I think that is a program many could live with, it is definitely better than
the crap we have today.

The problem with a flat tax paid to the IRS, is the large number of people
who avoid taxes by operating in an underground economy. I would love to see
either a sales tax or VAT system, that would not tax basic necessities, i.e.
food, medical, rent cost for reasonable housing. This way, the poor are not
unfairly taxed on basic necessities, but the tax on non necessities would be
paid by all. Since the public is supporting a change in our tax system,
hopefully, we will see a major overhaul of our current system soon.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
What do you think of using a VAT (Value Added Tax) similar to the tax
used
in most of Europe?

Not much.

I prefer a flat tax, with no tax extracted from the first $30,000 or so of
income. For some, that would mean no tax paid on the money earned during
the
first week of the year, and for others that would exempt all income. The
desperately poor should be absolutely untaxed- and maybe they will have
enough
left over to save and invest and start getting slightly ahead.

For the rest of us, after the same $30,000 exemption everybody else gets,
tax
income at a rate sufficient to balance the budget every year. Maybe 15,
20, or
25%. Those spendthift legislators would be more reluctant to pee away so
much
money if it meant they had to immediately tell their constituents that
taxes
were going up 2,3, or 4 percent to pay for the latest government program.

We would tax *all* income under the flat tax plan, with a streamlined
formula
for measuring "net profit" (the source of most chicanery in the current
tax
system).

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
national sales tax.

National sales tax.
Pretty sad.

If you're poor, 100% of whatever you earn will be taxed- at the 25 or 30%
usually floated as the proposed number for such a tax.

Most of the working poor we call the "middle class" these days is up to
its
butt in consumer debt as well- how many of us know several families who
transferred consumer credit card debt into 30-year bonds secured against
their
home (!) in the last year or two? No break for these people at the 25 or
30
percent tax rate, either. Most are paying less tax now.

Who comes out on top? The well off, the wealthy, and the shockingly rich.
A
family earning $1mm a year, but spending only a thousand a day on
consumption
(spending money at that rate would be almost a full time job) will have
about
1/3 of its income taxed at that 25 percent rate- or will pay roughly about
8%
of its income in taxes.

A $10mm a year family, spending $100,000 a month on consumption, would pay
a
whalloping 3% of its income in taxes.

Let's see he If you sweep the floor at WalMart, you will wind up
spending
everything you earn and pay 30% of your income to the government in a tax.
If
you *own* WalMart, you can't possibly figure out how to spend all the
money
coming in
and your tax bill will drop to a couple of percent of your income.

No wonder the right wing likes this idea.
The economics are right out of those two fine traditions, feudalism and
sharecropping.

Funny thing is, most of those red states are filled with itsy bitsy towns
and
farms where people do pretty well to make it to the middle class. The red
states get screwed the worst.......the gazillionaires living in
California, the
NE and the Pacific NW, in the "blue states", benefit the most from a tax
that
targets what you put into the marketplace, rather than taxing what you
extract
from it.

You think we've got an "underground" economy now? Just wait until they
roll out
a 25-30% national sales tax. Of course it willbe the rich, paying the
tiniest
percentage in tax, who will go to the most exotic and extraordinary
lengths to
pay even less. :-)



And you get a tax credit for the first $20k if income. This rebates the tax
to the lower earner. I favor a flat income tax. With the same $20k
exemption. You realize Kerry and Therese only paid at a 12% rate last year?
I bet most of us middle income people paid at a much higher rate than that.
And the Poor paid no income tax, and even got a rebait (rebate) of taxes
they did not pay.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:35:10 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:12:56 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



I'd rather have a straight flat tax system of some sort to prevent this
kind of nonsense.

I'm all for a simplified tax system, but I wonder how long even a flat tax
system would stay simple. A loophole here, and a loophole there, and we
once again have a mess. However, I would agree a flat tax would be
preferable to a sales tax (at least I think that's your preference).


I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to
pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe
that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and
those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall
health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay,
right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even
though I'm retired.

What I object to is the whole issue of using the term "revenue" rather
than what it is - taxes. Puts the entire concept into a whole new
light.

What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a
company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of
any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the
freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege.

What I object to is the State DMV staffing a local office on a
Saturday, for three months in a row, with people who can't speak, or
have an extremely low grasp of, English thus justifying closing the
office because of lack of business. (That is not a joke)

I object to "fees" that aren't designated to the subject for which
they are issued - hunting and fishing licenses being a good example.

I object to hiring tax accountants and lawyers to keep the government
from raping me at the end of the year just because I worked hard to
obtain what I have and I want to keep it.

I object to long winded rants about stuff. :)

I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or
we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

Later,

Tom

Can you say "Amen"?

Amen, brother!

Eisboch

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to
pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe
that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and
those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall
health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay,
right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even
though I'm retired.

Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would
result in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending...
probably both.

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich....
who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


What I object to is the whole issue of using the term "revenue" rather
than what it is - taxes. Puts the entire concept into a whole new
light.

