NationStates Jolt Archive

For those who hate the tax system in the United States, please support the Fair Tax Program.

www.fairtax.org

What it basically does is, you're only taxed on what you buy. So for those of us who don't spend our money like drunken sailor, will actually make it out ahead of those who do.

It's a load of bullshit. Yeah, let's just forget about the people who actually need services provided by tax money.

It's a load of bullshit. Yeah, let's just forget about the people who actually need services provided by tax money.

Well I dunno about you, but I am TIRED of 30% of MY paycheck, the money that I earned, go towards service that I don't chose. You haven't even looked at the website. The tax system is still there, but it get rids of the national income taxes. Instead it taxes the things that we buy (new only, not used stuff).

Well I dunno about you, but I am TIRED of 30% of MY paycheck, the money that I earned, go towards service that I don't chose. You haven't even looked at the website. The tax system is still there, but it get rids of the national income taxes. Instead it taxes the things that we buy (new only, not used stuff).

Oh, you're all hissy over having to pay to keep others alive? I really don't give two shits about that opinion, honestly. I happen to be on welfare, and the funds I currently get from it are hardly adequate, so fuck that.

Oh, you're all hissy over having to pay to keep others alive? I really don't give two shits about that opinion, honestly. I happen to be on welfare, and the funds I currently get from it are hardly adequate, so fuck that.

Well there is another option, GET A JOB. See, this is what people fail to realize about the Welfare system. It's suspose to be a TEMP. thing. You're only suspose to recieve support for a little while until you are back on your feet. We have lost that.

Well there is another option, GET A JOB.

Oh. You poor bastard. You poor, uninformed bastard.

Well I dunno about you, but I am TIRED of 30% of MY paycheck, the money that I earned, go towards service that I don't chose. You haven't even looked at the website. The tax system is still there, but it get rids of the national income taxes. Instead it taxes the things that we buy (new only, not used stuff).
Those servises are need to keep people alive. People deserve to live, deal with it.

He has heard everything on that site. About a month ago there was a fairtax thread that got to be at least 30 pages long.

Oh. You poor bastard. You poor, uninformed bastard.

Then inform me.

Those servises are need to keep people alive. People deserve to live, deal with it.

He has heard everything on that site. About a month ago there was a fairtax thread that got to be at least 30 pages long.

Yeah. I even got insulted for being in the situation I'm in (through no fault of my own, I might add). So fuck off with this "fair" tax. It's not the least bit fair to those who never had a chance to begin with.

Those servises are need to keep people alive. People deserve to live, deal with it.

He has heard everything on that site. About a month ago there was a fairtax thread that got to be at least 30 pages long.

Then how come, when my parents retire, they're not going to see a dime that they put into the Social Security system via taxes? Why should anyone have to pay into a system, that is going to give them little to no return? I mean I know that I'm not going to get anything out of the Welfare system when I tretire, that why I plan on having a 401K plan.

The Fair Tax program will hopefully cut down on government spending, make the government smaller, and forces people to not splurge all the time.

Yeah. I even got insulted for being in the situation I'm in (through no fault of my own, I might add). So fuck off with this "fair" tax. It's not the least bit fair to those who never had a chance to begin with.
I still remember some of the better arguements from the last thread.

I still remember some of the better arguements from the last thread.

I have to deal with those shitty memories. What a terrible thread.

Then how come, when my parents retire, they're not going to see a dime that they put into the Social Security system via taxes? Why should anyone have to pay into a system, that is going to give them little to no return? I mean I know that I'm not going to get anything out of the Welfare system when I tretire, that why I plan on having a 401K plan.

The Fair Tax program will hopefully cut down on government spending, make the government smaller, and forces people to not splurge all the time.

1: They're not going to see much of it because the government wastes a lot of it on things that were never necessary, along with overblown military spending.

2: Yeah, and it shouldn't be that way. I'm on welfare, and I'm not getting nearly enough food money every month ($275 every 30-odd days is *not* enough for three rather large people).

3: A snowball's chance in hell. This ridiculous (and disgusting) system will never see the light of day. Keep dreaming.

Yeah. I even got insulted for being in the situation I'm in (through no fault of my own, I might add). So fuck off with this "fair" tax. It's not the least bit fair to those who never had a chance to begin with.

Do people grow up in poor situations, yes. Do most of them stay there, yes. But a few people actually got off their asses and said "You know what, I can do better, I don't like living in a mass produced home (trailers), and I deserve better." See the whole problem is not that the poor are being kept poor, it's that political parties like the democrats are telling you "Awww you're poor, so you're screwed for life, please, suck on the govt. tits some more." That is wrong, what they should be telling you is "Yes you are poor, but this is STILL the land of opportunities, you just got to really want to make it."

Do people grow up in poor situations, yes. Do most of them stay there, yes. But a few people actually got off their asses and said "You know what, I can do better, I don't like living in a mass produced home (trailers), and I deserve better." See the whole problem is not that the poor are being kept poor, it's that political parties like the democrats are telling you "Awww you're poor, so you're screwed for life, please, suck on the govt. tits some more." That is wrong, what they should be telling you is "Yes you are poor, but this is STILL the land of opportunities, you just got to really want to make it."

Doesn't always work that way, bucko. The system fucks people more often than it helps them.

And Democrat? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off for the next three months.

Yeah. I even got insulted for being in the situation I'm in (through no fault of my own, I might add). So fuck off with this "fair" tax. It's not the least bit fair to those who never had a chance to begin with.

For me, the flat sales tax would never work - its causes too many problems; what there needs to be is a more balanced system between a GST and Income Tax.

You bring in a Sales tax sitting at around 15%; you have two income tax brackets, 10% on the first 60,000, and from 60,001 and above, 20% - the business tax rate would be pegged at a fixed 5%, no write downs or anything, just a flat 5% - you make 100,000 profit, you pay 5,000 in tax - its cheap, effective, compliancy costs would be VERY low.

You then remove all other taxes, include pay roll taxes, pass a law which out laws the rights of invidual states the right to tax - and basically force them to either merge with another state and get economies of scale, declare bunkruptcy and merge with a state or simply declare bankruptcy, whine to the rest of the nation, to which the rest of the nation would point their finger and laugh.

For me, the flat sales tax would never work - its causes too many problems; what there needs to be is a more balanced system between a GST and Income Tax.

You bring in a Sales tax sitting at around 15%; you have two income tax brackets, 10% on the first 60,000, and from 60,001 and above, 20% - the business tax rate would be pegged at a fixed 5%, no write downs or anything, just a flat 5% - you make 100,000 profit, you pay 5,000 in tax - its cheap, effective, compliancy costs would be VERY low.

You then remove all other taxes, include pay roll taxes, pass a law which out laws the rights of invidual states the right to tax - and basically force them to either merge with another state and get economies of scale, declare bunkruptcy and merge with a state or simply declare bankruptcy, whine to the rest of the nation, to which the rest of the nation would point their finger and laugh.

Now that's a good idea.

1: They're not going to see much of it because the government wastes a lot of it on things that were never necessary, along with overblown military spending.

2: Yeah, and it shouldn't be that way. I'm on welfare, and I'm not getting nearly enough food money every month ($275 every 30-odd days is *not* enough for three rather large people).

3: A snowball's chance in hell. This ridiculous (and disgusting) system will never see the light of day. Keep dreaming.

1. Yes the government does waste alot of it, but thats only one side of the problem.

2. Welfare was originally intended to be a Temp. payment, and it was only suspose to be a subisides the house hold income. It was NEVER ment to be the sole income of a family.

3. I think if enough people get tired of having 30% of their paycheck and then 6 to 10% of the sale prices going to taxes, it will see the light of day.

Doesn't always work that way, bucko. The system fucks people more often than it helps them.

And Democrat? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off for the next three months.

How does it fuck them up? Also, it's true. Comon, don't tell me people haven't realize how the Democrats try to keep blacks, and poors on their plantation so that they'll vote for them in a next election. When was the last time you see a Republican or Libertarian say "We're sorry you're poor, but you're going to stay poor, so have some Welfare."

1. Yes the government does waste alot of it, but thats only one side of the problem.

2. Welfare was originally intended to be a Temp. payment, and it was only suspose to be a subisides the house hold income. It was NEVER ment to be the sole income of a family.

3. I think if enough people get tired of having 30% of their paycheck and then 6 to 10% of the sale prices going to taxes, it will see the light of day.

