So I think we need to overhaul the structure of the government

[JimmyRayBob]

You can disagree with the chart all you want, the fact remains that analysis shows an aggregate tax reduction of about 15% on income over $200k. Higher incomes would see even higher tax reductions as they spend a far smaller percentage of their income. And you can bet that second homes, yachts, etc. would receive preferable treatment (just as they do now).

To make it revenue neutral it would have to be around 32-34% on every purchase. That would make houses, gasoline, food, clothing, insurance, etc. all 32-34% more expensive. Any exceptions to the tax would simply result in higher overall rates. This "consumption tax" would serve to lower consumption, causing revenue losses, which would require increasing the tax to maintain revenue neutrality. This in turn would further reduce consumption, etc., etc.

The claim that 50% pay no income tax is technically true but entirely bogus. The implication is that 50% are freeloaders. This blatantly and intentionally ignores the fact that 40% of all federal revenue comes from payroll taxes paid by every working citizen, and proportionally more by the lower income classes because of caps around 100k. A guy making $300k pays less than 2% while a guy making 40k pays 7.6% (or 15.6% if self-employed).

The other part of this that is bogus is that a large percentage of the population is so poor that they fall below the level at which income tax is collected. Try all you want, you simply can't tax people who don't have any money. Next, you'll probably blame them for being poor ...

Changing the tax system will not fix government. Removing money from politics might. It's not going to happen because the vast majority of 100 senators - Democrat and Republican - are securely on the corporate payroll and will be no matter what.

Where'd you get the chart? I'd like to read up some more on my own ...

As for preferential treatment of 2nd homes, yachts, etc - that's the whole point of the Fair Tax. Remember, we are obviously making assumptions here - the law has not been passed. And the Fair Tax plainly states that there are NO EXCEPTIONS / NO PREFERENTIAL treatments. That is part of the plan, so you can't just arbitrarily remove them because you think it might happen (although given the history of the morons in Washinton, DC - it very well might). but we are talking about a proposal here, and the proposal as written does not make exceptions. Heck, even FOOD is taxed. And Housing. I dont' want exceptions for ANYTHING.

Also, where do you get the 32-34% numbers to make it revenue neutral? I would again like to read more about this rather than just disagreeing. I am using numbers from the FairTax web site for my information.

Why do you say it would reduce consumption. I don't know if this is true or not .... although the argument could be made that it will increase consumption as people will have more money in their paychecks and the prices of goods / services will not go up that much.

I said about 50% don't pay income tax. That is fact, can't be argued. I absolutely NEVER said or implied that they were freeloaders - because they aren't.

As for the social security end of payroll taxes ... these were not meant to fund government operations - these were meant to fund RETIREMENT stuff, so at a certain point (about 100,000) they are capped out. While i don't necessarily agree with this, that is the way it is. This is NOT Federal Income tax and I never said it was. Our fearless leaders in Washington have used this Soc. Sec. money to fund other things ... that's another issue altogether.

Poor people not paying income tax? I didn't say anything about that. Or it being their fault. Don't put words in my mouth - stick to the facts.

What do YOU PROPOSE? You say changing the tax system won't fix government, but what will? You've got to start somewhere, right?

also, please re-read the last part of my post - i plainly state that this will NEVER HAPPEN because of the power hungry politicians.

One other point - and i'm pretty sure this is where some of the revenue will come from, is that eliminating corporate income taxes will make the United States a highly desirable place to do business in the world economy. Money being hidden / kept abroad by the big companies you seem to loathe will come rushing back if they don't have to pay taxes, right?

 

[noah way]

Where'd you get the chart? I'd like to read up some more on my own ...

FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax

NAHB: The Effect of the FairTax Proposal on Housing and Home Building

FairTax Fallout

The "Fair Tax": What's Fair About That?

There is also a critique by WSJ Editor James Taranto that I can't find now.

What do YOU PROPOSE? You say changing the tax system won't fix government, but what will? You've got to start somewhere, right?

Politics: Outlaw all lobbying and corporate and private money in politics. Publicly finance campaigns. Create a level electoral playing field with no corporate influence.

Taxes: Repeal the Bush tax cuts. Raise the top tax rate to Reagan era levels (50%) or even pre-Reagan levels (70%). Place a 1% tax on all investment transactions. Eliminate corporate tax loopholes. End corporate subsidies. Requiring all military action to be financed by tax increases instead of debt.

One other point - and i'm pretty sure this is where some of the revenue will come from, is that eliminating corporate income taxes will make the United States a highly desirable place to do business in the world economy. Money being hidden / kept abroad by the big companies you seem to loathe will come rushing back if they don't have to pay taxes, right?

You're kidding, right? 1/3 of all corporations pay NO taxes including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Amazon, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, etc., etc. How is officially eliminating taxes that aren't paid now going to change anything?

This is also another nail in the coffin of the so-called "fair" tax: Verizon doesn't pay any taxes, so there is no savings to pass along (as if they would - remember, maximum profit is the only goal!) and your cell phone bill will go up 30%.

 

[Kelmar]

Come on guys... let's keep discussions respectful.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax

NAHB: The Effect of the FairTax Proposal on Housing and Home Building

FairTax Fallout

The "Fair Tax": What's Fair About That?

There is also a critique by WSJ Editor James Taranto that I can't find now.



Politics: Outlaw all lobbying and corporate and private money in politics. Publicly finance campaigns. Create a level electoral playing field with no corporate influence.

Taxes: Repeal the Bush tax cuts. Raise the top tax rate to Reagan era levels (50%) or even pre-Reagan levels (70%). Place a 1% tax on all investment transactions. Eliminate corporate tax loopholes. End corporate subsidies. Requiring all military action to be financed by tax increases instead of debt.


You're kidding, right? 1/3 of all corporations pay NO taxes including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Amazon, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, etc., etc. How is officially eliminating taxes that aren't paid now going to change anything?

This is also another nail in the coffin of the so-called "fair" tax: Verizon doesn't pay any taxes, so there is no savings to pass along (as if they would - remember, maximum profit is the only goal!) and your cell phone bill will go up 30%.

Outlawing lobbying will run into some serious 1st amendment problems, don't you think?

Eliminate tax loopholes. That's what i am suggesting with the fair tax. No income tax to pay, no loopholes to exploit. Corporate subsidies - i plainly stated this is only part of the equation

Raise the tax rates back up to 50-70%. you do realize that there were a LOT more deductions available back then and no one really paid that much, right? I see people (not necessarily you) throw around the 90% tax rate at times, and no one actually paid that amount.

So Boeing, GE, etc. have never paid taxes? Maybe a year here and there, as they had losses and taxes are on PROFITS. But overall, in the big scheme, they do pay taxes. And you know it.

Where did the verizon thing come from? why do you say they don't pay taxes? And what makes you think i even use verizon? (or was this just an example?)

Remember when Chrysler merged with Daimler a few years back? Why did they move headquarters to Germany at that time? It was because of taxes. And if you eliminate corporate income taxes, then companies like that would come back to the U.S. (yes, i know Chrysler and Diamler are no longer together, but you get my point).

This isn't a perfect solution, and it would need some serious protections to avoid future abuses of it like we have now. It would need some sort of protection so some member of congress doesn't come along and try to get an exemption for someone - there has to be no chance for that.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

As for companies not paying taxes, please don't forget the concept of embedded taxes. Boeing buys aluminum from somebody, and that somebody pays taxes. That affects the cost of the aluminum. They buy all kinds of parts from other businesses, all of whom pay taxes either directly or indirectly.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Companies avoid taxes by being headquartered overseas and doing business overseas. America has kind of brought it on themselves. Corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy have gotten to the point where the wealthy will go through the hassle of maintaining foreign corporations and foreign bank accounts in order to get out of paying taxes.

 

[noah way]

Companies avoid taxes by being headquartered overseas and doing business overseas. America has kind of brought it on themselves. Corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy have gotten to the point where the wealthy will go through the hassle of maintaining foreign corporations and foreign bank accounts in order to get out of paying taxes.

LOL, where to start?

First you say they're not American companies. then you say American companies are forced to go overseas. Which is it?

Neither. They are American companies, and they "invest" overseas because tax policy rewards them for it, tax policies enacted by corporate-funded politicians at the bequest of corporate-funded lobbyists.

According to you, things are so bad for the poor rich - whose income is at record highs and taxes at record lows - and for zero-tax paying corporations with record high profits, that they have to hide profits overseas to avoid taxes? No wonder America is in so much trouble, with people believing this kind of idiocy.

Tell me how GM, recipient of $50 billion in taxpayer bailout money, is a foreign corporation.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Hahahahaha.

US Senators represent US Senators. They also represent the interests (corporations and individuals) that funded their election and and keeps them in office with campaign contributions.

Meet Senator Millionaire, he could care less about you.

The only difference between Senators and Congressmen is that Congressmen aren't as rich.The reason for this is simple. It's more expensive to pay off 500 people than it is to pay off 100, so they all get less.

The US is suppose to be a Republic. The US Senate is not representative of population, i.e., 2 Senators per state, regardless of population. Why not change constitution to base number of Senators of each state based on population of said states ?

There are variations of this theme, but since the constitution would need to be changed, maybe do away with the Senate altogether ?

 

[copestag]

I think youre missing a strong point of the senate.......... the house is representative of the population.... the senate is representative of the state as a whole

if you base the senate on population or remove it all together then states like CA (53 reps) would have all the power where states with only 1 (currently 7 different states) reps would be powerless

this is why a senate is still needed.... to balance the power so that a handful of heavily populated states cant speak for the entire nation

 

[mrscalia]

Change is slow ... and so is our government.
The 2 party system is a major problem !
I Feel the fact the President being able to run for a 2nd term is a problem 1/2 his first term he is worried about hurting chances to getting reelected , 1 term of 6 years may be better .

 

[A.Nonymous]

LOL, where to start?

First you say they're not American companies. then you say American companies are forced to go overseas. Which is it?

They're not American companies. They are multi-national companies that are headquartered (or were headquartered) in the US. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

Neither. They are American companies, and they "invest" overseas because tax policy rewards them for it, tax policies enacted by corporate-funded politicians at the bequest of corporate-funded lobbyists.

No, they move their money overseas because the tax policy in this company penalizes them for having money here. If they did as you suggest and ceased all their overseas operations and did business only in the US, operating costs would increase significantly. The tax policy here is not friendly for big businesses. Tax policy elsewhere is. So they go elsewhere. Why is this surprising?

According to you, things are so bad for the poor rich - whose income is at record highs and taxes at record lows - and for zero-tax paying corporations with record high profits, that they have to hide profits overseas to avoid taxes?

No wonder America is in so much trouble, with people believing this kind of idiocy.

You completely misunderstand me. Let me try to make this clearer. Companies are in business to make money. If they more money by sheltering profits overseas and it's not only completely legal, but in their best interests to do so, why would they not do it? You think they should keep the profits here even though it's going to increase their overhead, decrease earnings, negatively impact the stock prices and make the stock holders call for the head of the CEO? Why would a corporation do that? What's in it for them?

Tell me how GM, recipient of $50 billion in taxpayer bailout money, is a foreign corporation.

I never said they were a foreign corporations. I said they were a multi-national corporation. There's a difference.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I think youre missing a strong point of the senate.......... the house is representative of the population.... the senate is representative of the state as a whole

if you base the senate on population or remove it all together then states like CA (53 reps) would have all the power where states with only 1 (currently 7 different states) reps would be powerless

this is why a senate is still needed.... to balance the power so that a handful of heavily populated states cant speak for the entire nation

I see your point, but in todays day and age are the concerns of Californians really different than the concerns of South Dakotans on a national scale?

But let's say I'm dead wrong. Why not say that every state gets two representative regardless of populace and go that way? I guess I'm not convinced that our current system of representation is an appropriate one any more in a world that is flatter than before and technology is so wide spread. I think it needs to be seriously re-thought at the very least though I admit I certainly don't have all the answers.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I think youre missing a strong point of the senate.......... the house is representative of the population.... the senate is representative of the state as a whole

if you base the senate on population or remove it all together then states like CA (53 reps) would have all the power where states with only 1 (currently 7 different states) reps would be powerless

this is why a senate is still needed.... to balance the power so that a handful of heavily populated states cant speak for the entire nation

That's exactly my point, perhaps warlords and tribalism are not good models. Last time I looked, we pledge allegiance to the United States, not the State of California.

If we base representation in the Federal government by population then States with low populations may endeavor to make their states more attractive to human habitation.

 

[Frisco]

I see your point...

It's refreshing to see anybody in any of these discussions in this particular area of the Lounge make that remark.

 

[A.Nonymous]

That's exactly my point, perhaps warlords and tribalism are not good models. Last time I looked, we pledge allegiance to the United States, not the State of California.

If we base representation in the Federal government by population then States with low populations may endeavor to make their states more attractive to human habitation.

People don't avoid the non-populous states because of the policies of the state government. There are a billion other factors. Montana is covered in wilderness. There are a lot of people who don't want to live in the wilderness no matter what you do to it. California is cool and breezy all year round. There are lots of people who want to live in that climate.

 

[zuben el genub]

State with lower populations might have troubles in some areas. In the west, water is a big concern.
Look at Utah - most of the liveable space has been claimed. The rest is topographically not that great. Colorado has open space, but a lot of that is farm land or cattle ranch.
These need the acreage. You put cities there, you will have to start manufacturing to synthesize food. Farming also needs the water. Southern parts of the southwest are arid and hot - people would want air conditioning and water available for sanitation and recreation. That would use more energy, add to the heat, and screw up water use.
So having a low population state won't necessarily do anything about attracting new residents. There's only so much water to go around. All of Colorado's rivers are spoken for. There is no or hardly any water in the Colorado by the time it reaches the coast.

I do agree about the lobbying and special interests. If Colorado had started making developers use more xeric landscaping years ago, our water use would be down.
But everyone wants a house with a nice lawn, and HOAs were punishing the early adopters of Xeric landscaping. Some HOAs were mandating Kentucky Blue Grass which is a water hog. Buffalo Grass was a no-no since it didn't look as nice. We would also wind up paying more to support the utilities.

One thing about "American" companies. I would prefer to give a tax break of some kind if they BROUGHT THE MANUFACTURING JOBS BACK HERE! More workers should offset some of the loss of revenue. Raw material would still have to be imported since we don't have a lot of the necessary ones.

 

[OutofDate1980]

People don't avoid the non-populous states because of the policies of the state government. There are a billion other factors. Montana is covered in wilderness. There are a lot of people who don't want to live in the wilderness no matter what you do to it. California is cool and breezy all year round. There are lots of people who want to live in that climate.

If I read my history correctly, most of the populous states (New York, California, etc. were once wilderness. I question that California is cool and breezy all year round, maybe that could be said of San Diego and San Francisco.

If the US is a Republic then citizens representatives should reflect an equal number of said citizens. The US Supreme court recognized this fact for the House of Representatives and too some degree the Senate within the framework of two Senators per state.

 

[A.Nonymous]

If I read my history correctly, most of the populous states (New York, California, etc. were once wilderness. I question that California is cool and breezy all year round, maybe that could be said of San Diego and San Francisco.

Much of California has a very attractive climate compared to say, northern Montana where it is bone cold and frozen for several months a year. The populous states are that way simply because large numbers of people prefer to live there. They don't prefer to live there because of the policies of the government in that state. I don't think there is anything at all that Alaska could possibly do to get to the same population as California short of handing out money to anyone who moved there.

If the US is a Republic then citizens representatives should reflect an equal number of said citizens. The US Supreme court recognized this fact for the House of Representatives and too some degree the Senate within the framework of two Senators per state.

I question that assumption. I think 535 is just an insane number of people to get together and even just to inform of everything. If you introduced a bill tomorrow called "Stop Child Trafficking Now Act" and 200 people would vote for it without even knowing what the bill says. The bill might require GPS chips be imbedded in the chest of every single kid, but 200 people would vote for it just on the name.

We are not sending our best and brightest to Washington to figure things out. We've got too much bureaucracy and we really need to re-think exactly how we're representing people in Congress. I think the current system is dated. That shouldn't be surprising. It was put in place 225 years ago. The world has changed drastically since then.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Much of California has a very attractive climate compared to say, northern Montana where it is bone cold and frozen for several months a year. The populous states are that way simply because large numbers of people prefer to live there. They don't prefer to live there because of the policies of the government in that state. I don't think there is anything at all that Alaska could possibly do to get to the same population as California short of handing out money to anyone who moved there.



I question that assumption. I think 535 is just an insane number of people to get together and even just to inform of everything. If you introduced a bill tomorrow called "Stop Child Trafficking Now Act" and 200 people would vote for it without even knowing what the bill says. The bill might require GPS chips be imbedded in the chest of every single kid, but 200 people would vote for it just on the name.

We are not sending our best and brightest to Washington to figure things out. We've got too much bureaucracy and we really need to re-think exactly how we're representing people in Congress. I think the current system is dated. That shouldn't be surprising. It was put in place 225 years ago. The world has changed drastically since then.

You question that the US is a Republic or that the US claims to be a Republic ?
If the former, I believe you have a valid point.

Just because one prefers to live in a rural setting doesn't give one the right to have more political power via representative voting then others that prefer living in an urban setting.

We agree that the world has changed in the past 225 years. One change is the populous is better educated and information and transport infrastructure has improved, which leaves me to believe the reasoning behind non-representative voting power for the US Senate is no longer valid.


Note: The constitution was changed to make the Senate an elected, rather than an appointed office.

 

[Bob Maxey]

We are not sending our best and brightest to Washington to figure things out. We've got too much bureaucracy and we really need to re-think exactly how we're representing people in Congress. I think the current system is dated. That shouldn't be surprising. It was put in place 225 years ago. The world has changed drastically since then.

The system is the problem and fixing it could involve doing many unpleasant things that if tried would violate the Constitution.

For example, I know a few wealthy people that are far more qualified than Obama to run a complex government. I know a bunch of smart people that would, if elected, likely do a better job than the current crop.

The problem is, Washington is a meat grinder and the left sided press will try like hell to destroy republicans and Conservatives. Those that I know would never run because they know they would not achieve much. Lots of well qualified people do not run because they are torn apart by idiots and morons with an agenda.

You can stop the problems with the press if you regulate them. Then, someone must decide how the press should do what it does and that runs counter to our beloved Freedom of the Press.

I think we need strong people that can ignore the press and simply do what is needed without regards to how the typical undereducated person objects. We need strong constitutionalists with the strength to do what is right, the Press be dammed. Blofggers be dammed. The typical citizen be dammed if what is being done is logical, required, and legal. We try to protect everyone and in doing so, we accommodate all sorts of fools. sometimes, people will suffer because what is needed, is needed and good for the country.

 

[OutofDate1980]

The system is the problem and fixing it could involve doing many unpleasant things that if tried would violate the Constitution.

For example, I know a few wealthy people that are far more qualified than Obama to run a complex government. I know a bunch of smart people that would, if elected, likely do a better job than the current crop.

The problem is, Washington is a meat grinder and the left sided press will try like hell to destroy republicans and Conservatives. Those that I know would never run because they know they would not achieve much. Lots of well qualified people do not run because they are torn apart by idiots and morons with an agenda.

You can stop the problems with the press if you regulate them. Then, someone must decide how the press should do what it does and that runs counter to our beloved Freedom of the Press.

I think we need strong people that can ignore the press and simply do what is needed without regards to how the typical undereducated person objects. We need strong constitutionalists with the strength to do what is right, the Press be dammed. Blofggers be dammed. The typical citizen be dammed if what is being done is logical, required, and legal. We try to protect everyone and in doing so, we accommodate all sorts of fools. sometimes, people will suffer because what is needed, is needed and good for the country.

You note wealthy equates to qualifications, i.e. The Devine Right of the Rich. Think wealthy drug lords are qualified ? How about wealthy marketers of nicotine delivery systems ?


Many of the Founding Fathers of the US were broke at the end of their lives, i.e., George Washington, etc

 

[Frisco]

Please, post nothing personal, friends. Let's talk only about the subject at hand.

 

[Steven58]

It's refreshing to see anybody in any of these discussions in this particular area of the Lounge make that remark.

lolol!

 

[Frisco]

lolol!

lolol "I see your point..."

 

[A.Nonymous]

You question that the US is a Republic or that the US claims to be a Republic ?
If the former, I believe you have a valid point.

Just because one prefers to live in a rural setting doesn't give one the right to have more political power via representative voting then others that prefer living in an urban setting.

We agree that the world has changed in the past 225 years. One change is the populous is better educated and information and transport infrastructure has improved, which leaves me to believe the reasoning behind non-representative voting power for the US Senate is no longer valid.


Note: The constitution was changed to make the Senate an elected, rather than an appointed office.

Do those in an urban setting have concerns that are vastly different than those in a rural setting? At least on a national scale? Sure that was the case 200 years ago. But is that really the case today?