Bush and Taxation

[Steelwind]

Washington: There is no point taxing the rich because they just dodge their tax bill anyway, President George Bush said.

"Real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes," Mr Bush said on Monday during a campaign stop in suburban Washington.

Mr Bush's Democratic rival in the November election, John Kerry, has pledged to scrap the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest people in an attempt to rein in the record budget deficit.

"You've got to be careful about this rhetoric - we're only going to tax the rich. You know who the rich in America happen to be, the small business owners," Mr Bush said.

As part of his re-election pitch, Mr Bush has vowed to ask Congress to make permanent some of his tax cuts due to expire in time.

During a visit to the Grand Canyon on Monday Senator Kerry said he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorising force against Iraq even if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Last week Mr Bush challenged Senator Kerry - whom Republicans accuse of flip-flopping on Iraq by voting for the war resolution and against the $US87 billion ($122 billion) request to fund operations - to say if he would have voted the same way on the suggestion that Saddam Hussein could develop weapons of mass destruction.

The Massachusetts senator said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

Senator Kerry also said reducing US troops in Iraq significantly by next August was "an appropriate goal".

"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly ... it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time."

On that timetable, Senator Kerry would aim to pull out a large number of the 138,000 troops in the first six months of his administration.

Senator Kerry refused to say if he had private assurances from Arab or European nations that they would would help with security and reconstruction in Iraq.

Agence France-Presse, Reuters

Link

How do you guys feel about taxation here in the US? Are you in favor or tax cuts for the wealthy? Do you feel the wealthy should have higher taxes? Or do you think a flat tax would be best suited? Personally I think there ought to be just a single flat tax, or even better a national sales tax. Doing away with income tax all together.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Well I would ahve tohught it would be the American way (officially) to give everyone equal ground(i.e a flat rate tax for everyone). Will the rich actually pay a smaller percentage of their money in tax with these breaks?

 

[DarkStar]

Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are not only immoral, they are economically unsound.

 

[Steelwind]

Tax breaks for the wealthy are not only immoral, they are economically unsound.

How so?


The way tax brackets are setup now, the wealthier you are the more taxes you pay. Bush is in favor of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to small busniess owners. I'm all in favor of this. Everyone's tax responsibility should be equal in my opinion.

 

[blahblahblah]

Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy are not only immoral, they are economically unsound.

I disagree to a point.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

My family pays 34% income tax. It's outrageous.

It sickens me to see the left trying to block the government giving back our own money.

 

[Neutrino]

I understand the fact that people (the rich) want to keep the money they earn. However, when the top 2% of the population makes 90% of the money it just becomes ridiculous (Don't remember the exact numbers so may be slightly off on this.)

I think tax cuts for the rich are unecessary and unwise. The money has to come from somewhere, and they're not going to get it from the poor. And if high taxes for the rich forces someone to skip a year of buying a new lexus by heart truly bleeds for them.

Ack, I better not even get into it. Just talking about Bush anymore raises my blood pressure to dangerous levels.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I think its supposed to be the top 5% make 80% of the money.


Thats how things work with humans in anything really. You get the elite (be it intelectual or phyisical merit) at the top gaining the benefits, it could be money, food, fame and glory, or it could be kills O Yeah, like in a war where people shoot each other. Most human beings won't be willing to actually kill. Better trained armies place that into their soldiers (Something that has terrible reprocussions later in life for many)) Whatever, it could just be adoration from your friends. But there are leaders and followers in society and the followers are more plentiful than the leaders, and it not going to change :|

 

[DarkStar]

My family pays 34% income tax. It's outrageous.

It sickens me to see the left trying to block the government giving back our own money.

1/3 of Bush's tax cuts went to the richest 1% of Americans. Yeah, I'm a liberal. But I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't give you back your own money. I'm saying that unless your family makes over $1 million dollars a year, they carry an unfair share of the tax burden.

Sure, I'm a liberal. But I'm also fiscally conservative, unlike the present administration. If Bush was a true conservative he wouldn't have run up the defecits he's run up. He spends and spends and spends and spends. Cutting taxes in the middle of a war has never been done before. It's immoral and economically unsound. The kind of deficits we are running are just not economically sustainable, plain and simple.

