Fair Tax

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 15:17
VIEWED: 3993
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
Geezer it is exactly that simple. I'm not refering in any way to a sales tax, but a flat income tax. Simple as that.

Oh, crap.

Sorry. I've been so inundated with the fair tax stuff that I made an invalid assumption.

But flat tax still has the problem of determining exactly what is "income". For wage earners it's pretty simple, but for self-employed, partnerships, and corporations, not so much. And still there is Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment, unless you want to roll that into the flat income tax figure.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BADKARMA00

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 4:42 AM

no problem, I can well understand. I find the point of sale tax or value added, whatever they're calling it, ( I call is sales tax, lol)
completely unfair to the poorer folks, since they are paying the same amount of tax someone with even ten times their income is paying.

As for the flat income tax, it's simple. You made a dollar, it's taxable. Period.

For corporations, it's profit. Period. And no bull hockey about 'r & d' etc. Those are legitamte business costs, and they'll pay for themselves down the road.

As to SSA, etc. There would have to be a line, I have always thought the official poverty scale for income was fair for that, below which no one would pay taxes. SAdly, most people drawing Social Security benefits, or on Medicare, would fall below the poverty level, and thereby be untaxed.

I know that the flat tax isn't perfect, but it is fair. Everyone pays something.

A man who maked, say 30,000 per annum, taxed at a flat 10% ( just for simplicity ) pays 3000 in taxes.

A man making 300,000 per annum, pays 30,000 in taxes.

If that's not about as fair as it can be, show me something better, anyone, and I'll get behind it.

But don't come at me with 'tax the rich'. They're paying taxes, at a rate of nearly 40% in some cases. It's a tired argument.

A graduated flat tax, I would still support. One that increases slightly as income climbs, for instance. Topping out at 25% for the millionaires club for instance.

I know it ain't perfect, but it's a lot more fair than what we've got going now. IMO.

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 5:13 AM

Am I the only one who gets nervous whenever the government uses the word 'fair'?

This will be yet another power grab that will give them the excuse they've been waiting for to crack down on the internet. My guess is, after the freakish internet support of Ron Paul, they're very eager to see the government more "involved" in these interweb tubes.

The Fair Tax fails to solve the two worst problems of income tax, the amount we're taxed, and the way the tax code is used to control us.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

VETERAN

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 5:51 AM

I liked it when Jerry Brown was promoting it - still do.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
A graduated flat tax, I would still support. One that increases slightly as income climbs, for instance. Topping out at 25% for the millionaires club for instance.

Sounds like you're describing a progressive tax system, which I think is preferable. I think taxation should be based on disposable income, that is how much money is left after paying cost of living. Since those who earn more have a much higher percentage of their income as disposable, I think it would be fair if they likewise paid a higher percentage in tax.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Sounds like you're describing a progressive tax system, which I think is preferable. I think taxation should be based on disposable income, that is how much money is left after paying cost of living. Since those who earn more have a much higher percentage of their income as disposable, I think it would be fair if they likewise paid a higher percentage in tax.

I agree 100%.

I'm not a fan of subsidizing anybody elses mistakes. Nobody wants to pay for my healthcare cause I smoke, and I don't want to pay for anybody's kids healthcare because they were too stupid to prevent themselves from having children they couldn't afford to raise.

And none of us should be forced or expected to.

Insurance was the worst thing that ever happened to helthcare. Did anybody really expect that insurance would do anything but make medical payments unfairly balanced on other people?

While we're goign about changing the tax code to a simple and fair progressive tax, what say we end insurance period and watch the prices of health treatments go down exponentially when people only go when they absolutely need to and can only pay what they can afford. See how quick that shit changes then.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, August 29, 2025 3:17 PM

Thailand to introduce a Negative Income Tax in 2027

https://www.nationthailand.com/news/policy/40054642?utm_source=chatgpt
.com

PREV PAGE 1 2 3