|
|
|
|
AlaninTX
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 6582
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 02/12/03 - 15:06 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | give me a flat tax across the board with mortgage dedcutions and charitable contributions and be done with it all. No higher taxes.
That or a national sales tax period and no income tax at all. Rich people buy more so they would pay more tax. |
I have seen that if you were to abolish the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax the rate would need to be something like 25 per cent (this is on top of the state sales tax, mind you), and be so broadbased that it would apply to everything from cars to diapers to prescription drugs. That is to meet the current budget, and current deficits included. In my opinion it would fall pretty harshly on those making under $50,000 a year.
|
|
|
|
|
rubberlegs
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
Posts: 328
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 15:07 Post subject:
Actually a national sales tax would be a greater burden on poor people than rich. While it's true that richer people spend more money, but a national sales tax would end up being a much larger percentage of a poor persons income than for a rich person. Not trying to take a side on this btw, just making points (hehe..and feeding the fire :p)
|
|
|
|
|
prohemp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 7716
Location: in the cradle of liberty
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 15:10 Post subject:
| rubberlegs wrote: | | Actually a national sales tax would be a greater burden on poor people than rich. While it's true that richer people spend more money, but a national sales tax would end up being a much larger percentage of a poor persons income than for a rich person. Not trying to take a side on this btw, just making points (hehe..and feeding the fire :p) |
i agree
the national sales tax has been proposed as a way to get tax on the underground economy
|
|
|
|
|
coachmarkos
my boys could swim
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 11387
Location: 1st in AFC West
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 15:13 Post subject:
I'm with ya rubberlegs.
My complaint is with the whole write-off system, and that is what I meant to complain about. If we can go from owing $700 to getting back @$800 without significant changes in income. That is wrong.
The only thing that really changed was our accountant. (remember I took the deduction for the baby out already)
Sue, your point is good. However, you forgot the 8 zillion write-offs that John Rich is going to use before he gets taxed.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 15:14 Post subject:
good point guys. Did not think of it that way.
How about eliminating the marriage pentalty.
I really think a flat tax across the board starting at a set number of income for example, above 20000 would be good (I just threw that number out there) no increases for different levels just the same all the way up.
|
|
|
|
|
rubberlegs
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
Posts: 328
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 15:18 Post subject:
| coachmarkos wrote: | I'm with ya rubberlegs.
My complaint is with the whole write-off system, and that is what I meant to complain about. If we can go from owing $700 to getting back @$800 without significant changes in income. That is wrong.
The only thing that really changed was our accountant. (remember I took the deduction for the baby out already)
Sue, your point is good. However, you forgot the 8 zillion write-offs that John Rich is going to use before he gets taxed. |
I agree with you Coach. For every tax they introduce, someone finds a way to weasel out of it it seems. It doesn't seem right that the burden of decoding the tax laws to get the best return for your money is on the tax payer, especially when they make the code so darn complicated. I have yet to see a viable argument against a graduated flat tax, other than my wife is a CPA and this could signifacantly affect the industry that is our bread and butter.  She does mostly corporate tax though for one of the Big 4 firms, so she'd prolly still have a job.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 15:52 Post subject:
I'm not sure we're all on the same page here. I could give myself a whopping refund if I changed my w-4 to single and zero allowances and add on some extra to be taken out each paycheck. Refunds or owing are an end result of your withholding mostly if your income and deductions aren't changing. For me personally, with three kids, mortgage interest, and some other meager deductions, I end up with a federal tax of zero and get back all the withholding that went in over the year. A federal sales tax or flat tax would bite, 'cuz it would be a whopping whole lot more than the nada I have now.
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 16:13 Post subject:
My take on coach's point is this: The tax code is complicated for many who may attempt to do it themselves. Those households with lower income are the least informed about what deductions are allowable under that code. They are also less able to pay for outside assistance in preparing their taxes. That, in my opinion, is why our tax system is screwy.
|
|
|
|
|
Erstwhile Lurker
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 4047
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 16:38 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | | give me a flat tax across the board with mortgage dedcutions and charitable contributions and be done with it all. No higher taxes. |
See, then it's not a flat tax anymore. Once you open the barn door to considering all those deductions, credits, and contributions, everyone is going to want their favorite perk put back in. 