What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a
company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of
any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the
freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege.

You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem
like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing.


What I object to is the State DMV staffing a local office on a
Saturday, for three months in a row, with people who can't speak, or
have an extremely low grasp of, English thus justifying closing the
office because of lack of business. (That is not a joke)

I object to "fees" that aren't designated to the subject for which
they are issued - hunting and fishing licenses being a good example.

I object to hiring tax accountants and lawyers to keep the government
from raping me at the end of the year just because I worked hard to
obtain what I have and I want to keep it.

I object to long winded rants about stuff. :)

I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or
we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained
about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect &
intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road
maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not
comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing.

Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said!

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I am not a fiscal Puritan in that I despise all taxes. I'm willing to
pay my fair share into the common wealth of the nation. And I believe
that my share should be the same as people who are less well off and
those more well off - I worked hard for my money, ruined my overall
health doing it and I want to keep it. For that, I'm willing to pay,
right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even
though I'm retired.

Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would result
in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending... probably
both.

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,

How so?

and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,


JimH wrote:
How so?

Because prices for goods & services are fixed, not sliding scale. Poor
people pay a greater percent of their income for basic food, clothing,
housing, etc etc... in many cases falling short of even that.



and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff

Slightly more advanced- the gov't services that the wealthy use are much
more expensive- for example, court procedings involving tenantry & land
rights, along with the whole range of services from vessel documentation
to passport issuance, for which the gov't charges a nominal fee but
loses money.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor,


JimH wrote:
How so?

Because prices for goods & services are fixed, not sliding scale. Poor
people pay a greater percent of their income for basic food, clothing,
housing, etc etc... in many cases falling short of even that.

Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy
a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

I can also buy more when I have more money so the percent of my income going
for food, clothing and housing could actually be greater than those with
lesser incomes.

Finally, no one has talked about taxing food or housing.





and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most
from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff

Slightly more advanced- the gov't services that the wealthy use are much
more expensive- for example, court procedings involving tenantry & land
rights, along with the whole range of services from vessel documentation
to passport issuance, for which the gov't charges a nominal fee but loses
money.

DSK


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy. Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps,
health care subsidies....the list goes on and on. And in many cases, those
same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of
the city. Cities are also dumping more and more money per pupil on
education in the poorer sections of the city in an attempt to improve
education (money will not solve this problem).

The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class.

JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can buy
a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you
$100? If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and
wishful thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps,
health care subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

Does the welfare system cost the gov't more than the court system? More
than the military? More than the service on the federal debt?


... And in many cases, those
same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

When you have absolutely no money, it's difficult to pay taxes.




The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas of
the city.

And this is for the benefit of the poor?? No, it is to keep them from
stealing *your* stuff.

For example, do you find more poor people in prison, or rich people?
Hey, usually most long term inmates have incomes below $50,000/yr!
Therefor they are getting a tremendous gov't benefit at the expense of
wealthier taxpayers!


The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle class.

Yeah, right.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can
buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100?
If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to
explain it to you.



The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful
thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care
subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

They are not benefits? What are they then?


Does the welfare system cost the gov't more than the court system? More
than the military? More than the service on the federal debt?

The rich benefit more from those services than the poor? How about some
links to back up your claim.




... And in many cases, those same folks pay absolutely no taxes.

When you have absolutely no money, it's difficult to pay taxes.



Thanks for making my case.




The majority of time spent by the police is in the poor/high crime areas
of the city.

And this is for the benefit of the poor?? No, it is to keep them from
stealing *your* stuff.

Police protection is a benefit. What would you call it?


For example, do you find more poor people in prison, or rich people? Hey,
usually most long term inmates have incomes below $50,000/yr! Therefor
they are getting a tremendous gov't benefit at the expense of wealthier
taxpayers!

And that is the fault of the wealthy?



The poor definitely benefit more from the gov't than even the middle
class.

Yeah, right.

Yep.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
Prices are not fixed. I can buy a pair of jeans for $10 or $100. I can
buy a t shirt for $3 or $150. They both wear the same and serve the same
purpose.

So, if you are rich and want to buy a pair of jeans, they charge you $100?
If you are poor, the same store sells the same jeans for $10?

Where is this? It is certainly not happening in my part of the country.

The super rich gain the most from gov't services? How so?

Basic- they have more to lose if the gov't fails to protect their stuff


That was not an answer. In fact, it was a bunch of baloney.

Oh really? Can you answer in terms that don't make it obvious that your
mind is extremely closed?


A case can easily be made that the poor in fact benefit more from gov't
services than the wealthy.

Yes it can, but that case is based on a lot of misconceptions and wishful
thinking.


... Welfare, housing supplements, food stamps, health care
subsidies....the list goes on and on.

If you think those are "benefits" then why don't you live on them?

We were originally discussing who "benefits" more from gov't services....not
which gov't services are considered a benefit.

Stick to the topic please.