1: True. There are a lot more problems... Capitalist indoctrination being near the top.

2: Yeah, I know. But, for some people who actually can't work, it's their only income. And it isn't nearly enough.

3: There are more people in this country who care about the unfortunate than there are who don't. Good luck with that dream of yours.

For me, the flat sales tax would never work - its causes too many problems; what there needs to be is a more balanced system between a GST and Income Tax.

You bring in a Sales tax sitting at around 15%; you have two income tax brackets, 10% on the first 60,000, and from 60,001 and above, 20% - the business tax rate would be pegged at a fixed 5%, no write downs or anything, just a flat 5% - you make 100,000 profit, you pay 5,000 in tax - its cheap, effective, compliancy costs would be VERY low.

You then remove all other taxes, include pay roll taxes, pass a law which out laws the rights of invidual states the right to tax - and basically force them to either merge with another state and get economies of scale, declare bunkruptcy and merge with a state or simply declare bankruptcy, whine to the rest of the nation, to which the rest of the nation would point their finger and laugh.


We already tried the bracket system, that how we got into this mess in the first place!

How does it fuck them up? Also, it's true. Comon, don't tell me people haven't realize how the Democrats try to keep blacks, and poors on their plantation so that they'll vote for them in a next election. When was the last time you see a Republican or Libertarian say "We're sorry you're poor, but you're going to stay poor, so have some Welfare."

1: By not giving people enough to actually get back on their feet.

2: What the fuck is this corrupt, slanderised bullshit? I'm not a fan of Democrats or Republicans, but I know outright partisan wanking when I see it. And this qualifies.

3: Never, because they care too much about themselves to think of others. There. We can keep the shit slinging up all night, if you like.

1: True. There are a lot more problems... Capitalist indoctrination being near the top.

2: Yeah, I know. But, for some people who actually can't work, it's their only income. And it isn't nearly enough.

3: There are more people in this country who care about the unfortunate than there are who don't. Good luck with that dream of yours.

1. This is a Capitalist society, and our economy is Capitalist, if you want a social state, go to Russia. Oh, sorry, their economy is in the toilet.

2. And for those who do work, we would actually like to keep some of our money to ourselves.

3. Yes there is, and they show it by donatiing to charities, working in soup kitchen, volunteer work. Hell I donate to the Red Cross, St. Judes Hospital, and to Holy Angel myself. If you give the people the choice to help the less fortunate, rather than force them, they'll be more incline to help.

We already tried the bracket system, that how we got into this mess in the first place!

The system got fucked because you guys have half wits like GWB who tacked on deductions like child tax credits and so forth.

Under the two tires system; you pay the tax, and thats it, no refunds, no recredits, to 'income adjustments; its income in, tax out, thats final.

1: By not giving people enough to actually get back on their feet.

2: What the fuck is this corrupt, slanderised bullshit? I'm not a fan of Democrats or Republicans, but I know outright partisan wanking when I see it. And this qualifies.

3: Never, because they care too much about themselves to think of others. There. We can keep the shit slinging up all night, if you like.

1. I keep on saying this AGAIN and AGAIN, It was NEVER ment to be the sole income of a family. What is SUSPOSE to happen is you're suspose to rely on it while you are looking for a job. It was NEVER MENT to be used as an income, just a suplment.

2. Eh your opinion.

3. No, what they do is tell you "Yes you're poor, but you shouldn't rely on the government to get you out. You should instead rely on yourself, and get yourself out. We'll help along the way, but ultimatley, it's up to you."

1. This is a Capitalist society, and our economy is Capitalist, if you want a social state, go to Russia. Oh, sorry, their economy is in the toilet.

2. And for those who do work, we would actually like to keep some of our money to ourselves.

3. Yes there is, and they show it by donatiing to charities, working in soup kitchen, volunteer work. Hell I donate to the Red Cross, St. Judes Hospital, and to Holy Angel myself. If you give the people the choice to help the less fortunate, rather than force them, they'll be more incline to help.

1: Russia is hardly a model Socialist state. Try the Scandinavian and lowland states. Their economies are pristine, and their social safety nets are unprecedented.

2: You keep plenty as it is. Stop whining already.

3: Oh yeah, because everybody will just automatically start donating to charities.

Come on... Surely you've got more to pull from that dark crevasse of yours.

The system got fucked because you guys have half wits like GWB who tacked on deductions like child tax credits and so forth.

Under the two tires system; you pay the tax, and thats it, no refunds, no recredits, to 'income adjustments; its income in, tax out, thats final.

It's still a bracket system, I think we've now seen what the bracket system does. What we need is a flat tax system!

1. I keep on saying this AGAIN and AGAIN, It was NEVER ment to be the sole income of a family. What is SUSPOSE to happen is you're suspose to rely on it while you are looking for a job. It was NEVER MENT to be used as an income, just a suplment.

2. Eh your opinion.

3. No, what they do is tell you "Yes you're poor, but you shouldn't rely on the government to get you out. You should instead rely on yourself, and get yourself out. We'll help along the way, but ultimatley, it's up to you."

1: Yeah, exactly. But, people get stuck in it, and when they do, it isn't nearly enough to get them back on their feet. The "Fair Tax" would make it worse.

2: I see that you've got nothing to counter this one. Funny.

3: That'd be nice if everybody could do that, but not everybody can. As the saying goes: The world isn't perfect.

Here's another saying: What works for you may not work for another.

1: Russia is hardly a model Socialist state. Try the Scandinavian and lowland states. Their economies are pristine, and their social safety nets are unprecedented.

2: You keep plenty as it is. Stop whining already.

3: Oh yeah, because everybody will just automatically start donating to charities.

Come on... Surely you've got more to pull from that dark crevasse of yours.

1. Then move there, no one is forcing you to stay here.

2. and yet, some of us are still living paycheck to paycheck. That little extra money could go a long way for those who are living paycheck to paycheck.

3. While not EVERYONE will, there are scrooges out there, the MAJORITY of the population will. See this is why people hate stuff like this. Because you don't believe that they'll actually do it unless they're forced to via taxes, how do you think that makes them feel? How do you think that makes them think of you and how it reflects on you?

It's still a bracket system, I think we've now seen what the bracket system does. What we need is a flat tax system!

How so; the only flaw with the brack system is the problem of bracket creep, as long as the brackets are setup to automatically adjust to inflation, like how they've been setup in New Zealand, you'll find that no one is disadvantaged.

The problem with bracket systems is when you have stupid politicians start to use the tax system to provide relief and thus make the tax system more and more complex with each deduction that one can claim back for - get rid of all that shit, you can cut the tax department down to a 1/8 of its size and still have more than enough people left in the department to occasionally get a tax file number sorted out for new tax payers.

For every 1 person using the welfare system correctly, there are 10, who abuse it.

A flat tax is lame, as poor people tend to spend more of thier income, outright, living paycheck to paycheck.
It would actually force them to pay even more.

With the current system, at least, low earning tax brackets normally get a refund each year.

1: Yeah, exactly. But, people get stuck in it, and when they do, it isn't nearly enough to get them back on their feet. The "Fair Tax" would make it worse.

2: I see that you've got nothing to counter this one. Funny.

3: That'd be nice if everybody could do that, but not everybody can. As the saying goes: The world isn't perfect.

Here's another saying: What works for you may not work for another.

1. But the nessicary fact that it isn't enough should make you look for other means of getting enough. I doubt the government is breaking into your homes at night and whispering in your ears "you'll never make it wouthout the Welfare checks."

2. I don't try to debunk petty opinions.

3. However, this is the land of opprounities. I know at least 5 people who were orphaned at a young age, they worked hard in school, and they are now success. 3 of them are my doctors. They never had any kind of support either except for themselves.

For every 1 person using the welfare system correctly, there are 10, who abuse it.

A flat tax is lame, as poor people tend to spend more of thier income, outright, living paycheck to paycheck.
It would actually force them to pay even more.

With the current system, at least, low earning tax brackets normally get a refund each year.

True, hence the reason, they would pay 10% tax under the 'lovely boys plan' and would receive a 'Community Services Card' which would provide them with low cost medicine, subsidised housing and low cost doctors visits which would be provided via the social welfare system.

Its about providing a hand UP rather than a hand OUT to struggling families - provide them assistance without getting them into a cycle of welfare dependency.

