you ...[text shortened]... r this system. How then would a flat tax rate be "fair" according to what you wrote?at
that we find ourselves in too by design when those in power want to
make promises with someone else's money. When it is everyone's
money the promises are felt by everyone the same way so the cost
would not be so easy to hide when they want to spend more for
this that or the other thing.
Kelly
Originally posted by spruce112358Give 10K from the Government and where did that money come from?
If you tax at all, tax everyone equally. Also, make sure there is always an incentive to earn. AND don't leave people with nothing.
In other words, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
"A negative income tax would replace the current progressive income tax system used throughout most of the Western world. This would be replaced by a ...[text shortened]... r would pay close to the full 25% tax.
$10,000 + $1,000,000 - $250,000 = $760,000 net income.
Edit:
Unless you are saying first 10K is tax free, that would be fair if it the
same for everyone.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerion"Why does "fair" have to be "equal"? "
I agree with SVW. Why does "fair" have to be "equal"?
Also are you thinking of the same tax or the same tax rate?
If we said that everyone had to pay the same amount of tax, then either almost all tax revenue would disappear or millions of Americans would be in perpetual (and increasing) debt to the US government.
On the otherhand you der this system. How then would a flat tax rate be "fair" according to what you wrote?
To make it fair thats why. it has to be equal or it isn't fair. Play with
the numbers you punish one group over another.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHey Kelly,
Percentages not the same amout of money, what ever you don't
want the poor to pay, stop there. Let the govenment do with what
the country can give instead of making the people make do with what
the govenment lets them keep.
Kelly
It would take a lot of computers to figure out the logic, but what would you think of a voluntary program that would go outside of the norms?
What if one could elect to pay more with the caveat that THAT proportion would be donated to a designated set of funds... controlled by the donor?
I could then elect to support whichever funds (to be privately administered) that my family decides to support? Too much of a headache? It would be really difficult to administer, but I could really go for something like that.
As a model, I envision something like Fidelity Funds, except broader -- with various charities taking the role of the stocks and bonds etc...
Mike
Originally posted by KellyJayIt comes from the welfare system in a sense. It's a disbursement.
Give 10K from the Government and where did that money come from?
Edit:
Unless you are saying first 10K is tax free, that would be fair if it the
same for everyone.
Kelly
The negative income tax combines a flat tax system with social welfare payments. You pick whatever level you don't want people to go below ($10,000 in the example I quoted). That's the minimum you will have to live on in a given year assuming you earn nothing.
Out of every 4 dollars beyond that, 1 goes to the government.
For people earning exactly 40,000, their 10,000 "social disbursement" exactly equals their tax rate -- so they have no net tax. If you earn 100,000, your 25% tax rate is 25,000 -- but the 10,000 reduces that to 15,000 in tax. So your tax rate is 15%.
A great many people would pay signifcantly less than 25%. But the people who earn the most will asymptotically approach 25%.
It's flat. It's fair, and it implements a basic safety net.
The costs that would be saved in simplicity alone in both the IRS and HHS would be staggering.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm all for being able to do what I want with my own money as I would
Hey Kelly,
It would take a lot of computers to figure out the logic, but what would you think of a voluntary program that would go outside of the norms?
What if one could elect to pay more with the caveat that THAT proportion would be donated to a designated set of funds... controlled by the donor?
I could then elect to support whichever funds ...[text shortened]... except broader -- with various charities taking the role of the stocks and bonds etc...
Mike
love you and yours to do what you want with all of your money.
Kelly