Okay, I'm a liberal. And for some reason liberals are labeled as the "Big Spender Party." Well, guess who was the first president to have a budget surplus since the turn of the century? Bill Clinton. Either you tax people or you cut back on spending. You just cannot have it both ways. Sorry.

How is this a moral, fair economic policy? --http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut/

 

[blahblahblah]

Or you can do both an eliminate the defecit.

Seriously, a tax cut to the wealthy (Keyword: in moderation) will help our economy more than a tax cut to the middle class (reason: rich people will spend more on more expensive things than if a tax cut was giving to the middle class). Bush's economic policy isn't perfect, but its not a travesty that some have made it.

I would like to see Bush cut his spending and reduce the tax breaks to the wealthy since the economy is appearing to turn the corner from our past recession.

 

[DarkStar]

Or you can do both an eliminate the defecit.

Seriously, a tax cut to the wealthy (Keyword: in moderation) will help our economy more than a tax cut to the middle class (reason: rich people will spend more on more expensive things than if a tax cut was giving to the middle class). Bush's economic policy isn't perfect, but its not a travesty that some have made it.

I would like to see Bush cut his spending and reduce the tax breaks to the wealthy since the economy is appearing to turn the corner from our past recession.

Or you could refrain from cutting taxes when involved in the single biggest troop deployment since Vietnam. The costs involved with the "War on Terror" will be going on for years and years and years. This is the fight of or generation. This is our WW2. We have to pay for it somehow.

 

[blahblahblah]

Or you could refrain from cutting taxes when involved in the single biggest troop deployment since Vietnam.

That too...

 

[thefiznut]

1/3 of Bush's tax cuts went to the richest 1% of Americans. Yeah, I'm a liberal. But I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't give you back your own money. I'm saying that unless your family makes over $1 million dollars a year, they carry an unfair share of the tax burden.

Sure, I'm a liberal. But I'm also fiscally conservative, unlike the present administrationi. If Bush was a true conservative he wouldn't have run up the defecits he's run up. He spends and spends and spends and spends. Cutting taxes in the middle of a war has never been done before. It's immoral and economically unsound. The kind of deficits we are running are just not economically sustainable, plain and simple.

Okay, I'm a liberal. And for some reason liberals are labeled as the "Big Spender Party." Well, guess who was the first president to have a budget surplus since the turn of the century? Bill Clinton. Either you tax people or you cut back on spending. You just cannot have it both ways. Sorry.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut/

I couldn't agree more.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

What I would like to see is the income tax turned into a federal retail sales tax. The income tax is pure thievery. I'm glad that the administration is looking into a way to make the retail sales tax and abolishon (spelling? :X) of the income tax happen

 

[clarky003]

feel lucky chaps,, us brits get taxed to death on everything under the sun. we are ripped off from the moment we are born.

 

[blahblahblah]

What I would like to see is the income tax turned into a federal retail sales tax. The income tax is pure thievery. I'm glad that the administration is looking into a way to make the retail sales tax and abolishon (spelling? :X) of the income tax happen

Lol, take a course in taxation. Our tax system is bloated and complicated, but it works. It provides awesome tax breaks to those in need.

A federal sales tax is deceiving. On a purely conceptual level, a sales tax is a flat tax. In reality, it is a regressive tax. Poor people will have more of their income devoted towards paying the federal sales tax than rich people will. You do not have that problem with our current tax system. Trust me, I am an accounting major. This would hurt poor people more than it would help them.

 

[DarkStar]

Lol, take a course in taxation. Our tax system is bloated and complicated, but it works. It provides awesome tax breaks to those in need.

A federal sales tax is deceiving. On a purely conceptual level, a sales tax is a flat tax. In reality, it is a regressive tax. Poor people will have more of their income devoted towards paying the federal sales tax than rich people will. You do not have that problem with our current tax system. Trust me, I am an accounting major. This would hurt poor people more than it would help them.

This is true.

 

[moz4rt]

Sure, I'm a liberal. But I'm also fiscally conservative, unlike the present administration. If Bush was a true conservative he wouldn't have run up the defecits he's run up. He spends and spends and spends and spends. Cutting taxes in the middle of a war has never been done before. It's immoral and economically unsound. The kind of deficits we are running are just not economically sustainable, plain and simple.
--http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut/

fiscally conservative? you'd better not vote for kerry then. check this out. according to the national taxpayers union-

"As of July 12, 2004, Kerry has proposed ideas that would increase annual federal spending by $226.1 billion in spending ($2.261 trillion over ten years).