1. Then move there, no one is forcing you to stay here.

2. and yet, some of us are still living paycheck to paycheck. That little extra money could go a long way for those who are living paycheck to paycheck.

3. While not EVERYONE will, there are scrooges out there, the MAJORITY of the population will. See this is why people hate stuff like this. Because you don't believe that they'll actually do it unless they're forced to via taxes, how do you think that makes them feel? How do you think that makes them think of you and how it reflects on you?

1: Nah, I'll be staying. Knowing that I'll be pissing you guys off is reason enough.

2: Yeah, and sapping it from the people who need every last drop to stay alive is no solution to the problem.

3: I don't believe that they won't do it. I just know that donations alone won't be enough, and that taxes in the Capitalist system are necessary. Otherwise, a lot of people will die when they shouldn't.

I don't try to debunk petty opinions.

And don't try to pass off your opinions on a tax system as fact.

For every 1 person using the welfare system correctly, there are 10, who abuse it.

A flat tax is lame, as poor people tend to spend more of thier income, outright, living paycheck to paycheck.
It would actually force them to pay even more.

With the current system, at least, low earning tax brackets normally get a refund each year.

Not everyone spend their money outright, in fact many of us actually live by a budget. Those who splurge are in the minority. And yet, what about those in the middle and high incomes?

Try an experiment. Let's say we already have a flat taxes of 25%. Apply that to a low income, middle income, and higher income. Then report back to me to who still pays more in taxes.

1: Nah, I'll be staying. Knowing that I'll be pissing you guys off is reason enough.

2: Yeah, and sapping it from the people who need every last drop to stay alive is no solution to the problem.

3: I don't believe that they won't do it. I just know that donations alone won't be enough, and that taxes in the Capitalist system are necessary. Otherwise, a lot of people will die when they shouldn't.

1. Actually you don't piss me off. You have to be a pretty sad person to be pissed off at someone over the internet.

2. Then what is the solution, more taxes?

3. There are other support system beside the government and charities.

True, hence the reason, they would pay 10% tax under the 'lovely boys plan' and would receive a 'Community Services Card' which would provide them with low cost medicine, subsidised housing and low cost doctors visits which would be provided via the social welfare system.

Its about providing a hand UP rather than a hand OUT to struggling families - provide them assistance without getting them into a cycle of welfare dependency.

How do you know for a fact that they won't get dependent on this new system? Hell free housing, low cost doctors, low cost medicine. It sounds alot better than having to pay for everything myself.

3. There are other support system beside the government and charities.

Yes. There are plenty of open bins containing scraps out there. And water collects in puddles on the footpath. *nods*

It's easy to survive without welfare. You just have to get your feet dirty, eh? :)

Yes. There are plenty of open bins containing scraps out there. And water collects in puddles on the footpath. *nods*

It's easy to survive without welfare. You just have to get your feet dirty, eh? :)

I ment families, churches, communities (towns) etc. Look, what I want is for everyone to get out of the ghetto and poor population, and to succeed in life, however, the current tax system, and welfare system does not do this. They both need major overhauls, and they both need to weaned those on welfare off the government tits and back onto their feet, without taking 30% of the taxs paying population income. We just need to find that middle road.

Welp, I'm going to bed. But while I'm gone, here's a little experiment.

Flat Tax 25%

Income:

$20,000

$40,000

$80,000

$100,000

Try to figure out which pays more in taxes.

Well I dunno about you, but I am TIRED of 30% of MY paycheck, the money that I earned, go towards service that I don't chose.
Oh now don't get a heart attack just yet. In the Netherlands the lowest income tax percentage is even higher than that (33%). Based on income you might pay up to 52%. Now's the time.

If everyone would pay just for what they personally use there'd be no funding for upkeeping services like public transportation, education or government-founded medical research. Just 'cause I'm going to be a 50-year-old and not have to go to school anymore doesn't mean I can stop contributing to education and get crowded by a generation of moronic 20-year-olds when I retire.

For every 1 person using the welfare system correctly, there are 10, who abuse it.
That's what people say here, too. But I wonder how many people on welfare have the marketable skills required to abuse the system. ;)

Welp, I'm going to bed. But while I'm gone, here's a little experiment.

Flat Tax 25%

Income:

$20,000

$40,000

$80,000

$100,000

Try to figure out which pays more in taxes.
The people who earn $100,000 will pay the most, but the people who earn $20,000 will pay the highest percentage of their total income in taxes.

You lot are complaining about paying 30% in tax..

How about a >50% income tax, and a 25% VAT?

Such is the reality in other countries - in welfare states - where most poor people actually stand a chance of surviving on their salaries and our governments aren't defunct. It could work in the US, no problem, but the thing is that too many people are greedy egoists.

I don't mind giving the government half of my income if what I receive in return is clean air, unbiased medias, state funded pension, excellent infrastructure, low crime rates, free healthcare, and seeing people whose lives didn't turn out to be as good as mine get a bit of green to stay afloat.

And I too live in a mass-produced home. A flat. :p

The people who earn $100,000 will pay the most, but the people who earn $20,000 will pay the highest percentage of their total income in taxes.

I might be missing the point here, but isn't 25% always 25%? They'd both pay the same percentage of their income in tax - 25%!

I might be missing the point here, but isn't 25% always 25%? They'd both pay the same percentage of their income in tax - 25%!
Yes but the rich are clever when it comes to avoiding taxes (Accually the can pay someone to be clever for them). They can go to Canada and buy products there with the 7% sales tax and instead of the 25% tax. The poor near the border can take advantage of this too, but as you get further away from the border it only makes sence to buy expensive items this way as the cost of shipping the item becomes higher than the money saved by the smaller taxes.

I might be missing the point here, but isn't 25% always 25%? They'd both pay the same percentage of their income in tax - 25%!

You're right. Though what I think he meant was...

If you earn $20,000, you have $15,000 to spend on your necessities. This is going to be very difficult.

If you earn $100,000, you have $75,000 to spend on whatever you wish. This is considerably easier to survive on.

The tax burden will be felt the most by the poor strata. Considering that they need the most help, forcing them to pay a proportionally greater burden (not raw amount) is going to hurt.

Oh, you're all hissy over having to pay to keep others alive? I really don't give two shits about that opinion, honestly. I happen to be on welfare, and the funds I currently get from it are hardly adequate, so fuck that.
Fuck you you ungrateful fuck. :upyours:

The people who earn $100,000 will pay the most, but the people who earn $20,000 will pay the highest percentage of their total income in taxes.
They will also pay the lowest.

Fuck you you ungrateful fuck. :upyours:
Real mature of you. Would rather have unemployed people steal wallets for a living, hey?

As for the Fair Tax Proposal...believe it or not, but serious Libertarians are against it.
http://www.mises.org/story/1975

Thank you, no. I'm from a state that has just sales tax. Wonderful at tax time, but when tourism dries up, it puts Nevada into a major tailspin trying to cover services for a fast growing state. 2002 was the last time this happened thanks to 9/11 and the just sales tax bit proved way too fickle in case of something happening.

The idea that this would cut back on goverment is foolish. Goverment expands when it needs to (or wants to). Goverments ARE NOT businesses, nor are they the family budget and cannot be treated as such as I know of no business nor family that suddenly needs to deal with, say, a major hurricane or a war.

Not to say there isn't waste in goverment, but the role of goverment is far different and the "fair" tax means more deficit or cut services.

3. Yes there is, and they show it by donatiing to charities, working in soup kitchen, volunteer work. Hell I donate to the Red Cross, St. Judes Hospital, and to Holy Angel myself. If you give the people the choice to help the less fortunate, rather than force them, they'll be more incline to help.
Excuse me while I point and laugh at you for this. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And no, it is not easy to get ahead when you're down. I know this damn well. Sometimes its not a matter of working harder because of where you are and who you are. Try getting to that level and then you tell me how "kind" your fellow man is.

Having lived in several states around the world, I have to say that the current US system is already fairer than any other I know of. Which is not to say it can't be improved, of course, but none of the systems put forward here would be anything but a retrograde step.

A flat tax benefits only the rich. The "fair" tax system would be clearly unworkable in short order - it's internal inconsistencies would self-destruct it.

Back to the drawing board.

For those who hate the tax system in the United States, please support the Fair Tax Program.

www.fairtax.org

What it basically does is, you're only taxed on what you buy. So for those of us who don't spend our money like drunken sailor, will actually make it out ahead of those who do.
That wouldn't work. The government wouldn't be able to gain enough revenue to fund its programmes without crippling business by imposing huge rates of VAT (sales tax).

