Bush and Taxation

[blahblahblah]

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:

Try and tell me you've never made a bad choice before. If you say that, you are lying through your teeth. She knows that she made a bad choice. She knows that everybody knows that she made a bad choice. That doesn't change what is happening right now. If she really knew what would the future was like, do you think she would still make those decisions? She should not be penalized for making a different choice. In fact, she has made positive changes in her life. To hold that child against her is wrong.

Anyways, this bill is against your ideas of taxes.

Everybody will pay the same tax, and only on retail items, regardless of income.

Regardless of income tax breaks, there should not be one in the first place.

Certain socialist programs are unfair, however.

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.

No person should be untaxed, while another is, income should not apply in this case. It's unfair.

As I said earlier, no one deserves "better treatment" by the government than another.

This bill doesn't meet your requirements for a fair tax system since it will help reimburse poor people. Somebody is in the middle of changing their position on a topic.

On this specific bill is garbage, however. I bet this was some random thing drafted up by a congress man. I doubt if it will ever be considered seriously. It's last major action was in January of 2003. To drastically reform our tax laws would require an enourmous input from accountants and economists to determine what real impact that would have on the US and world (look at how much controversy the Sarbanes-Oxley act caused in the financial reporting world, reforming the tax laws would cause 1000 times the uproar).

Anyways, the sales tax would raise the amount of tax that is paid by lower and middle classes.

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.

I haven't read through it carefully, but it opens up just as many problems as it will solve. The only real benefit of a federal tax would be to prevent double taxing on certain items (there are only a few items which have this problem). Other than that, I can easily see it becoming as complicated as the IRS 1986 code. The credits and refunds will become as complicated and the current tax system. A federal tax will not fix any problems. It will make them worse.

Anyways, I can't critique it since I can't view the bill. I get a "Please resubmit your search" error everytime I want to read about the details of the bill.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I've made a bad choice before, but not on THAT level. No- I've never made a bad choice on that level, that was purely her fault.

It rebates EVERYONE, not just one group rich or poor, a set amount depending on family variables (a family of 5 would get a higher rebate, matching the person living on his own would get in proportion.) Not just the poor. NO one has to pay taxes on their items needed for life.

You can't get rid of socialist programs right away after we've been on them. Suddenly them dissapearing would cause chaos- slowly taking them apart is what you do. This bill is a step in the right direction, it's not perfect, but it's far, far better than the current system.

 

[slicktick]

Rakurai, just stop posting, your arguments are full of pure bullshit, you need to learn what you are talking about before you go ranting and raving. blahblahblah is right in his posts about things. And though you may have diffrent views, he has correct information to back his views up. Stop making yourself sound like an idiot.

 

[blahblahblah]

I've made a bad choice before, but not on THAT level. No- I've never made a bad choice on that level, that was purely her fault.

"He who is without sin among you, let him {be the} first to throw a stone" John 8:7. That verse is perfect for this situation. Very little seperates a person from having sex and from a person who has a baby. Same thing goes with drugs and alcohol. A very fine line. Do you think she wanted to make a bad choice on that level? What if there was a chance that if you smoke a joint, that you would become a drug addict 5 years later. Most likely you would still ignore those odds. Like I said, you can't change the past. Holding the child as some sort of reminder of her choices is wrong. She is being a productive member of society. Casting her down like that is horrible wrong.

It rebates EVERYONE, not just one group rich or poor, a set amount depending on family variables (a family of 5 would get a higher rebate, matching the person living on his own would get in proportion.) Not just the poor. NO one has to pay taxes on their items needed for life.

You realize the current tax system does the exact same thing, right? Your parents are given tax breaks too. You just don't know about them. You like to think that you are paying too much in taxes when you are really not.

You can't get rid of socialist programs right away after we've been on them. Suddenly them dissapearing would cause chaos- slowly taking them apart is what you do. This bill is a step in the right direction, it's not perfect, but it's far, far better than the current system.

This last paragraph you wrote is disturbing. I hope you spend a long while in somebody else's shoes one day. To get a feel of what it is like not to have tons of money. Or what it is like to be singled out and ridiculed because you have some sort of disadvantage to you, or ridiculed because you made a bad choice earlier in life. You need to be humbled. You really have no idea what the real world is like, do you? I don't think so. Very few people (if any) have the same attitude as you. It is frankly disturbing and scary.