 

[DarkStar]

^^ Alright, but Kerry has also promised to role back Bush's immoral and economically unsound tax cut to pay for his programs. Unlike Bush, Kerry realizes you can't have it both ways.

That's a nice unbiased website by the way. /end sarcasm

 

[K e r b e r o s]

DarkStar, in part from my other thread of bitching, I do have to ask...

...I'am entirely unsure about the differences in Kerrys Taxplan and bushes Taxplan. All in all, has'nt it been a little bit shady?

 

[Korgoth]

Just compare the two... Of course they are both trumping the other, while painting a pretty picture for themselves, but eh, they're websites are good for a laugh,

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/

[SARCASM]"I don't know about you guys, but i'ma have me a convention speech watch parteh!!!! WooT"[/SARCASM]

(but whatever the hell you do, don't try and party in new york during the convention!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto..._on_el_pr/gop_convention_protest_12&printer=1)

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well, that gives me a better idea.

 

[Revisedsoul]

o0o bush mentioned canada in his 6 points. and aperently we are stealing the market of heavy equipment for chile

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Massa-Chew-Sits.

 

[moz4rt]

^^ Alright, but Kerry has also promised to role back Bush's immoral and economically unsound tax cut to pay for his programs. Unlike Bush, Kerry realizes you can't have it both ways.

That's a nice unbiased website by the way. /end sarcasm

LOL! It all makes sense now. You're a fiscal conservative when we talk about Bush, and you're not when we talk about Kerry. Kerry's plan (if he keeps his word and follows it) will totally screw our economy. He will (as you put it) "spend and spend and spend". We don't need a $226 billion increase in spending. How is that economically sound?

How can you give a fair tax cut to people without it benefiting the rich? You can't. The top 5% of taxpayers pay over 50% of the income tax.

Would it make you happy if we gave a taxcut to the bottom 50% of taxpayers? They only pay 4%! How is that fair?

If you really are a fiscal conservative, then I know you'll be voting for Bush.

(i got these facts from all over the irs website. you can too!)

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Lol, take a course in taxation. Our tax system is bloated and complicated, but it works. It provides awesome tax breaks to those in need.

A federal sales tax is deceiving. On a purely conceptual level, a sales tax is a flat tax. In reality, it is a regressive tax. Poor people will have more of their income devoted towards paying the federal sales tax than rich people will. You do not have that problem with our current tax system. Trust me, I am an accounting major. This would hurt poor people more than it would help them.

A flat tax IS needed. In sales tax form.

Everybody will pay the same tax, and only on retail items, regardless of income. In our current tax system my family sure as hell doesn't get any 'breaks.' We pay 34% :/. The government steals over a quarter of the income.

 

[^Ben]

Yeh guess where the 34% goes to? public services. I'm sure you would like poorly equiped police officers, or other such things.

34% is a good figure.

 

[blahblahblah]

A flat tax IS needed. In sales tax form.

Everybody will pay the same tax, and only on retail items, regardless of income. In our current tax system my family sure as hell doesn't get any 'breaks.' We pay 34% :/. The government steals over a quarter of the income.

Hmmm...34% federal tax rate you say? That means if you are married and filing jointly your family is earning between 174,700 but not over 311,950 (with 35% marginal tax rate). Techincally your tax rate is not a true 35% tax rate then. It is 42686.50 plus 35% of the excess over $174,700. You are not hurting for money then.

What? Let's say that 34% includes FICA and state taxes (total 10%), that means your federal tax rate is 24%. Therefore you are earning from 47,450 to 144,650. Like above, it really is $6,517.50 in tax then 27% of excess over $47,450. Even with this scenario you are in the middle class in the United States of America.

If you own a home mortgage, you get tax breaks. Medical is deductible. Child credits, dependent care credits, earned income credits, the list goes on and on. Either your family doesn't know how to take advantage of these free tax credits, you earn too much money, or you don't know what you are talking about.