Oh, you're all hissy over having to pay to keep others alive? I really don't give two shits about that opinion, honestly. I happen to be on welfare, and the funds I currently get from it are hardly adequate, so fuck that.
Welfare is hardly the most urgent item on the agenda of expenditure. Education, healthcare, public transport and the military, for example, should come before it.

Fuck you you ungrateful fuck. :upyours:

LOL! Dude, I'm not even going to report something this stupid. Wow.

Welfare is hardly the most urgent item on the agenda of expenditure. Education, healthcare, public transport and the military, for example, should come before it.

I almost agree with you on this. I believe that the military should be one of least important agendas.

Oh. You poor bastard. You poor, uninformed bastard.
Seconded!

Yes but the rich are clever when it comes to avoiding taxes (Accually the can pay someone to be clever for them). They can go to Canada and buy products there with the 7% sales tax and instead of the 25% tax. The poor near the border can take advantage of this too, but as you get further away from the border it only makes sence to buy expensive items this way as the cost of shipping the item becomes higher than the money saved by the smaller taxes.

Except the only province that you pay 7% in is Alberta. All the other provinces pay at 14% - 16%. That is because Alberta is the only province without the PST.

I almost agree with you on this. I believe that the military should be one of least important agendas.

It is the responsibility of any Government to Provide Basic Education and to Protect the Citizens of it's Country that is all.

This is rediculous. If you truely believe that people are poor because their lasy and will become rich automatically if they work, here's a newsflash: If you want to truely give the poor a boost out of their current state, lobby your republicans to RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO A LIVABLE INCOME!.

By the way, no, Americans cannot donate enough to charity to replace welfare entirely. It has not happened in the modern world, and unless you had a very small poor population compared with the well off (in which case the government will likely be running an effective welfare program), it's not going to happen.

Even growing up as a upper-middle class kid in a good neighborhood of New York City, I can tell the poor are not a bunch of lazy bumbs. Please, go back and think about what your saying. Has it occured to you that a flat tax means everyone will pay the same amount, meaning a low tax would give too much to the already rich, while a high one would cripple the already poor?

2: Yeah, and it shouldn't be that way. I'm on welfare, and I'm not getting nearly enough food money every month ($275 every 30-odd days is *not* enough for three rather large people).

Americans eat too much. Maybe you should eat less and be less fat.

I almost agree with you on this. I believe that the military should be one of least important agendas.
I suppose it depends on how much military you consider to be "too much" and what sort of times you live in.

It's a load of bullshit. Yeah, let's just forget about the people who actually need services provided by tax money.
What an ignorant comment. If you read anything about the fair tax, including HB-25, you will find that this is a replacement for income tax. Your precious welfare recipients will not be harmed.

I hate starting all over with stupid people.

Oh, you're all hissy over having to pay to keep others alive? I really don't give two shits about that opinion, honestly. I happen to be on welfare, and the funds I currently get from it are hardly adequate, so fuck that.
Get a damned job, then.

Well I dunno about you, but I am TIRED of 30% of MY paycheck, the money that I earned, go towards service that I don't chose. You haven't even looked at the website. The tax system is still there, but it get rids of the national income taxes. Instead it taxes the things that we buy (new only, not used stuff).

I have an idea - why don't you move to a country where you only make $1 a week. Then you wont give a crap about all of those hard earned dollars being taken away.

What an ignorant comment. If you read anything about the fair tax, including HB-25, you will find that this is a replacement for income tax. Your precious welfare recipients will not be harmed.

I hate starting all over with stupid people.


Stupid people or not, what this comes down to is simply that the 'fair tax' would never work in the real world. Maybe you could convince them to put it in this game but otherwise:

Why wouldn't it work?
Simple
When the economy fails... the government is f*cked.

Smart plan guys :rolleyes:

Stupid people or not, what this comes down to is simply that the 'fair tax' would never work in the real world. Maybe you could convince them to put it in this game but otherwise:

Why wouldn't it work?
Simple
When the economy fails... the government is f*cked.

Smart plan guys :rolleyes:
Your point is unsubstantiated, but since you don't seem stupid, I'll make my own unsubstantiated points.

1. People don't quit buying during downturns in the economy. That doesn't mean that the revenue is going to be untouched, but revenues are reduced during any recession/depression. Tax and interest rate reductions are still possible for economic stimulation.

2. The total tax burden, i.e. income and payroll taxes, would be less than it is now, so there is still more disposable income to spend. The lowest income group would see an effective rate of about 11-12 percent after the rebates.

Get a damned job, then.
Something that some people are vaguely unfamiliar with, Myrmidonisia.

I seem to recall working a lot of undesireable low paying jobs to get through college without the help of my parents. I seem to recall enlisting in the infantry as well.

Lots of work available - and some jobs will give you side benefits like paying for school. Worked for me.

Something that some people are vaguely unfamiliar with, Myrmidonisia.

I seem to recall working a lot of undesireable low paying jobs to get through college without the help of my parents. I seem to recall enlisting in the infantry as well.

Lots of work available - and some jobs will give you side benefits like paying for school. Worked for me.

That's Right I'm a Student and I work 40 hours a week. I am a Night Security Guard. Before this I worked at a Kitty Litter Factory there are lots of jobs around you just have to do it.

Myrmidonisia:

To my mind it is a system of balances. Using a combination of routes for revenue strikes me as a more reliable route to pay for welfare and whatever else was discussed earlier (on that note I think welfare needs a total reform but nevermind that). I have not read the aforementioned fairtax page, rather just glanced over it. Thus my points are unsubstantiated because I am not honestly interested in proving anything, rather just sharing my opinion on how I think society would react, and therefore how it would affect the government. On that note I think you can acknowledge that it is not something that is likely to happen in the US. This is once again based on observations of society. And nothing more ~!

I fully support the Fair Tax system (thanks, Mr. Boortz!).

See the whole problem is not that the poor are being kept poor, it's that political parties like the democrats are telling you "Awww you're poor, so you're screwed for life, please, suck on the govt. tits some more." That is wrong, what they should be telling you is "Yes you are poor, but this is STILL the land of opportunities, you just got to really want to make it."
If you open your eyes, though, you'll see that the Republicans are far, far more disgusting when it comes to welfare.
They take off the bra and offer the state's teat to the filthy, dirty RICH.
It's called corporate welfare and subsidation... and it does far more damage to the economy than social welfare. If you wanna get worked up about something, start there.

Lots of work available - and some jobs will give you side benefits like paying for school. Worked for me. For grown-up people with families, low incomes, low education and without some degree of parental support, which most students get even if only in the form of christmas presents, it often isn't enough. As I said again, it is insane that republicans continue to block efforts to make the minimum wage a living wage.

Also, I totally agree with the above post. If anyone needs to be "weaned off the government teat" it's big businesses.

Right now, most rich people pay NO income tax, or very little as a percentage of their wealth.

If you made people pay a consumption tax, the rich would be paying a lot more than they do now.

Get a damned job, then.

I probably shouldn't speak for him, (doubt he'll actually mind, but eh) but my understanding is that Pot's father is disabled and he is basically confined with him.

Things aren't always that simple.

Right now, most rich people pay NO income tax, or very little as a percentage of their wealth.

If you made people pay a consumption tax, the rich would be paying a lot more than they do now.

Or relocate overseas and purchase all of their assets there.

Or relocate overseas and purchase all of their assets there.
They can do that to evade any tax.

As for the Fair Tax Proposal...believe it or not, but serious Libertarians are against it.
http://www.mises.org/story/1975
Neu, please refrain from trying to tell us what "serious" libertarians are against. You're usually above that kind of grandstanding, dude, and I expect more from you. Mises himself isn't qualified to make such sensationalist statements, and he was a libertarian. :rolleyes:

And don't use the capital "l" unless you know when to use it. You don't.

Right now, most rich people pay NO income tax, or very little as a percentage of their wealth.

If you made people pay a consumption tax, the rich would be paying a lot more than they do now.
Yes, but the poor would still have an unfair burden. We should raise taxes for the rich, not make the poor pay the same amount in relation to what they earn.

Yes, but the poor would still have an unfair burden. We should raise taxes for the rich, not make the poor pay the same amount in relation to what they earn.

