You are Funny girl.
It was a great Northern victory, but it was not realised at the time.
Atlanta is all that mattered, so the action at Mobile was overlooked at the time
Taxes
-
Excuse me, but wasn’t Jenn banned from political discussion? And isn’t this a political discussion? As mods are participating I guess it is a bit late but I thought I’d ask anyway.
-
your right this is not political discussion.
-
No offense, Frimmel, but instead of trying to get people in trouble, why not just let the Moderators do their thing? I wasn’t banned from all discussion, I wasn’t even banned from political discussion, just the political forum.
anyway, BACK ON TOPIC!
The more I think about it, the more I fall in love with the idea that the states should collect the taxes and out of what the states collect, they pay the national government. Keep the national government as far away from the people as possible. Besides, it’s much easier to write one check to, say, the State of Illinois then two checks and have to worry about the post office losing one or both of the forms!
-
@Imperious:
your right this is not political discussion.
Good enough for me. Just watching the watchmen. :-) Back on topic. :-)
-
If anyone is at fault here it would be me for mentioning specific legislation before Congress (though I did so only to differentiate the Fair Tax from things like VAT).
I think rather than a tax on either the creation of wealth OR the existence of wealth, we should tax the AVOIDANCE of wealth. If you work hard and earn money, you keep it. If you have money, you keep it. The only way you pay taxes is to SPEND wealth. And a certain amount is expected… a roof, food, etc., so you get a rebate on taxes up to that level of spending… but once you consume over that threshold, then you pay taxes.
It funds the government, it encourages savings, it encourages conservation… I think financially and philosophically it would be a good system. And states like Florida seem to be in agreement for the most part…
-
But won’t a tax on spending money result in a massive effect on our economy by people not buying stuff to avoid the tax?
-
If the tax is applied to everything that is purchased, then the tax is unavoidable.
-
@ncscswitch:
If anyone is at fault here it would be me for mentioning specific legislation before Congress (though I did so only to differentiate the Fair Tax from things like VAT).
I think rather than a tax on either the creation of wealth OR the existence of wealth, we should tax the AVOIDANCE of wealth. If you work hard and earn money, you keep it. If you have money, you keep it. The only way you pay taxes is to SPEND wealth. And a certain amount is expected… a roof, food, etc., so you get a rebate on taxes up to that level of spending… but once you consume over that threshold, then you pay taxes.
It funds the government, it encourages savings, it encourages conservation… I think financially and philosophically it would be a good system. And states like Florida seem to be in agreement for the most part…
But couldn’t a tax on consumption end up as a regressive tax? My father and I work in the same location. His renumeration is greater than mine yet we incur the same fundamental expenses to fulfill our job requirements. A tax on my necessary consumption is a greater burden on me than on him. Would under you system my rebate be greater than his for a roof, clothes, fuel et al? And even with the rebate you are going to hold a greater percentage of my earnings over the course of the year denying me their use to bolster savings. I’m not versed in economics but aren’t all taxes on consumption essentially regressive taxes?
-
Actually no, they are not, not if you lop off the bottom of the spending ladder and make it tax neutral (or even a revenue source for those who truly consume almost nothing).
Also, USED goods would be exempt from taxation, since the tax was already paid when it was new, so you could, at the lower socio-economic levels, avoid the consumption tax by purchasing a used car, an existing home, etc.
And the amount of the prebate is based on household size, so a household with 2 adults 2 children would get a much larger prebate than a household of 2 adults.
Again, you may want to check out Fair Tax .org for answers from the folks who are really in the know.
Now, if the Fair Tax could NOT be passed, then the only alternative would be a FLAT TAX. Although, we HAD a nearly flat tax once, just over 20 years ago (2 level flat tax… almost). But with over 10,000 amendments and changes since then, we have a fiasco.
-
We should also make Tax law simple and easy to understand. We shouldn’t need a 4,000 page document broken up into 5 volumes that needs a lawyer to decode it for us laymen.
-
4,000 would be a MASSIVE tax simplification from what we have now. Our current tax code is over 100,000 pages…
And I agree, a nice, simple tax code that is user friendly, requires zero or almost zero time in order to comply with it, and no need for audits or anything else. Also elimination of many of the odd ball taxes and everything rolled into one simple tax.
-
I can certainly get behind a simpler tax system. I can also get behind one that doesn’t seem to punish me for not having a family.
-
Our current tax code drives up personal debt spending.
Perhaps if the code punished rather than rewarded debt, our citizens would have more of a reason to get debt free.
-
Wow…… 100,000 pages?
-
I think the biggest problems with an end user tax would be:
- Determining who the end user is. Many companies resell a lot of their purchases, so who pays the tax? How do you prove it? How do you enforce it?
- Keeping the black market out. You know the instant you have to pay $200 tax on a television someone will be offering it to you at a discount off the back of a van, tax free.
-
Which is no different than the black market WAGE economy we have now, except that Illegals are not the primary beneficiary of it.
The Fair Tax is a win all the way around:
Illegals pay taxes
The poor are exempt
It encourages savings
It discourages consumption
It encourages recycling
Only those with a demonstrated ability to pay (by choosing to buy new goods) pay taxes.Not sure what anyone sees as the downside on this…
-
It discourages tourism
The rich will buy their products over seas and avoid the tax
A black market for lower echelon goods will appear and be the new “drug” that the police have to intercept.Not saying it cannot be done, but have those concerns been addressed yet? If not, how would you address them?
-
For goods purchased overseas, it would be just like high dollar goods purchased out of state from states with high sales taxes… collect the tax upon transfer of the item to the US.
As for a massive black market…
I just don;t see it happening. You would need collusion at so many levels that it would be impractical. And what is there to gain for cooperation with the effort to evade the tax? Cash? More than a small amount, and the black market item becomes more expensive than the legal item.I really would encourage folks to check out Fair Tax.org. Considering that 9 Republican Presidential Candidates have stated that they will sign the Far Tax Bill if passed by congress, it might be worth while to check out the info from the experts.
Just a thought…
-
I can certainly get behind a simpler tax system. I can also get behind one that doesn’t seem to punish me for not having a family.
my father was at Omaha beach to protect familyless scum like you. from hells heart I stab at thee. JK :lol:
-
I like a tax plan that reimburses working families who are financially stable for having children and providing labor for the next generation. Our population is dwindling, and not only because of abortion, but also because it’s almost impossible to function on one paycheck these days. That means two working parents and the cost of day care is so high statements from people like Hillary Clinton asking the national government to take over and run day cares to save parents money are actually being entertained, by me too!
However, if parents who have proven that they are not a burden to society (no bankruptcies, no felonies, no criminal issues worse then traffic tickets etc, not on unemployment, not on welfare, not on disability, etc) should get paid by the government to be able to afford a stay at home parent. There have been a myriad of studies that show that stay at home parents raise, generally, law abiding children.
Now, I’m not saying to pay the stay at home parent what they are worth. That would be over $100,000 a year each! No. But how about $5,000 for the first child (0-17y, 364d, 23h, 59m) and $1,500 for the next 3 children. Any children after that would add $600 each.
It’s just enough to pay for food and used clothing for the children. Which is all a family needs to survive on one paycheck.
Then, if you tax exempt food, water and medicine (the necessities for life) a flat sales tax would be a great idea.
Suggested Topics