The government isn't stealing your money. Go live in a more socialistic country. I bet the taxes in Canada and Sweden are much higher than in America. You use the roads that are paid by taxes. Same with public education, there are many other things that you use for free or at a highly discounted rate. I'm sorry, but your complaints are a 100% unfounded.

 

[^Ben]

Ouch

I was gonna say that but i thought i would let him sound smart

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

That's the federal mate, we're in the class that you said at first. No, we are not poor, but does that make the government stealing over a quarter of our income any more okay? No, it doesn't.

Living in a more socialist country, where you lose even MORE income than here, I'd rather not. Things need to be privatized. I know my road would surely improve if it were, the county never grades it (dirt road) and it's filled with rocks. It's taken care of by us, those who live on, my neighbor started to grade it himself because the state won't, even though we are taxed for it. And the things that aren't privatized- the retail sales tax would take care of that.

 

[blahblahblah]

That's the federal mate, we're in the class that you said at first. No, we are not poor, but does that make the government stealing over a quarter of our income any more okay? No, it doesn't.

Living in a more socialist country, where you lose even MORE income than here, I'd rather not. Things need to be privatized. I know my road would surely improve if it were, the county never grades it (dirt road) and it's filled with rocks. It's taken care of by us, those who live on, my neighbor started to grade it himself because the state won't, even though we are taxed for it. And the things that aren't privatized- the retail sales tax would take care of that.

Wow. Just wow. You can't grasp the concept of our federal tax system, the fundamentals of economics, and the basics of finance. I don't mean to insult you, but you need to learn a lot about business, finance, government, and taxes.

The government isn't stealing your money. You are so confused about money in general it is frankly scary. I can spend days setting you straight.

1) You have more discretionary income. That means that each additional dollar you earn, is worth less to you than the previous dollar. You don't need an extra dollar to buy food for your child, you want the extra dollar to buy a gold plated Escalde keychain. Hard, to justify your need for an extra dollar.
2) If taxes were high enough, you parents would stop working. This is known as the substitution effect.
3) Your parents do receive tax breaks. Such things as mortgages, dividends, donations, and capital gains all result in tax credits (and are focused for your tax bracket). If you really think your parents are truly paying 34% tax rate, I suggest a new CPA.
4) You use the federal government alot more than you think. The federal government most likely helped your parents with their education, provided them with an awesome economic infrastructure, and allowed them to use public services at a reduce cost. Not to mention the federal government is out their to help small business, protect IP, and encourage general economic growth.
5) People who think taxes are unfair, are far more likely to cheat on taxes than people who think taxes are fair. You wonder why the tax code is so bloated? It is from people trying to take advantage of it.
6) Privatizing stuff is expensive and pointless. Think about the greater good. If you want to be an jerk and only think about yourself, go right ahead. I suggest you leave the country though. As for cost, it would be more expensive. Think about if you had to pay for everything that you only used. By spreading this cost among many people, the overall cost is reduced and makes it possible for everybody to afford it. Insurance works along the same lines. The more people paying into it, the cheaper it gets.
7) The federal tax system is designed to encourage positive behavior and to help prevent an unnecessary burden on lower income people while supporting government expenditures.
8) A flat federal sales tax is absurd. It would be extremely difficult to give tax breaks to those in financially difficult positions. As for helping your economic position, that is iffy as well. In theory, it would reduce your tax bill, but it would reduce the government's revenue as well (since you are paying less in taxes). Also, our economy would be put in shambles since the majority of people in our economy would have less disecrentionary income to buy the things that makes our economy grow.

Some of this post won't make perfect sense because I don't feel like proof reading my post. Rest assured that this is the only the beginning of what is fundamentally wrong with your argument and assumptions.

 

[CyberSh33p]

My opinion of taxes is this: the truly poor shouldn't have to pay them, the very rich should have to pay well over half. I'f you'r emaking a million a year, you could live with keeping like 400,000 of that. pretty damn well too.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Wow. Just wow. You can't grasp the concept of our federal tax system, the fundamentals of economics, and the basics of finance. I don't mean to insult you, but you need to learn a lot about business, finance, government, and taxes.

The government isn't stealing your money. You are so confused about money in general it is frankly scary. I can spend days setting you straight.