Well, you could make it simple - if you're poor (and I think we'd have to work out how to make that determination), you wouldn't have to pay.

Well, you could make it simple - if you're poor (and I think we'd have to work out how to make that determination), you wouldn't have to pay.
In the book he has a tax credit for needy families that based on economical status you get a check each month for the approxamate tax you would have to spend on basic needs of life like food, and clothing. So the poor in this country would only have to pay taxes if they buy things they don't need to survive.

They can do that to evade any tax.

Sure; but if, according to you, they're going to be paying a lot more tax...that heightens the desire to emigrate, no?

Or relocate overseas and purchase all of their assets there.
The prevailing thought is that the Fair Tax will turn the US into a tax haven. And it makes sense. There are no more corporate income taxes, no more payroll taxes paid by corporations, just retail sales taxes. This will be great for the economy, when it comes to bringing back business that has left for more favorable tax situations.

Yes, but the poor would still have an unfair burden. We should raise taxes for the rich, not make the poor pay the same amount in relation to what they earn.
The hallowed poor are going to get rebates every year for the amount of sales tax that they would pay. They will retain their status as non-productive leeches, even with tax reform.

This isn't hard to look up, people.

The prevailing thought is that the Fair Tax will turn the US into a tax haven. And it makes sense. There are no more corporate income taxes, no more payroll taxes paid by corporations, just retail sales taxes. This will be great for the economy, when it comes to bringing back business that has left for more favorable tax situations.

It may be a corporate tax haven, but...

Say a large proportion of American shareholders and investors move overseas, perhaps across the border to Canada. They retain their holdings in America and the profits they make out of these. However, all of their personal expenditure takes place in Canada, not the USA. As this becomes an increasing trend, the government is slowly bled out of their primary source of funding. How do you propose to prevent this?

It may be a corporate tax haven, but...

Say a large proportion of American shareholders and investors move overseas, perhaps across the border to Canada. They retain their holdings in America and the profits they make out of these. However, all of their personal expenditure takes place in Canada, not the USA. As this becomes an increasing trend, the government is slowly bled out of their primary source of funding. How do you propose to prevent this?
There's no reason to do this. They're not taxed on income, investments, or capital gains, so what is there to evade?

Try again.

This isn't hard to look up, people.
Are you really suprised, conversation considered, that they want someone else to do the work?

The hallowed poor are going to get rebates every year for the amount of sales tax that they would pay. They will retain their status as non-productive leeches, even with tax reform.

Okay, seriously, what do you have against the poor? There are a million factors that contribute to people being poor, many beyond their control. They are not "leeches", just as many are productive people as in any other tax bracket who are stuck in minimum wage jobs that don't pay enough for them to support their families. I suppose you can support your argument though, seeing as how you've personally investigated the lives of every poor person in this country, right? Vast generalizations are not the way to go in a productive debate.

Okay, seriously, what do you have against the poor? There are a million factors that contribute to people being poor, many beyond their control. They are not "leeches", just as many are productive people as in any other tax bracket who are stuck in minimum wage jobs that don't pay enough for them to support their families. I suppose you can support your argument though, seeing as how you've personally investigated the lives of every poor person in this country, right? Vast generalizations are not the way to go in a productive debate.

While there are some people who are stuck on welfare because of institutionalized indolence (and I've met many like this), there are those who would get off welfare if they could find "the right job".

Well, I hate to tell you this, but I ate peanut butter sandwiches (and went without food occasionally) and worked crap jobs 80 hours a week so I could pay to go to college - and I had to do most of it part-time, since I had to work to survive. I went out of my way not to get anyone pregnant so I could finish school. I've cleaned a burst septic tank's contents out of a basement with my hands for five bucks an hour.

I know a lot of people that won't take a job for 16 to 18 dollars an hour, because it's manual labor. They don't want to be seen working with the Salvadoreans who constitute the majority of the labor force in my area. Not that they're physically unable to do the work - they just want, and feel entitled to, a non-labor job that pays well.

I'm tired of people saying they want the government to cut them a break. I've heard it from the same people who screwed off in school and didn't graduate. I've heard it from the same people who got pregnant when they were 14.

Sure, I feel sorry for the people who can't control becoming disabled - or who have to support people like that - I can see helping them.

But I believe that the government should make it clear that when you intentionally do something to screw your chances, the responsibility should be yours alone to bear.

I think that if you're able-bodied, and the government is paying you, they should have the right to put you to work in any capacity they feel necessary - whether it's picking up road kill, helping out changing bed linen in hospitals, or being conscripted into the service. Since they're paying for your housing, they should be able to move you to any place in the entire country, wherever they think they can use your labor.

And for the people who really can't help themselves, by all means help them first.

Do people grow up in poor situations, yes. Do most of them stay there, yes. But a few people actually got off their asses and said "You know what, I can do better, I don't like living in a mass produced home (trailers), and I deserve better." See the whole problem is not that the poor are being kept poor, it's that political parties like the democrats are telling you "Awww you're poor, so you're screwed for life, please, suck on the govt. tits some more." That is wrong, what they should be telling you is "Yes you are poor, but this is STILL the land of opportunities, you just got to really want to make it."
For most people, I think you are correct, but some people simply don't have the ability to confom to the "make your own way" ethic. A bit of compassion goes a long way. No one's getting rich off the welfare system.

BTW ... I'm a disabled Vietnam veteran getting by on military retirement and Social Security.

Your point is unsubstantiated, but since you don't seem stupid, I'll make my own unsubstantiated points.

1. People don't quit buying during downturns in the economy. That doesn't mean that the revenue is going to be untouched, but revenues are reduced during any recession/depression. Tax and interest rate reductions are still possible for economic stimulation.

Yes, but recession/depression tends to set off a deflationary spiral:

a). You suffer from recession/depression, people spend less.

b). Due to falls in demand, prices are cut and workers laid off to reduce or avoid losses.

c). Unemployment goes up and people start saving even more.

d). Demand continues to fall.

e). The economy is screwed.

With reduced revenues, the government would be unable to fuel demand and maintain public services at the same time, leading to budget cuts that would further reduce demand and have dire consequences for the most vulnerable in society.

2. The total tax burden, i.e. income and payroll taxes, would be less than it is now, so there is still more disposable income to spend. The lowest income group would see an effective rate of about 11-12 percent after the rebates.

No, you would just have taxation on consumption which would result in the explosion of the black market as people tried to avoid paying Sales Taxes, leading to a further fall in revenue and thus resulting in the Sales Tax representing a fundamental inefficiency.

I think that if you're able-bodied, and the government is paying you, they should have the right to put you to work in any capacity they feel necessary - whether it's picking up road kill, helping out changing bed linen in hospitals, or being conscripted into the service. Since they're paying for your housing, they should be able to move you to any place in the entire country, wherever they think they can use your labor. Oh yes, by all means give the state the right to control you and even FORCIBLY CONSCRIPT you into the military. Let's see how many needy families sell their freedom for that kind of life, even if it would possibly make them better off...or being shot in some foreign country.

That idea goes against the tenents of the US.

Oh yes, by all means give the state the right to control you and even FORCIBLY CONSCRIPT you into the military. Let's see how many needy families sell their freedom for that kind of life, even if it would possibly make them better off...or being shot in some foreign country.

That idea goes against the tenents of the US.

If you do something to intentionally screw up your life, such as become a heroin addict, or have children before you can afford them, or screw off in school so you never end up being able to read and write, then the government, if it is expected to take care of you, should be able to use your labor if you are able-bodied.

Probably not a lot of military conscripts, because today's military requires people who can read and write, and who are motivated. But there are plenty of things we can have them do that involves simple manual labor.

Is there any reason why you can't have both? I mean in Australia we have both, NZ too. We just end up reaping some of the benefits and some of the drawbacks of both systems. These benefits and drawbacks can be gently tweaked through manipulating the balance between the two systems. Right now in Australia the highest tax bracket pays 47cents in the dollar to income tax, and the lowest pays 15. I pay 30. In addition, everyone pays 10% GST (goods and services tax, I beleive you americans call it VAT-not sure though) on practically everything you spend money on. I think it is a great system. Social services are great here. The poverty gap isn't too scary either. Everyone has a safety net if things don't go well for you, and action plans exist to prevent 'dole-bludging'.