This bill is not a step in the right direction. It is a step in the wrong direction. All because you think your parents pay too much in taxes. I hope reality hits soon, because your reality is going to change fast. You can't rely on your parents money forever.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

As I said, I don't make idiotic choices like your friend did. I don't have sex, I don't drink alcohol, it's illegal for me to anyway, and I don't do drugs, also illegal. When having unprotected sex it is HIGHLY OBVIOUS that you will most likely get pregnant.

You are horribly confused as to how the National Retail Sales tax would come into place. There's no basis for being against it, the poor aren't threatened, and it makes things equal. No programs are affected by it at all, medicare and social security stay without any funding changes. It's a bipartisan supported issue that would benefit the country greatly, and it's how the founders of the nation wanted it.

Take a look here for examples of some prominant supporters, including Alan Keyes. http://www.salestax.org/

 

[^Ben]

Rak just stop posting bull you are not an accounting major you obviously do not know the first thing about the economy.

Highly judgemental on people, seriously just shut up on topics you know jacks*it about.

Where do you think that 34% of taxes go? Yeh that's right on you're education, roads, public services, police, firefighters and help to small buisnesses so *gasp* if you make a wrong decision in you're life you might end up flipping burgers or working data entry.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Ben, did you even read the bill? The national retail sales tax would be fair, the money would go to education, public services, police, firefighters, and help small businesses. Exactly where did that specific bill change it?

I may be against socialist programs, becaue I think it's wrong to force others to pay for you, but this bill doesn't change them at all. If you didn't read it, you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about when you argue against it.

 

[slicktick]

You are horribly confused as to how the National Retail Sales tax would come into place. There's no basis for being against it, the poor aren't threatened, and it makes things equal.

Actually it makes things worse for poor people. They end up paying a higher percentage of their money on that sales tax since they have less to spend making it a regressive tax. That means the poor will be paying a higher percentage of tax than the rich. So this sales tax is not a good idea at all to replace the income tax.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Actually it makes things worse for poor people. They end up paying a higher percentage of their money on that sales tax since they have less to spend making it a regressive tax. That means the poor will be paying a higher percentage of tax than the rich. So this sales tax is not a good idea at all to replace the income tax.

Read the rebate link, it makes that point null and void. They would pay more if they wanted to buy televisions and such, but if you're struggling you should NOT be making purchases such as that. If they "need" the entertainment, they could use the public library.

 

[slicktick]

Read the rebate link, it makes that point null and void. They would pay more if they wanted to buy televisions and such, but if you're struggling you should NOT be making purchases such as that. If they "need" the entertainment, they could use the public library.

But at what point does that rebate stop, huh? It will still put more tax burden on the middle class then the rich. Unless that rebate applies to everyone in which case we are back to square one arent we.

 

[Korgoth]

So what your saying is, that if someone does just enough to feed themselves and manage to save a little extra every pay week, they should have to pay more for their entertainment? Just because they barely make it paycheck to paycheck (probably working some of the hottest most labor intensive jobs) they don't deserve entertainment? Simply because their way wasn't paid for them in life, or they weren't fortunate enough to be born into a higher class...yeah sounds great.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The rebate applies to everyone. Read the link. On life needed products, every family receives a check or electronic money transfer in the amount determined for their level (family member count) to generally spend on life products (food, toiletries, all things along those lines!)

People should read the bill before automatically being against it.

//Edit: Reply to above post, it came in while I made this.

Everyone pays the same sales tax, 23%. As I said earlier- current prices include on average 22% embedded taxes that the seller/above them would pay on income tax. With the income tax gone, that 22% would go down for the most part, then you add the 23% federal sales tax. You'll see a tiny increase in sale prices, and EVERYBODY will get to keep 100% of their paycheck.

 

[slicktick]

Ok, it applies to everyone, so we are back to it being a REGRESSIVE tax!!!! Argh, do you not listen!!!!!!! The poor are still taxed at a higher percent with this argument, damn cant you listen. With the current system, people making that little of money dont pay taxes at all or get most of them (if not all) back with tax refund. All this does is penalise poorer people for buying some luxery items. That is just stupid, its like putting a sin tax on a flippin tv. jeez....

 

[Steelwind]

I don't believe Rakurai's arguements are utter crap. I completely agree that a either a flat tax, or a federal sales tax would be a better system of collecting government money. From what I've seen, a lot of people in this thread feel that the more money you make, the more taxes you should pay. That's absurd. Why am I more responsible for helping fund public services just because I make more money? Do the poor not use these services as well? Should they not also share the responsibility? I myself am in the top 1% of the country in terms of income. If there were a flat tax setup, I would still be responsible for more of the federal tax collection than the poor. But why should I pay even more, just because I can? Why do I get taxed over 35% when another only gets taxed 20%?