1) You have more discretionary income. That means that each additional dollar you earn, is worth less to you than the previous dollar. You don't need an extra dollar to buy food for your child, you want the extra dollar to buy a gold plated Escalde keychain. Hard, to justify your need for an extra dollar.

Quite wrong, need the money to MAINTAIN a decent lifestyle. You want the extra dollar so you are secure, so you don't HAVE to live from paycheck to paycheck, if something happens, you've got savings. You're acting like I'm extremely rich. We're not piss poor because my parents put an effort out, but we certainly don't "live the high and easy life" either.

2) If taxes were high enough, you parents would stop working. This is known as the substitution effect.
3) Your parents do receive tax breaks. Such things as mortgages, dividends, donations, and capital gains all result in tax credits (and are focused for your tax bracket). If you really think your parents are truly paying 34% tax rate, I suggest a new CPA.

Regardless of income tax breaks, there should not be one in the first place. It IS thievery, they have no right to keep tabs on the income and take a piece of money YOU EARNED.

4) You use the federal government alot more than you think. The federal government most likely helped your parents with their education, provided them with an awesome economic infrastructure, and allowed them to use public services at a reduce cost. Not to mention the federal government is out their to help small business, protect IP, and encourage general economic growth.

Education and certain public services are fine from the government, and I never implied to get rid of those things, the flat tax could take care of it. Certain socialist programs are unfair, however. You do not rob Peter to pay Paul.

5) People who think taxes are unfair, are far more likely to cheat on taxes than people who think taxes are fair. You wonder why the tax code is so bloated? It is from people trying to take advantage of it.

There shouldn't even be one in the first place, but you must follow the law.

6) Privatizing stuff is expensive and pointless. Think about the greater good. If you want to be an jerk and only think about yourself, go right ahead. I suggest you leave the country though. As for cost, it would be more expensive. Think about if you had to pay for everything that you only used. By spreading this cost among many people, the overall cost is reduced and makes it possible for everybody to afford it. Insurance works along the same lines. The more people paying into it, the cheaper it gets.

"We're taking something away from you, for the greater good" - Hillary Clinton.
I do not subscribe to that Marxist ideal. I would rather pay for only the things I used, that is morally sound. One should not be able to use things for free when they pay no taxes at the expense of someone who has higher wages because they put an effort out in life.

7) The federal tax system is designed to encourage positive behavior and to help prevent an unnecessary burden on lower income people while supporting government expenditures.

No person should be untaxed, while another is, income should not apply in this case. It's unfair. perhaps it would influence them to put an effort out and seek a better paying workplace.

8) A flat federal sales tax is absurd. It would be extremely difficult to give tax breaks to those in financially difficult positions. As for helping your economic position, that is iffy as well. In theory, it would reduce your tax bill, but it would reduce the government's revenue as well (since you are paying less in taxes). Also, our economy would be put in shambles since the majority of people in our economy would have less disecrentionary income to buy the things that makes our economy grow.

As I said earlier, no one deserves "better treatment" by the government than another. The government needs to cut several socialist programs when this goes through, also. The poor people you'd think wouldn't be making outrageous purchases, anyhow, so I don't see how they'd be taxed oh so much.

 

[blahblahblah]

That type of attitude just sets me off.

Quite wrong, need the money to MAINTAIN a decent lifestyle. You want the extra dollar so you are secure, so you don't HAVE to live from paycheck to paycheck, if something happens, you've got savings. You're acting like I'm extremely rich. We're not piss poor because my parents put an effort out, but we certainly don't "live the high and easy life" either.

Wow. Learn about finance and savings first. By saving 10,000 for age 30 will guarantee you enough money to retire comfortably at age 65. Everybody lives paycheck to paycheck, that is why everybody works. And maintaing a decent lifestyle is subjective. How do you define a decent lifestyle? It is way different than I define a decent lifestyle. You don't even need half the things you own to maintain a decent lifestyle. Saying otherwise is pure rubbish.

Regardless of income tax breaks, there should not be one in the first place. It IS thievery, they have no right to keep tabs on the income and take a piece of money YOU EARNED.

Leave the country then. Hell, secede from the US if you think it is so wrong. Taxes pay for the stuff you use. Not to mention they protect your rights to earn money. Remember you earned the money by relying on the US's economic infrastructure and used their services. They need to be paid for. Taxes are the way its done.

