Buffett rule

[Charles]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Anybody want to join me in beating this dead horse again?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Why not, I've always been a sucker for lost causes.

Chas

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Anybody want to join me in beating this dead horse again?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Won't this increase the tax on the working poor?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I don't think this is a serious proposal. It's election year fodder for those who will bite.

Personally, I think earned and unearned (cap gains, dividends) should be taxed at the same rate. I'd favor shitcanning all deductions (including home mortgage, charity, state taxes, medical expenses, etc.) and significantly lowering rates.

How much money and time are wasted in this country dicking around with taxes every April, and furthermore, how many economic decisions throughout the year are based upon estimated tax consequences and not upon their own merits?

Anytime congress addresses an issue of this significance just before an election it can be assured that it is no more than political grandstanding.

If the tax code is FUBAR, it's because congress WANTS it that way.

Chas

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Charles

Anytime congress addresses an issue of this significance just before an election it can be assured that it is no more than political grandstanding.

If the tax code is FUBAR, it's because congress WANTS it that way.

Chas

No it is because the corporations and the wealthy want it that way. They revised the tax code back in the 80s and cleaned it up quite a bit. Then the lobbyists went to work and screwed it up over the next few years.

Funny thing is that things like mortgage interest deductions don't really work. Don't have that in Canada yet home ownership there, as a % of population is marginally higher than here. Of course they also do not have a capital gains tax on the sale of your home either.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Won't this increase the tax on the working poor?

The following is from the Web site in the FAQ. (fairtax.org) Check it out. A lot of the misconceptions are addressed.

"How does the FairTax protect low-income families and individuals and retirees on fixed incomes?

Under the FairTax Plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free."

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by Charles

Why not, I've always been a sucker for lost causes.

Chas

Me too.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

Why not, I've always been a sucker for lost causes.

Chas

Originally Posted by JJIII

Me too.

Can we still register with the Bull Moose Party?

Dave

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Can we still register with the Bull Moose Party?

Dave

We can certainly do better than the Bull Chit parties we've got now.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free."

This is a whole lot of wrong.

Thanks for the info however as I had forgotten that they poor received back some monies.

I still have no position either way on this as of now. (not smart enough yet!)
Bur I am concerned the wealthy could buy things elsewhere or simply like a Buffet choose to buy nothing to pay nothing. A loophole the poor or middle class do not have.

Even if the rich do spend, they may well spend a much lower % of their income than the middle can can hence once again paying less than their fair share.

I know I am currently compelled to spend 100 plus% (savings also) of my income so then everything is taxed for me and a rich dude could be paying tax on say 5% of his income.

Thoughts?

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I know I am currently compelled to spend 100 plus% (savings also) of my income so then everything is taxed for me and a rich dude could be paying tax on say 5% of his income.

Thoughts?

So, how much more "tax progressivity" do you want, Noone? And how much is enough. Sounds like we're alredy pretty damn progressive as it is.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/amer...all-taxes-2010

"...those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden. In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent."

"Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent."

"Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers. In other words, only 85 million actually paid (federal income) taxes."

"But Tax Foundation data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS."

Now, I betcha I could get this same outcome with 20% or less of the IRS's current staff, and about 90% of the verbiage of our current tax code, and a tax form that's one or two pages long.