Also, I see a lot of seemingly uninformed people slandering poor people for being poor/leeching of the welfare system. It really isn't that simple. I was 'poor', it wasn't fun, or easy. First of all there are a lot of perspective things, which I'm not even going to bother explaining (unless you want me to), which inhibit a poor individual's ability to recognise and take advantage of the oppurtunities which are there (and I do agree they are there, though). First of all, I'm not talking about leaving the security of home and then 'making it on your own' at uni, thats not hard. What is hard is when you start with nothing, and when your family has nothing to offer either. You don't have the money you saved before you left home, you don't have uncle jim's cheap-rent apartment, or aunt millicent's old furniture. You have nothing.

You start off with some heavy bonds to pay on rent and account establishment with bills, but you don't have a job. So you get the dole, eat cheap/sparingly for a couple of weeks and cover most of the costs before too many threatening letters arrive. During this time you look for a job.

Now you don't have nice clothes (or a washing machine), or the resources to make a decent resume, but hopefully you have an enthusiastic attitude and no major addictions (this is the step where many fail). You should be able to get a job within 2-3 weeks on this approach, though not a good one. Let's say you're washing dishes for minimum wage.

Now you have to buy furniture, and appliances, and food (which without the relative appliances to cook it yourself is very expensive). But you don't have any money yet, so you live sparingly and work hard (difficult to keep a motivated attitude though...) till you get your first paycheque, and spend it on some of the above items. Repeat this proccess for app. 2-3 months. Now you are all set to begin the scaling of the class ladder (if you made it to the bottom rung).

From here on in, it is easy to stay of welfare unless...you get injured/lose your job/fall sick in a serious way/get robbed/commit a crime-and get caught. Then you're back to sqaure one, on welfare again just barely covering expenses. Also rather stuffed in that you probably don't have insurance. Oh well, just keep trying eh?

It took me 1 year to establish myself financially independant enough to start uni. This was with a great govt. welfare safety nets, a high minimum wage and a supportive family/friend network. I can't even begin to imagine what it would have been like without welfare behind me (n.b. I didn't need to use it, but it was REALLY nice knowing it was there), with half the income, broken-family, 'bad-influence' friends, and after repeated failure in the past. Then there are things like a criminal record/jailtime, being part of a marginalised racial group, alcohol/gambling addictions, and so on which plaugue the 'lower classes'.

I definitely don't judge them for being the way that they are. I do want to help, though, and my taxes do just that. If for ever 10 bludgers, there was only 1 who made it out of the poverty cycle (and 100's who watched them do it), then it is worth it.

First of all, I'm not talking about leaving the security of home and then 'making it on your own' at uni, thats not hard. What is hard is when you start with nothing, and when your family has nothing to offer either. You don't have the money you saved before you left home, you don't have uncle jim's cheap-rent apartment, or aunt millicent's old furniture. You have nothing.

You start off with some heavy bonds to pay on rent and account establishment with bills, but you don't have a job. So you get the dole, eat cheap/sparingly for a couple of weeks and cover most of the costs before too many threatening letters arrive. During this time you look for a job.

I left my family and never looked back when I was 17.

Never any support from any of them - no money, no apartment, no old furniture, not even a change of clothes. And from that I made it at uni without a scholarship.

Never went on the dole, either. I remember sleeping in stairwells and eating out of trash bins at first.

Oh yes, by all means give the state the right to control you and even FORCIBLY CONSCRIPT you into the military. Let's see how many needy families sell their freedom for that kind of life, even if it would possibly make them better off...or being shot in some foreign country.

That idea goes against the tenents of the US.

It seems reasonable to allow the state (=fellow tax-paying citizens) some return for its expenses.

The extent of such control is debatable, just as the definition of poverty.

Depending on scale, the idea is all right.

Corporate welfare should be outlawed, btw.

1. This is a Capitalist society, and our economy is Capitalist, if you want a social state, go to Russia. Oh, sorry, their economy is in the toilet.


You need to learn more about the world. Nearly every other 1st world Country has a welfare system which the poor and unemployed can live off if there fired and so on. I have a friend here in Australia that gets $400 every two weeks to himself just for existing, that can even go up more if he needs money to pay rent and go to study.

It is like this in a lot of 1st World Countries with the exception of the USA and possibly a few others. The Australian government did a study many years ago finding that giving the poor money to live off and survive when there unemployed is good for the Economy because there using these’s funds for food bills and other things, it isn't being saved and found it actually boosted the national economy.

There's no reason to do this. They're not taxed on income, investments, or capital gains, so what is there to evade?

Try again.

That's exactly my point. They aren't taxed on any of those, making it the perfect place to establish a business.

The only tax they pay is sales tax- this is easily avoided by residing in another country and running their enterprises in the USA from there.

How do you stop this?

I have a friend here in Australia that gets $400 every two weeks to himself just for existing, that can even go up more if he needs money to pay rent and go to study.

Heh, that's just under what I earn.

The Australian government did a study many years ago finding that giving the poor money to live off and survive when there unemployed is good for the Economy because there using these’s funds for food bills and other things, it isn't being saved and found it actually boosted the national economy.

Sounds like it lowers productivity, and lowers the GDP to me.

Yes, but recession/depression tends to set off a deflationary spiral:

a). You suffer from recession/depression, people spend less.

b). Due to falls in demand, prices are cut and workers laid off to reduce or avoid losses.

c). Unemployment goes up and people start saving even more.

d). Demand continues to fall.

e). The economy is screwed.

With reduced revenues, the government would be unable to fuel demand and maintain public services at the same time, leading to budget cuts that would further reduce demand and have dire consequences for the most vulnerable in society.

Studies (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/stable_gov_rev.html), and I'll let you read the details, show that sales tax revenue is far more stable than income tax revenue. A graph illustrates the difference.
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/gfx/stab_image003.gif

The simplicity and efficiency of the sales tax caused its spread from its inception in 1932 in Mississippi, to forty-five states. Today, ninety-eight percent of the population is covered by state or—in Alaska—local sales taxes.[13] State governments have had more than sixty years of experience in the administration of the sales tax,[14] and for decades, it has provided a steady and reliable source of revenue to state and local governments. Using several different measures of variance, consumption was found to be a more stable source of revenue than the current tax base (taxable income).


No, you would just have taxation on consumption which would result in the explosion of the black market as people tried to avoid paying Sales Taxes, leading to a further fall in revenue and thus resulting in the Sales Tax representing a fundamental inefficiency.
You have the same problems with non-compliance in this system. But compliance costs will be much less, reducing the incentives to evade.

Sounds like it lowers productivity, and lowers the GDP to me.

How can id lower Productivity and the GDP if money is being spent on items in stores to purchase needed things to live with? If anything it increases the GDP because the money is being spent and not saved, so spending more money means a growth in Gross Domestic Produce because more produce is being purchased.....

That's exactly my point. They aren't taxed on any of those, making it the perfect place to establish a business.

The only tax they pay is sales tax- this is easily avoided by residing in another country and running their enterprises in the USA from there.

How do you stop this?
You've created a irrational argument. I don't see any basis for widespread migration based the lack of any taxes, other than sales.

How can id lower Productivity and the GDP if money is being spent on items in stores to purchase needed things to live with? If anything it increases the GDP because the money is being spent and not saved, so spending more money means a growth in Gross Domestic Produce because more produce is being purchased.....
Productivity is lower because fewer people are working. Which also lowers GDP, because less is produced on average per person.

I left my family and never looked back when I was 17.

Never any support from any of them - no money, no apartment, no old furniture, not even a change of clothes. And from that I made it at uni without a scholarship.

Never went on the dole, either. I remember sleeping in stairwells and eating out of trash bins at first.

Although you have endured all of this terrible hardship, it would seem to have been done out of inconcievable stubborness (congrats by the way, any man who will eat out of a trash can to prove a point is tops in my book) rather than a genuine inescapable need. I mean why eat out of a trash can when you can justifiably reap some of the rewards for the taxes you pay. That is, after all the reason why you pay them.
Also I was not intentionally taking a dig at you with the uni thing, you actually aren't too harsh on the genuine poor- more so on the lazy. I had to mention the uni thing to pre-empt a dozen posts from upper-middle class uni grads/students who would jump at a chance to tell the world how independant they are. The point I was illustrating is that there is more to being poor than just not having money and bludging off the welfare system. It is really easy to objectively judge such an intensely subjective situation.