Education and certain public services are fine from the government, and I never implied to get rid of those things, the flat tax could take care of it. Certain socialist programs are unfair, however. You do not rob Peter to pay Paul.

First of all, "robbing Peter to pay Paul" implies borrowing money from somebody else to pay another person. Second of all, I told you why a flat tax is wrong. Third, form your own laissez-faire and see what happens (or even learn about it and think about it logically).

There shouldn't even be one in the first place, but you must follow the law.

Yes, thats right. You really have enough money to pay for your education, own roads and economic infrastructure. Really, you can't be thinking logically at all.

"We're taking something away from you, for the greater good" - Hillary Clinton.
I do not subscribe to that Marxist ideal. I would rather pay for only the things I used, that is morally sound. One should not be able to use things for free when they pay no taxes at the expense of someone who has higher wages because they put an effort out in life.

Do you know what marxism is? Do you really think everybody has an equal chance in life? Imagine if you didn't have the money you have now. You currently are in the 1% income bracket for the US. I doubt you know what its like on the otherside of the fence. Putting an effort out in life does not guarentee you 6 figures a year.

No person should be untaxed, while another is, income should not apply in this case. It's unfair. perhaps it would influence them to put an effort out and seek a better paying workplace.

Learn about economics. Really your gross ignorance is appalling and disgusting. Not everybody can get a high paying job. Afterall our economy only needs so many doctors and lawyers.

As I said earlier, no one deserves "better treatment" by the government than another. The government needs to cut several socialist programs when this goes through, also. The poor people you'd think wouldn't be making outrageous purchases, anyhow, so I don't see how they'd be taxed oh so much.

Well, I guess people don't need cars. Or tv's for that matter. Hell, poor people should only eat Top Raman everyday. Hell, everybody should live in a cardboard box because everything is too extravagent.

I can't even write anymore. You don't understand economics, finance, tax and government for me to make any sense to you.

I really hope that one day you do become poor so you become humble to the rest of the world. The fantasy land you think exists, doesn't.

 

[CyberSh33p]

I agree with blahblahblah, you seem very selfish here rakurai...

34% isn't even much, my mom gets taxed over 40% and she isn't complaining this much.

tax tables keep it fair, frankly I think they should make em more extravagent. none-very very low for the very poor, 25-35 % middle class, and a shitload more for the rich. they really have no problem giving up half their salary when they make 6 million a year.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

People don't need TV's and such, that's a pleasure purchase that would be taxed.

The sales tax would be around 23%, sounds big- but think about it. You currently have embedded taxes on most purchases, average of 22% (Source: Harvard Research, I looked it up just prior to this) that 22% (this is excluding state sales tax) goes to pay the income tax of the store owner, their supplier, etc. the other 88% (minus state tax) is profit. You can see the prices only raise marginally, as the owners no longer have income tax, just as you don't. And you keep ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of your paycheck. If you make $1,000 a week, you make that much, none deducted.

Under the system proposed in house bill HR 25, the poor would still be okay and not face problems on basic life needs.

"But what about the poor? They're not really paying federal income taxes anyway, so this big sales tax is really going to hit them hard, right?

Wrong. The Fair Tax Act provides that no family, rich or poor, will pay sales taxes on the basic necessities of life. The cost of these basic necessities is set at the federally determined poverty level for various sized families. At the beginning of every month the head of every household in America will receive a check, or an electronic credit to their bank account, in an amount equal to the sales tax they would pay on the basic necessities for their sized family. This provision is completely neutral as to income, so class warfare political rhetoric becomes useless"

 

[Dulrough]

Ok... I dont know much about taxes but it seems to me if Bill gets 10 dollars and fred gets 100 dollars fred should pay a slightly higher percent then bill.
My post is by far the simplest so far. HAH!

 

[blahblahblah]

People don't need TV's and such, that's a pleasure purchase that would be taxed.

The sales tax would be around 23%, sounds big- but think about it. You currently have embedded taxes on most purchases, average of 22% (Source: Harvard Research, I looked it up just prior to this) that 22% (this is excluding state sales tax) goes to pay the income tax of the store owner, their supplier, etc. the other 88% (minus state tax) is profit. You can see the prices only raise marginally, as the owners no longer have income tax, just as you don't. And you keep ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of your paycheck. If you make $1,000 a week, you make that much, none deducted.

