death and taxes

[lookout123]

i have run across the issue of taxes in several different threads, so let's see if we can pull it all together.

1) do we need tax reform, or do we need to scrap the whole thing and start over?

2) why do you think it hasn't happened to this point? (and don't tell me it was because steve forbes looked funny)

3) what tax system is fair and equitable???

[Kitsune]

Taxes, right now, are way too confusing and mudded up for me to understand why they are set up the way they currently are. So in my eyes, the flat tax system made the most sense. Why not just tax everyone's income a certain percentage?

...and then I understood why Steve Forbes was a proponent of the flat tax system. He would, under that system, pay $0 in taxes because Forbes has zero income. All of Forbes' money comes from investments which would not be considered taxable income, so he wouldn't owe a dime. I don't think this system is all that fair.

Some have proposed that the public be taxed only on the goods they buy. This sounds interesting and potentially like a good idea, but I don't understand enough to know the ups and downs. I figure our tax system is currently the way it is in a poor attempt to be fair. Regardless if it is or is not, I hate the paperwork.

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by lookout123
2) why do you think it hasn't happened to this point? (and don't tell me it was because steve forbes looked funny)

A simplified tax system that anybody could understand would put tons of lawyers, accountants, producers of tax prep software, etc. etc. out of jobs.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by SteveDallas

A simplified tax system that anybody could understand would put tons of lawyers, accountants, producers of tax prep software, etc. etc. out of jobs.

BINGO! you are the 1st person that has beat me to the punch on that discussion.
those are the groups that spend the money to make sure the voting public is mislead enough to not demand an alternative system. it is not the "gov't" that loves the tax system the way it is - it is the folks making their living off of average joe not knowing what he owes.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Kitsune
Some have proposed that the public be taxed only on the goods they buy. This sounds interesting and potentially like a good idea, but I don't understand enough to know the ups and downs.

Ups: Pretty simple, and potentially anonymous.
Downs: Heavily regressive. Poor people spend almost all of their money, and would therefore be taxed a much higher percentage. Rich people, even most of the conspicuous consumers, spend a comparatively tiny percentage of their money, and would therefore pay a comparatively tiny tax percentage. If the government needed to raise the tax, it would be a catastrophic hit on the poor, and a minor annoyance to the wealthy.

[lookout123]

i won't pretend to know the #'s required to put keep the nation running, but systemically either 2 things would truly be fair:

1) a REAL flat tax. x% of ALL generated income is taxed. 0 tax breaks to anyone, weathly or destitute.
with this system the 1) lower income people would keep significantly more of their money, improving their situation, allowing them to spend more, improving the economy, putting more money into EVERYONE's pockets. 2) higher income would not have to spend time, energy, and MONEY looking for ways to avoid being gouged by more than 40% of their earned income. they wouldn't have to pay people to set up tax shelters, they would not have to make certain investments DESIGNED to lose money, to help on the taxes. they would also SPEND more... etc.

2) no income or property tax. 100% of revenues would come from a flat Sales tax. many scream that this screws the lowest income earners. that is not true. they would keep more of their money than they do now. corporations, and extremely wealthy pay people so they don't pay taxes. if that was eliminated people would pay taxes on the things they CHOOSE TO BUY. what could be more fair? no tax on food and medical care. people in lower income groups will pay less tax because they will naturally purchase less. where you really benefit is in all of the people who don't pay taxes right now. besides major corporations, and the extremely wealthy - illegal industries (drugs, prostitution,...) and illegal immigrants. right now they pay $0. what do you think the $$$ amount they spend is each month? what amount of money is spent on them for gov't benefits?

anyway - those are brief outlines of my ideas.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Ups: Pretty simple, and potentially anonymous.
Downs: Heavily regressive. Poor people spend almost all of their money, and would therefore be taxed a much higher percentage. Rich people, even most of the conspicuous consumers, spend a comparatively tiny percentage of their money, and would therefore pay a comparatively tiny tax percentage. If the government needed to raise the tax, it would be a catastrophic hit on the poor, and a minor annoyance to the wealthy.

if the "poor" were not paying tax on food and medical care and there were no income or property tax they would have a much larger % of their money still in their pocket.

the wealthy would pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes, but they would pay incalculably more in real $$$. the wealthy should not be required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes - that is the definition of unfair.

i'm not the mathematician but i would bet dollars to donuts that if the current tax system and all of its trappings were scrapped infavor of something like this that the average american would see their financial situation greatly improved.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by lookout123
if the "poor" were not paying tax on food and medical care and there were no income or property tax they would have a much larger % of their money still in their pocket.

Most state sales taxes exempt food, and poor people pay no income tax right now.

the wealthy would pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes, but they would pay incalculably more in real $$$. the wealthy should not be required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes - that is the definition of unfair.

You just admitted that they'd be paying a lower percentage of their income under a sales-tax scheme. This means that the poor would be paying a higher percentage. If it is unfair to charge rich people more, then it is even more unfair to place the burden on those who can't afford it.

[lookout123]

each individual purchase made by a wealthy individual would account for a smaller % of their income, but as you know, those who make more, spend more. as they purchase and consume more they will pay more $$$ in taxes. if this were multiplied by all of the purchasers in the nation, i would think that a relatively small % of sales tax would need to be in place to maintain the expenses of the nation.

for myself - i actually support a true flat tax ( a set %) for all, with 0 exemptions or shelters. i believe if this were in place EVERYONE would keep more of their money in their pockets. this of course will never happen because the lawyers, accountants, and the rest of the tax industry propagate the myth that this "REGRESSIVE" tax is another wealthy policians plan to screw the "working class"

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by lookout123
for myself - i actually support a true flat tax ( a set %) for all, with 0 exemptions or shelters. i believe if this were in place EVERYONE would keep more of their money in their pockets.

Not the people who currently pay 0% - ie, the poor.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Not the people who currently pay 0% - ie, the poor.

who do you know that is really paying 0% - don't just say the poor. an individual who actually goes to a full time job pays some amount of tax.

[Happy Monkey]

The lowest tax bracket is 0%, so anyone making less than that amount pays 0% income tax. Of course, they do pay FICA, which is hugely regressive - x% with a maximum. Removing the maximum, and leaving it at the same percent would fix that funding problem.

Also, many poor people are poor because they can't get a full time job.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey

Also, many poor people are poor because they can't get a full time job.

there are many who choose not to work full time. there are many who would have difficulty working full time. there are many who can't find a full time job they like or are willing to take. there are few who "can't get a full time job"

my question to that is why are we importing workers from other nations if we have american's on unemployment?

BTW did you hear about the 45 year old homeless man who graduated from UCLA Berkeley? it isn't a joke. it was a man who saw the degree (and hopefully a job afterwards) a lofty enough goal that he was willing to sacrifice and do what it took to accomplish the goal.

[Happy Monkey]

We have lost about a million jobs in the past 3 years, and gained in population. There are people who can't find work. Pointing out that there are also lazy people doesn't change that.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by lookout123


who do you know that is really paying 0% - don't just say the poor. an individual who actually goes to a full time job pays some amount of tax.

I do not pay tax. Every single year I have worked, I've gotten a refund. I have been working full time for 17 years now.