One last time though; you Kim-chi were not the target, and I recognised already that your problem lie with the lazy. That is something I'm sure we could all agree on. Career bludgers and dole cheaters.I spent a little while doing some cash only orchard work, i was disgusted when the guys revealed their trick of doing cash work and claiming the dole, on the justification of "well, we might as well get our moneys worth from all tax we're gunna end up paying".

You've created a irrational argument. I don't see any basis for widespread migration based the lack of any taxes, other than sales.

My point is that they are not disadvantaged in any way by retaining their holdings in the USA, which they do not pay tax upon.

They also avoid the US "fair" sales tax if they live overseas.

Now, combine these two together. If they aren't paying tax on their business enterprises in the USA, and they aren't paying tax in their new country of residence, they are avoiding *any* sort of taxation. Seems like the sensible thing to do, no?

Productivity is lower because fewer people are working. Which also lowers GDP, because less is produced on average per person.

Well right now Australia is at a Historic low for unemployment, The people who are on the system in Australia are forced to go thought paper work after paper work when there on the system, and then they can be forced into working in the system for free in return for getting the money they do. Even if you are on the system you ether have to study or work within the system.

My point is that they are not disadvantaged in any way by retaining their holdings in the USA, which they do not pay tax upon.

They also avoid the US "fair" sales tax if they live overseas.

Now, combine these two together. If they aren't paying tax on their business enterprises in the USA, and they aren't paying tax in their new country of residence, they are avoiding *any* sort of taxation. Seems like the sensible thing to do, no?
I give. If the worst thing you can come up with against a retail sales tax is that some people might leave the US to avoid paying sales taxes, I'm not too worried about the plan.

Although you have endured all of this terrible hardship, it would seem to have been done out of inconcievable stubborness (congrats by the way, any man who will eat out of a trash can to prove a point is tops in my book) rather than a genuine inescapable need. I mean why eat out of a trash can when you can justifiably reap some of the rewards for the taxes you pay. That is, after all the reason why you pay them.
Also I was not intentionally taking a dig at you with the uni thing, you actually aren't too harsh on the genuine poor- more so on the lazy. I had to mention the uni thing to pre-empt a dozen posts from upper-middle class uni grads/students who would jump at a chance to tell the world how independant they are. The point I was illustrating is that there is more to being poor than just not having money and bludging off the welfare system. It is really easy to objectively judge such an intensely subjective situation.

One last time though; you Kim-chi were not the target, and I recognised already that your problem lie with the lazy. That is something I'm sure we could all agree on. Career bludgers and dole cheaters.I spent a little while doing some cash only orchard work, i was disgusted when the guys revealed their trick of doing cash work and claiming the dole, on the justification of "well, we might as well get our moneys worth from all tax we're gunna end up paying".


I know there are people who genuinely need the help. If you're mentally or physically disabled, then the government has to step in. I wouldn't even mind a government program to aid uni students (or trade school students) as long as they are progressing in school towards graduation.

But I think that the government should be able to ask for a committment in return if they aid uni students. And for people who are just lazy, the government should have the ability to control their lives.

I remember seeing dole cheaters when I was working a job stocking a store - they would come in on check day and fill their carts and spend more money in a day than I made in a few months.

I have to agree that there are people out there who have no idea how hard life can be - people who have never been hungry or homeless - but I think that each person in need must be examined on a case by case basis - and handled on a case by case basis.

Well right now Australia is at a Historic low for unemployment, The people who are on the system in Australia are forced to go thought paper work after paper work when there on the system, and then they can be forced into working in the system for free in return for getting the money they do. Even if you are on the system you ether have to study or work within the system.

For the plain unemployment dole, you actually have to provide signed proof from unsuccessful jobapplications you make, you need to meet a quota to receive the full dole. While it easy to forge, it is also VERY EASY to get busted.

I left my family and never looked back when I was 17.

Never any support from any of them - no money, no apartment, no old furniture, not even a change of clothes. And from that I made it at uni without a scholarship.

Never went on the dole, either. I remember sleeping in stairwells and eating out of trash bins at first.
[ cheers wildly for DK! ] Yayyy! You GO, dude! [ high fives ] I admire you, man ... really! :fluffle:

I give. If the worst thing you can come up with against a retail sales tax is that some people might leave the US to avoid paying sales taxes, I'm not too worried about the plan.

There are other effects related to that too.

In today's world, it's pretty easy to change your nation of residence (to another western country anyway....and even more so if you have the money). If they're going to be saving several million dollars, you bet they'll go for it. Most people in that position would.

The effect of this, if it catches on, is that there is going to be a lot less money injected into the US domestic economy. This is going to do some damage.

You think they won't leave? It almost happened here on a large scale. Why do you think you have Rupert Murdoch now?

You bring in a Sales tax sitting at around 15%; you have two income tax brackets, 10% on the first 60,000, and from 60,001 and above, 20% - the business tax rate would be pegged at a fixed 5%, no write downs or anything, just a flat 5% - you make 100,000 profit, you pay 5,000 in tax - its cheap, effective, compliancy costs would be VERY low.
I would make the national sales tax more like 5-10 percent and have a flat income tax of 25 percent. Business tax would be more like 10-15%.

As for state income taxes, I'd allow them to piggyback on the national income tax for no more than 5% of an individual's income. Welfare as a handout to people who don't want to do anything should be abolished, flat out.

I'd also favour private retirement accounts instead of social security, requiring people to devote a specific percentage of their income to such an account, which I'd have the government not take out until such time as the account bearer either retires or takes out money from that account, sort of like a certificate of deposit penalises for early withdrawal.

But I think that the government should be able to ask for a committment in return if they aid uni students. And for people who are just lazy, the government should have the ability to control their lives.

I think the uni students guarantee the comittment by the fact they are there. Here, uni students are essentially fronted most of the money (or all if you can prove you need it) by the govt on an interest free-loan, which they pay-off in tax once they hit a reasonable threshold yearly income (I think around $AUD30,00.00/year). I'm not so sure about the idea of a committment though, don't you think that would disencourage some from further study?

Definitely agree on the lazy thing though, but it is a hard thing to prove (actually, it is easy to prove, just expensive and time consuming). We have the set-up here wherein all long term dole receivers (3-6 months plus, depending) are eligible for 'work for the dole'. More than just the govt getting their monies worth, the program actually aims at qualifying and better preparing individuals for the 'real' workforce. Also it is focused on local community aged-care, environment, tourism, sport, and general maintance rather than cheap labour.

Perhaps if the govt were to develop a program where 'problem' dole bludgers where offered a paying job (which pays better than the dole itself) in the local council or with sponsored factories. This way, if they were to turn it down, they would no longer be eligible for the dole. If they take it, then great, they are finally contributing and, more importantly, paying tax!

For those who hate the tax system in the United States, please support the Fair Tax Program.

(snip)

What it basically does is, you're only taxed on what you buy. So for those of us who don't spend our money like drunken sailor, will actually make it out ahead of those who do.

The fact that spending on necessities constitutes a larger fraction of a poor person's income than that of a rich person is an interesting coincidence. So basically the 'FAIR' tax is regressive. It taxes me at a higher rate than it taxes Cheney and his fellow CEOs. Screw that. The use of the word fair in that proposal is very Orwellian.

I'm not on welfare, but it is nice to know its there if the crappy job at which I work my a$$ off for very little income were to evaporate.

There's no reason to do this. They're not taxed on income, investments, or capital gains, so what is there to evade?

Try again.

No. They live in Canada, or wherever, they buy their shit there. They make their money in America, and their business enjoys the benefits provided by the US government. They don't contribute to this country at all. They become perfect parasites.

I know the solution though. When the US government goes bankrupt, the rich can buy the country and come back. Then they still don't pay taxes and the rest of us pay them taxes. Yay! Be sure to go out and vote for this crap!

Fuck you you ungrateful fuck. :upyours:
Sweet...

So what what exactly was Potaria supposed to be grateful for? All the good things your willingly doing for him out of the kindness of your little heart.

Yeah, that has got to go down as my favorite smiley. Its like a blink tag on a pile of shit!:rolleyes:

Sweet...

So what what exactly was Potaria supposed to be grateful for? All the good things your willingly doing for him out of the kindness of your little heart.

Yeah, that has got to go down as my favorite smiley. Its like a blink tag on a pile of shit!:rolleyes:
Why do I think your name might be Doug...