If we had a federal sales tax, the problem seems to be solved. Those who make more money spend more money. Therefore, once again, I would be sharing more of the tax burden. I'm ok with that. There's more than enough items already that are non-taxable. Items that are required for a person to get by. The poor would be spending less money on retail items, and therefore have less of a burden when it comes to tax. I fail to see a problem with it.

 

[slicktick]

I don't believe Rakurai's arguements are utter crap. I completely agree that a either a flat tax, or a federal sales tax would be a better system of collecting government money. From what I've seen, a lot of people in this thread feel that the more money you make, the more taxes you should pay. That's absurd. Why am I more responsible for helping fund public services just because I make more money? Do the poor not use these services as well? Should they not also share the responsibility? I myself am in the top 1% of the country in terms of income. If there were a flat tax setup, I would still be responsible for more of the federal tax collection than the poor. But why should I pay even more, just because I can? Why do I get taxed over 35% when another only gets taxed 20%?

If we had a federal sales tax, the problem seems to be solved. Those who make more money spend more money. Therefore, once again, I would be sharing more of the tax burden. I'm ok with that. There's more than enough items already that are non-taxable. Items that are required for a person to get by. The poor would be spending less money on retail items, and therefore have less of a burden when it comes to tax. I fail to see a problem with it.

I agree with a flat tax, everyone pays the same percent of the their income and it is fair. I also dont see why I must shell out more of my money just because I make more.

But a federal sales tax really puts more burden on the poor then the rich. Its a fact that the tax system becomes regressive, in percentage (which is what how much taxes you pay is based on, a percentage), even though the rich still pay more.

 

[Korgoth]

well if as you say you are in the top 1% then of course you agree with it... Poorer people should have to pay the same for road systems (when 9/10 times the people we are referring to don't own cars because they are too expensive) and they should pay the same for schooling (when they go to the cheapest of public schools, in run down areas... again 9/10 times not getting to go to better schools in better areas where the tax money is actually spent) just think about it for a second...

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Ok, it applies to everyone, so we are back to it being a REGRESSIVE tax!!!! Argh, do you not listen!!!!!!! The poor are still taxed at a higher percent with this argument, damn cant you listen. With the current system, people making that little of money dont pay taxes at all or get most of them (if not all) back with tax refund. All this does is penalise poorer people for buying some luxery items. That is just stupid, its like putting a sin tax on a flippin tv. jeez....

It doesn't penalize anyone. It is completely equal, it doesn't keep tabs on income. The CURRENT system penalizes you for making more money.

The poor buy less retail items, they don't buy the same amount as a higher class person. Let's say a middle class buys a new computer, a TV, and some video games. The poorer peson would most likely only buy the TV (and it wouldn't cost very much more from what it does now, as I explained with the embedded 22% tax there is currently due to the income tax.) It's completely equal. I fail to see how the poor person is hurting.

It lifts the "burden" off of -everyone-. No people should be penalized by the government, it's a completely equal tax on things you buy.


//Edit: A low flat tax would be better than the system now, it'd be a step, but I still feel the retail sales tax is more fair. If I make 1000 dollars a week, I want to keep all of my money (I don't see how that would be greedy either.. I mean.. I earned it, I did the WORK for it) and I should be able to.

 

[Korgoth]

I don't see a problem with paying more if i'm making more-IE in that case i'm using more of these public services... If i'm in a higher income bracket than someone else... I should take a little pride and help out my fellow Americans. Equality in this case is unfair, the poor still get the short end of the stick. Your telling me that poor people enjoy the same benefits of the taxes we pay, they don't live in run down urban centers devoid of most police protection????

 

[slicktick]

well if as you say you are in the top 1% then of course you agree with it... Poorer people should have to pay the same for road systems (when 9/10 times the people we are referring to don't own cars because they are too expensive) and they should pay the same for schooling (when they go to the cheapest of public schools, in run down areas... again 9/10 times not getting to go to better schools in better areas where the tax money is actually spent) just think about it for a second...

You cant really argue schools and roads if we are talking about a federal tax, because that money comes from local taxes. But in reality alot of richer peoples money goes to help poorer people or people who dont pay taxes at all, because they dont pay enough to take care of it themselves so it ends up coming from others which is fair. But people dont wont to see the majority of their money to go to other people just because that is how people are, and so poorer people dont always have the nicest schools or roads because they dont pay enough taxes to keep them up, and people with the money to pay taxes dont want the majority of their money to help other peoples roads.

 

[slicktick]

It doesn't penalize anyone. It is completely equal, it doesn't keep tabs on income. The CURRENT system penalizes you for making more money.

Yes, the current system does penalize you for making more money, but the sales tax system doesnt, it penalizes you for making LESS money.

Here is how it works, if a poor person buys a tv with there extra money a certain percent of that purchase goes to the tax.

If a rich person buys a tv, a certain portion of that purchase goes toward the tax.

Now since the poor person has less money, a higher percent of there income goes towards taxes. The rich person has a much lower percent going towards sales tax. But seeing as a rich person will buy more items than the poorer person, that percentage is still higher for poorer people. Take a flipping economics class! But I am done here, because you wont even listen even though I have said this several times (and so has blahblahblah) and your not listening.

I certainly hope you figure out economics before things dont work out the way you "think."

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You're not looking at it in practice, though, rather than in theory. As I said many times, with the embedded 22% taxes. Those would go away, then the 23% retail sales tax comes in. That's pretty much a 1-5% increase (seeing as some won't drop it fully you know, to make more profit since people are used to paying that and still will.) Rather than a super high one. If the poor buy a TV, it's barely higher than it is now. Depending on how much the middle class would buy, it'd probably come to be more percentage wise of their income than those who make more (unless they decided to buy less, but that's on a per case basis)

 

[blahblahblah]

As I said, I don't make idiotic choices like your friend did. I don't have sex, I don't drink alcohol, it's illegal for me to anyway, and I don't do drugs, also illegal. When having unprotected sex it is HIGHLY OBVIOUS that you will most likely get pregnant.

At the most you are 15 years (maybe 16 years) old (according to your profile). I don't think you have any experience about the real world at all. By the time you reach 20, you will have been offered drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and sex more times than what you think is possible. I will give a 99.999999% (roughly 3 chances per million - six sigma) probability that you will do one of those four acts before the age of 20. Mark my words, remember this when you take your first drink of alcohol, first cigarette/cigar, first joint, or first time you have sex - escaping the inevitable is impossible. All of those acts have bad consequences to them - it really depends on the luck of the draw if something bad happens to you. She just happened to get the raw end of the deal. She made a decision and she has to live with it. Insulting her (and me indirectly) is not the way to go. Honestly, if I saw you on the street and you insulting her that way I would make sure you are not walking for the next several weeks. And that is before her fiance would get a crack at you. You are a unsympathetic person who has no grip on reality. I can't emphasis how wrong your viewpoint is. It really is wrong. If you would talk to her for an hour and see what she is like and what her daughter is like, you would change your position completely. Government programs exist for a reason.

~~~

This piece of junk legislation that you linked me too isn't even a VAT. It is some sort of illegitimate piece of legislation waiting to be taken advantage of. It looks similar to the current IRS code, except that it has major loopholes. Enacting a brand new tax code will be pillaged for all its worth for the next 20 years as the tax questions are answered. By the time the majority of the loopholes are fixed, it will look like the current IRS code. That is a fact.

For the record, a VAT (value added tax is good), but it won't work in the US. No way, no how. To much change would have to be made. The legislation and links you have giving me describe a National Sales Tax (NST) than a VAT. A NST is much worse than a VAT. From what I have read about the NST, it is much worse than the current tax system.

I've been reading this article about NST. I could have a field day finding grays areas in a NST. Not to mention that it would have to be constantly adjusted based on economic conditions. And for exemptions. And to fix loopholes and questions that this NST would raise. There is no way that this would ever be endorsed by accountants (like the AICPA). There is no way you would be able to come up with a real figure using economics (the margin for error is too great, one mistake and you fubar the economy and the government). There is so many potentially fatal flaws with a NST it is not even funny.

It doesn't penalize anyone. It is completely equal, it doesn't keep tabs on income. The CURRENT system penalizes you for making more money.

Poor baby. Do you really need that extra dollar to buy that gold plated Escalade keychain?

Do me a favor, find your parents 1040 and tell me what percentage of their income is sent to the IRS. Notice all the deductions and exemptions they have. They are not paying their marginal tax rate. They would have to be the dumbest people on the planet if they were truly paying their marginal tax rate.

If the current system penalized you for earning more money, people wouldn't earn more money. Its called the substitution effect. IT HAS BEEN MEASURED ENOUGH TO GIVE IT A FREAKIN NAME. That is why the tax rates for corporations and rich people are so low. They realized that the tax rates were restricting government revenues and the economy in general. Any lower would not benefit our economy at all, and would hurt the government in its collection of revenues.

I could go on for hours but I'm not - this is only the tip of the iceberg.