A flat tax is a real gut check, because if it's truly implemented, you'd kiss all your adjustments to income goodbye.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 18:27 Post subject:
timely with this discussion my husband took me to lunch today...he kinda added a little "hon, don't worry about the amount we're gonna owe" Me: state or fed. him: "both".
oh yeah---I got my v-day present today   he done good. Oh sh*# now I have to get him something!!
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/03 - 18:33 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
That or a national sales tax period and no income tax at all. Rich people buy more so they would pay more tax. |
BIG FAT SHOPAHOLIC LOVING 1!!
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/03 - 00:40 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
That or a national sales tax period and no income tax at all. Rich people buy more so they would pay more tax. |
Amen to a consumption tax. Talk about a way to stimulate the economy! Want to do something about it? Check out www.fairtax.org and write your representatives.
I don't know if I agree with you across the board on rich people buying more, though. Most of the folks I know who have alot of money are some of the most frugal people I know.
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/03 - 00:49 Post subject:
| rubberlegs wrote: | | Actually a national sales tax would be a greater burden on poor people than rich. While it's true that richer people spend more money, but a national sales tax would end up being a much larger percentage of a poor persons income than for a rich person. Not trying to take a side on this btw, just making points (hehe..and feeding the fire :p) |
Sorry 'legs, but most of the columnists and commentators I’ve heard do not understand one very important part of this plan. It would NOT be horribly regressive. Nobody, whether rich or poor, would have to pay the sales tax on the basic necessities of life: Food, clothing, shelter or medicine.
The government would calculate dollar amounts to represent the cost of basic necessities for all families and single persons. These people would then get a check from the government every year in an amount equal to the sales tax they can be expected to pay on basic necessities during that year.
If the poor folk want to blow their money on "wants" instead of "needs", well, that's another issue entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/03 - 10:53 Post subject:
| thegman wrote: | | rubberlegs wrote: | | Actually a national sales tax would be a greater burden on poor people than rich. While it's true that richer people spend more money, but a national sales tax would end up being a much larger percentage of a poor persons income than for a rich person. Not trying to take a side on this btw, just making points (hehe..and feeding the fire :p) |
Sorry 'legs, but most of the columnists and commentators I’ve heard do not understand one very important part of this plan. It would NOT be horribly regressive. Nobody, whether rich or poor, would have to pay the sales tax on the basic necessities of life: Food, clothing, shelter or medicine.
The government would calculate dollar amounts to represent the cost of basic necessities for all families and single persons. These people would then get a check from the government every year in an amount equal to the sales tax they can be expected to pay on basic necessities during that year.
If the poor folk want to blow their money on "wants" instead of "needs", well, that's another issue entirely. |
But that's exactlywhat they do. When I was working poor (just out-of college) I had my day job (Central Life), night job (IRS) and weekend job (Marshal Fields)....I lived near a low income area (Madison people will recognize it -- Allied Drive)......I'll never forget there was a Sentry store there and I was in line and the only one not using food stamps. I was also the only woman not wearing guess jeans.
Go to an amusement park or carnival and see who's spending their hard earned money there. IMO, the working rich are very frugal almost to a fault (cheap). It's probably why they are rich. It's not what you earn, but what you save. The problem is that the poor really don't make a big impact on the economy. Unless you get the rich to spend...the economy becomes stagnant.
|
|
|
|
|
copdotcom1
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
Posts: 782
Location: Arlington, TX
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/03 - 12:47 Post subject:
The flat tax will never happen...how many middle class or poor people do you know who get elected to congress? Our economic system requires a large "middle class" to support the government budget and our tax system, by design keeps the middle class, middle class.
|
|
|
|
