CONGRESS says... - Page 3

Mntsnow · 06-05-2003, 05:22 PM

Personally I would love to see a HEAD tax....If your living and breathing you pay a set tax fee... weither you are 1 day old or 100 years old. Same cost for EVERYONE.... say it was 100 bucks a person...A single adult would pay 100 bucks...a family of 4 would pay 400 bucks, a single dad with 2 kids would pay 300 bucks and single mom with 2 kids would pay 300 bucks ect ect ect... would make everyone equal in the amount of tax.

CERuppel · 06-05-2003, 07:36 PM

Mntsnow: Make that closer to $10,000 per person and then it would be equal to the tax today. But thats not the problem, really. The problem is what is the "fair and honest" way to set taxes when the income varies so much in thsi country?

IMO the best bet is just to close all the loopholes. Seal the off shore, corparation, dumby company... Make everyone actually PAY the taxes, that's what I am saying.

Harold7 · 06-05-2003, 08:17 PM

So in other words you're advocating a consumption tax to replace the income tax system because that's the only way you can make sure everyone pays taxes.

As long as the tax code is used for the purpose of social engneering, all the loopholes, shelters, write-offs, deductions etc., are always going to be lobbied for and enacted by the government in favor of whichever special interest group either has a large voting bloc or lots of campaign cash to get their special dispensations into tax law.

At least doing away with the income tax and taxing consumption will even the playing field in that everyone pays the same amount in taxes for the same purchase... exempting food, housing medical from taxes would decrease any adverse impact on low income types and let everyone control and manage their own finances and tax load by the decision about whether or not to make purchases.

originel · 06-05-2003, 10:12 PM

harold7, while i agree the loopholes need to be done away with, your idea of getting rid of the income tax is, IMO, a bad idea. to recap a little from my previous post in this thread:

income tax is a regressive tax form, not an even tax system. this means that the poor pay more than the rich (the reasoning is in the other post and i don't feel like re-typing it). if we simply had a sales tax then the rich would actually get off even lighter than poor families would. this is not to say they would actually pay less than a poor family, but they would pay a much lower percentage of their income towards taxes than the poor would. if there was some way of correcting this (like maybe a flat income tax without a sales tax) then i would be all for it. but as things currently stand there would be issues. another thing is that most people wouldn't realize this (i didn't until i took an economics class).

daveleau · 06-05-2003, 10:18 PM

All incentives (loopholes) are not bad. Incentives boost the economy and improve general welfare of the nation. For instance charity donations. If that loophole was closed, the welfare system would have to be increased costing each of us a pretty penny. Purchase loopholes (done fairly) boost the economy as they give people incentive to spend.

Many are bad, but not all.

CERuppel · 06-06-2003, 02:49 AM

Dave: I agree. Charity donations should be used as a tax deduction.

I only would like to add that limits be put in place on donations (reduce total taxable income by 10% perhaps).

How about this one: Set a "cost of living" deduction in the income tax. Then increase the rate of taxation for the amount over that. That way the poor would not get screwed out of house and home, and the rich would still have the same protection as the rest of us...

Again, Dave, I think we are on the same track here.

Harold7 · 06-06-2003, 08:50 AM

So originel, the purpose of the tax code is to make sure certain classes of people pay a higher portion of their income in taxes than others?

It appears that what you object to is not the equity inherent in a consumption tax, but that the so-called "rich" aren't penalized enough for being successful?

For that matter just what do you consider "rich" to be?

If you believe in the concept of "equal protection under the law" is there some special addendum to this concept which exempts certain classes of people from being treated the same as those who earn less or should the idea be "equal protection under the law... except for tax law"?

If, as you seem to suggest, it is the responsibility of the government to equalize the income of the populace, wouldn't this be accomplished most efficiently by the government just confiscating all income and redistributing it according to what the government thinks is fair?

Wait... hasn't that been tried already and failed miserably?

cyphen · 06-06-2003, 09:52 AM

Exactly. But the fact is, the left is all about socialism rather than personal responsibility.

As i've said before - we all have the same opportunitues. Don't get mad at wealthy people. They were just smart. You're mad at them because they're smart? Be smart yourself. If you want to be wealthy, make the necessary sacrifices, learn the system, and do it. Everybody has the same opportunity under the law. The rich didn't start out rich. Pointing the finger and complaining is just plain ridiculous. Make your situation better for yourself. As my dad would say - play against the course, not the other golfer.

So welcome to personal responsibility. the left saying that the republicans removed benefits from the lowest income bracket is ridiculous. It's a tax cut, like has been stated many times, and if they don't pay any taxes, then you can't cut them. And they aren't being penalized. They stay in the same situation.

And the assertion that the rich hoard money is retarded. The rich didn't get rich by hoarding money. They just know what to do with it. The rich know it generally doesn't pay to have "liquid" (cash) assets lying around when those assets could be put to use to make more money, which puts it right back into the economy, which creates jobs, which benefits everybody.

So cry me a river. There are already social programs for the poor. The true problem isn't poverty of the wallet, it's poverty of mind. It's the attitude and spending habits of people with low incomes that keep them from attaining wealth. And you can't change that with a handout.

Again, if you want to get rich, this isn't called the land of opportunity for nothing! But it's not gonna happen unless you do it. So quit with the wanting something for nothing. Buncha freeloaders!

WingWizard · 06-06-2003, 10:06 AM

"Democracy is the worst form of government there is. Except for all the others."

-Winston Churchill

EndobioticChaos · 06-06-2003, 10:41 AM

Harold, apparently you didn't read Originel's previous post very thoroughly. What he's saying is that the rich get a higher income tax rate because a lesser percentage of their income gets taxed. The poor have to spend most or all of their income, while the rich tend to invest most of it. Spending gets taxed, investing does not. Thus by increasing the rate for the higher incomes, you end up paying about the same percentage of your income.

At least, that's the way I understood it.