Under the system proposed in house bill HR 25, the poor would still be okay and not face problems on basic life needs.

"But what about the poor? They're not really paying federal income taxes anyway, so this big sales tax is really going to hit them hard, right?

Wrong. The Fair Tax Act provides that no family, rich or poor, will pay sales taxes on the basic necessities of life. The cost of these basic necessities is set at the federally determined poverty level for various sized families. At the beginning of every month the head of every household in America will receive a check, or an electronic credit to their bank account, in an amount equal to the sales tax they would pay on the basic necessities for their sized family. This provision is completely neutral as to income, so class warfare political rhetoric becomes useless"

I'm sorry but **** you. You have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. If I was talking to you on the streets I would have to beat the crap out of you. You can't grasp anything. Hell, I can't believe you live in the USA.

Let me tell you a little story first about my best friends fiance. She was in High School and she made a couple of choices resulting in her having a kid when she was 17. However, she was still worked hard and graduated at the top of her high school class. She is in college now and is raising a kid while going to school full time and work 30 hours a week. Unless you are an absolute idiot, everybody knows how much it costs to raise a kid. Not paying anying federal taxes at all helps her increase her income to a level where she can continue to go to school but take care of her child. Make no mistake, she does not live on easy street. She doesn't make enough money to save for retirement, or her child's college fund, or even live comfortably. Telling me that she can just work harder to earn more money is a insult to her (and me). She is one of the hardest working people I have ever seen. As for TV's, she likes to relax once in a while. Working 30 hours a week, going to college full time and taking care of a 3 year old child is stressful. Occassionally she likes to watch TV and sit back in relax. Should she be penalized because she needs a luxury item to make this life bareable? I don't think so. Not everybody can make $50,000 immediately. Not everybody has rich parents. Not everybody is perfect. Tons of people work hard, that does not mean they are guaranteed tons of money. To say otherwise is wrong. Taxing them is morally wrong just so you can claim you can have more income safety.

That was a quick little rant. I'll come back later today and finish ripping apart your post. Because your post was a piece of garbage.

 

[moz4rt]

I'm sorry but **** you. You have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. If I was talking to you on the streets I would have to beat the crap out of you. You can't grasp anything. Hell, I can't believe you live in the USA.

Let me tell you a little story first about my best friends fiance. She was in High School and she made a couple of choices resulting in her having a kid when she was 17. However, she was still worked hard and graduated at the top of her high school class. She is in college now and is raising a kid while going to school full time and work 30 hours a week. Unless you are an absolute idiot, everybody knows how much it costs to raise a kid. Not paying anying federal taxes at all helps her increase her income to a level where she can continue to go to school but take care of her child. Make no mistake, she does not live on easy street. She doesn't make enough money to save for retirement, or her child's college fund, or even live comfortably. Telling me that she can just work harder to earn more money is a insult to her (and me). She is one of the hardest working people I have ever seen. As for TV's, she likes to relax once in a while. Working 30 hours a week, going to college full time and taking care of a 3 year old child is stressful. Occassionally she likes to watch TV and sit back in relax. Should she be penalized because she needs a luxury item to make this life bareable? I don't think so. Not everybody can make $50,000 immediately. Not everybody has rich parents. Not everybody is perfect. Tons of people work hard, that does not mean they are guaranteed tons of money. To say otherwise is wrong. Taxing them is morally wrong just so you can claim you can have more income safety.

That was a quick little rant. I'll come back later today and finish ripping apart your post. Because your post was a piece of garbage.

i agree with what you're saying. but like you said she made some bad choices. she could have had a much better life, had she been more responsible. if people would just be a little more responsible they wouldn't be in these situations. MOST OF THE TIME it is the person's own fault that they're living the way they are. i guess i'm sayin that if people were more responsibe, we wouldn't have this tax mess. just some wishful thinking on my part...

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It is your friend's fault for making those choices. However, as I said, under HR 25 (and for the Senate, S1493), which is in Congress now, she would not be taxed at all on the things she's needing for that child. I suggest you look at and read through the bill. It's got the poor covered.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25:

/edit: Direct link to the Rebate chapter, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108J9TE6g:e39775: