Legislation

[TimC]

$1.00 from the poor, middle class, rich, business, etc should be taxed at $1.00. Period.

 

Everyone in America has the opportunity to earn as much or as little as they desire. It makes no sense that it should be taxed differently. None.

[yo mama]

Think of how much money could be saved by both individuals and the government, if we just had a consumption tax, where businesses paid the government based upon sales receipts. It has worked well for Texas.

 

Yeah, but the 16th amendment authorizes an income tax. So absent constitutional amendment, it is unlikely you'll get your wish. (In fact, one of the interesting planks in the Fair Tax proposal is complete repeal of the 16th Amendment). Though, I would like to point out that part of the reason Texas' gross receipts/sales tax revenue negates the need for a personal income tax is because Texas' higher than average rate of real property tax supplements the difference. The IRS can't do that like Texas because it doesn't administer a real property tax.

 

In reality, it doesn't matter what new system of taxation we implement, the core questions remain the same: (1) would the change be revenue neutral; (2) how would the nation's tax burden be redistributed; and (3) would there be an increase or decrease in the cost of administration. While the current Internal Revenue Code is certainly flawed, its basically impossible to say an alternative system is better or worse without quantifying these three points.

Edited June 8, 2007 by yo mama

[cre8tiff]

Pardon me?

 

 

Knew that one would get ya.

[godtomsatan]

Everyone in America has the opportunity to earn as much or as little as they desire.

 

 

However, not everyone has the opportunity to take advantage of the loopholes provided by the tax code.

[yo mama]

However, not everyone has the opportunity to take advantage of the loopholes provided by the tax code.

 

Just out of curiosity, could you identify some of the "loopholes" you'd like to see closed?

[H8tank]

Any of you who voted in favor of this, I also assume you have no problem with Paris Hilton using her wealth to stay out of jail for the most part? (until today anyway)

 

If you expect the rich to pay a larger share, then they deserve the perks and special interests.

[yo mama]

If you expect the rich to pay a larger share, then they deserve the perks and special interests.

 

If they EARNED it, maybe. I don't mind rewarding hard work. But lazy people suck, regardless of whether they're rich or poor.

[Ursa Majoris]

$1.00 from the poor, middle class, rich, business, etc should be taxed at $1.00. Period.

 

Everyone in America has the opportunity to earn as much or as little as they desire. It makes no sense that it should be taxed differently. None.

 

If that flat tax kicks in at, say, $20,000 pa, that's fine. But taxing the first dollar earned is just asking for a larger welfare state.

[yo mama]

If that flat tax kicks in at, say, $20,000 pa, that's fine. But taxing the first dollar earned is just asking for a larger welfare state.

 

a true flat tax will never happen. A more complicated "fair tax" is much more realistic because it has a system of rebates that blunt the otherwise regressive nature... sort of like our current graduated income tax does.

 

The "fairness" of our current system is a red herring issue, IMO, because that's a subjective concept. The far more common sense points in favor of a fair tax are: (1) reduced cost of administration; (2) being able to tax black market players at the register who'd normally evade the current system; (3) eliminating many existing loopholes; and (4) simplifying complaince for the taxpayer, which doesn't provide much of economic gain to the government, but is nevertheless something the citizenry would certainly appriciate. There's pretty convincing evidence that this would result in savings/additional revenue collection in the billions per year. The sticking point seems to be what rate to set the fair tax at, such that we collect at least as much net revenue as we're collecting now. That, and repealing the 16th amendment.

[AtomicCEO]

Now now now...the poor shouldn't be burdened any more than they already are. It's hard work being lazy while the rest of us are out there earning their living for them.

 

 

Virginia residents get $1.60 in federal tax spending for every $1 they contribute in taxes.

 

I pay for you. Fetch me a sammich, or pay your bill you welfare monkey.

[Ursa Majoris]

That, and repealing the 16th amendment.

 

OK, I don't see why repealing the 16th is an imperative.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Clubfoothead]

Of course.

[TimC]

Virginia residents get $1.60 in federal tax spending for every $1 they contribute in taxes.

 

I pay for you. Fetch me a sammich, or pay your bill you welfare monkey.

 

 

It's because we build the aircraft carriers and submarines that protect you and will be useful for one day conquering the North hopefully.

 

Do you like bologna and cheese?

[AtomicCEO]

It's because we build the aircraft carriers and submarines that protect you and will be useful for one day conquering the North hopefully.

 

Do you like bologna and cheese?

 

 

Yeah... there's no military spending in Colorado.

 

I prefer PB&J.

[Kid Cid]

OK, I don't see why repealing the 16th is an imperative.

 

Quite simply if it is there, then some bright-eyed congreesional wannabe will eventually make a move to use it on top of any other tax structure that may be in place.

[Ursa Majoris]

Quite simply if it is there, then some bright-eyed congreesional wannabe will eventually make a move to use it on top of any other tax structure that may be in place.

 

I see that but it's not an imperative as it says "shall have power" not "must use the power".

[Kid Cid]

I see that but it's not an imperative as it says "shall have power" not "must use the power".

You can't be that naive. It says Congress can take money but those bozos read it as Congress can spend the people's money. Twice.

[Ursa Majoris]

You can't be that naive. It says Congress can take money but those bozos read it as Congress can spend the people's money. Twice.

Repeal of XVI would be a good idea but again, it is not a requirement in order to change the tax system. Repeal would be a preventive against what you say, of course, as well as keeping the Constitution nice and tidy by not leaving redundant amendments in place.

 

This is really an argument over nothing.

[The Holy Roller]

Repeal of XVI would be a good idea but again, it is not a requirement in order to change the tax system. Repeal would be a preventive against what you say, of course, as well as keeping the Constitution nice and tidy by not leaving redundant amendments in place.

 

This is really an argument over nothing.

 

 

...because nothing is going to change. We are sheep being led to the slaughter poorhouse...