It is the responsibility of any Government to Provide Basic Education and to Protect the Citizens of it's Country that is all.
An NRA platform I could support:

Abolish the military
Use some of the money saved to arm everybody
If someone tries to invade: hard cheese on them


Okay I wouldn't really support it. But it is self-consistent and kind of supportable.

Why do I think your name might be Doug...
It isn't, but I'm holding that to my heart as a real big compliment.:fluffle: I'm a fan of Doug and Penguins everywhere. :)

Well, I hate to tell you this, but I ate peanut butter sandwiches (and went without food occasionally) and worked crap jobs 80 hours a week so I could pay to go to college - and I had to do most of it part-time, since I had to work to survive.
I'm not endorsing welfare, but what is with the American right-wingers' obsession with pain and sacrifice? I'm sick of hearing these (possibly exaggerated) stories about how you people worked hard and ate tree bark to survive when you were young. Hell, you;re worse than the Catholic Church for glorifying pain.

I'm not endorsing welfare, but what is with the American right-wingers' obsession with pain and sacrifice? I'm sick of hearing these (possibly exaggerated) stories about how you people worked hard and ate tree bark to survive when you were young. Hell, you;re worse than the Catholic Church for glorifying pain.
I think you are mistaking masochism with independence. Yes, we are obsessed with self-sufficiency.

1: Russia is hardly a model Socialist state. Try the Scandinavian and lowland states. Their economies are pristine, and their social safety nets are unprecedented.

go there.

You accuse stone bridges of "whining" when that's all you've done. i am so sick of people complaining that welfare isn't adeuate. GET A JOB. that is how the system works. You make money - you have money. ta-daa

I personally do support flat taxes and cutting "progressive" programs. Even better, though, i think would be letting people decide where their tax dollas go to. That way, the people would have a much greater voice.

For example, i would send my taxes to the dep. of defense and the dep. of education. And that's it.

It would help allocate funds where citizens want them to go.

This is rediculous. If you truely believe that people are poor because their lasy and will become rich automatically if they work, here's a newsflash: If you want to truely give the poor a boost out of their current state, lobby your republicans to RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO A LIVABLE INCOME!.

By the way, no, Americans cannot donate enough to charity to replace welfare entirely. It has not happened in the modern world, and unless you had a very small poor population compared with the well off (in which case the government will likely be running an effective welfare program), it's not going to happen.

Even growing up as a upper-middle class kid in a good neighborhood of New York City, I can tell the poor are not a bunch of lazy bumbs. Please, go back and think about what your saying. Has it occured to you that a flat tax means everyone will pay the same amount, meaning a low tax would give too much to the already rich, while a high one would cripple the already poor?

I NEVER EVER said that the poor were lazy.

Do people grow up in poor situations, yes. Do most of them stay there, yes. But a few people actually got off their asses and said "You know what, I can do better, I don't like living in a mass produced home (trailers), and I deserve better." See the whole problem is not that the poor are being kept poor, it's that political parties like the democrats are telling you "Awww you're poor, so you're screwed for life, please, suck on the govt. tits some more." That is wrong, what they should be telling you is "Yes you are poor, but this is STILL the land of opportunities, you just got to really want to make it." The entire thread, you're basic tune is that many poor people are poor out of laziness.

Yes, but the poor would still have an unfair burden. We should raise taxes for the rich, not make the poor pay the same amount in relation to what they earn.

So I guess you want to PUNISH success? See this is what the current tax system does. Let's say I start out poor, but I break my back, make a few invesment in some small business, and then I make it! I make it to the top of one of those business. But now, I am required to pay a larger amount of my money to taxes just because I earn more? That doesn't seem fair to me either.

For most people, I think you are correct, but some people simply don't have the ability to confom to the "make your own way" ethic. A bit of compassion goes a long way. No one's getting rich off the welfare system.

BTW ... I'm a disabled Vietnam veteran getting by on military retirement and Social Security.

I actually met some welfare queen who have babies JUST for the fact of getting rich off of the Welfare system.

I actually met some welfare queen who have babies JUST for the fact of getting rich off of the Welfare system.
How did they get rich off welfare?

Trans-human']How did they get rich off welfare?

Apparently every baby that they pop out, the government sends them more money, also being a single mom apparently really helps too.

The entire thread, you're basic tune is that many poor people are poor out of laziness.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. What I'm trying to say is that these people CAN get out of the poverty. Is it going to be hard, yes. Will you have to make scracifice, yes. However, knowing that you're able to support yourself even on a low paying job, is a far better reward than living off of welfare. Do I think poor people possess the ability to move up, yes. Do some of them buy into the crap that they are poor forever, yes. Is it right that they are being told that, no. I'm not saying that their lazy, all I'm saying is that those who are complaining that Welfare isn't enough, or that you don't have enough money, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Don't wait for the government to step in, try to figure it out yourself.

Apparently every baby that they pop out, the government sends them more money, also being a single mom apparently really helps too.
But does the government give out enough money for mothers with kids to be considered rich? How much money do they receive?

I actually met some welfare queen who have babies JUST for the fact of getting rich off of the Welfare system.
I think it's been adequately demonstrated that these people are few and far between.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. What I'm trying to say is that these people CAN get out of the poverty. Is it going to be hard, yes. Will you have to make scracifice, yes. However, knowing that you're able to support yourself even on a low paying job, is a far better reward than living off of welfare. Do I think poor people possess the ability to move up, yes. Do some of them buy into the crap that they are poor forever, yes. Is it right that they are being told that, no. I'm not saying that their lazy, all I'm saying is that those who are complaining that Welfare isn't enough, or that you don't have enough money, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Don't wait for the government to step in, try to figure it out yourself.
Not everyone has either the will or sufficient understanding of how to do that.

Trans-human']But does the government give out enough money for mothers with kids to be considered rich? How much money do they receive?

I don't know the specifics, I only heard two of them boasting about how this will be the fifth time that she's pregent and she can't wait to screw over the US government again. This was at a grocery store too, real nice.

Not everyone has either the will or sufficient understanding of how to do that.

For the physically and mentally disabled, maybe not. But for those who are able to work, and refuse to, have no excuses.

So I guess you want to PUNISH success? See this is what the current tax system does. Let's say I start out poor, but I break my back, make a few invesment in some small business, and then I make it! I make it to the top of one of those business. But now, I am required to pay a larger amount of my money to taxes just because I earn more? That doesn't seem fair to me either. Please don't suggest everyone agrees with you.
Here's the thing: if you get rich, you are able to sustain a higher tax burden, which funds government programs, which help the poor get back on their feet. Most of them will never get to be millionaires. Taxes don't punish success, they moderate it with fairness to help others. Furthermore, if you think our system is currently making the RICH pay too much, you're looking at the wrong end of the income spectrum.
I also am not going to let that "welfare queen" argument fly. If you can come up with conclusive proof that is a widespread issue, fine. If you can only claim "I know some of them", I need something better.

For the physically and mentally disabled, maybe not. But for those who are able to work, and refuse to, have no excuses.
I strongly disagree. Poverty is very debilitating. It saps your will and destroys your self-confidence. It's been well-established that programs which help people the most are those which not only help them financially, but which help them learn how to work their way out. Many of those on welfare are single mothers, which is one hell of a position to be in. I suspect, although I have no way of knowing, that two of my own daughters would have disappeared from sight had their mother and I not helped them through their periods of single-motherhood.

Please don't suggest everyone agrees with you.
Here's the thing: if you get rich, you are able to sustain a higher tax burden, which funds government programs, which help the poor get back on their feet. Most of them will never get to be millionaires. Taxes don't punish success, they moderate it with fairness to help others. Furthermore, if you think our system is currently making the RICH pay too much, you're looking at the wrong end of the income spectrum.
I also am not going to let that "welfare queen" argument fly. If you can come up with conclusive proof that is a widespread issue, fine. If you can only claim "I know some of them", I need something better.

So I guess that why if I make moderate income, I pay like 30% of my income to taxes. Someone who is poorer than me will pay like 15% or 20%. Someone richer than me will pay like 40% or more. Are they able to sustain a higher tax burden, yes, but should they, no. I'll tell you why to. See, what you just describe with the "they modreate it with fairness to help other.", that is a socialist system! WE ARE NOT A SOCIALIST SYSTEM! We are a CAPITALIST society and economy! The fact that poor tend to pay less percentages of their income to taxes, well, they're the one paying less to taxes. Believe it or not, it's up to you. All I know is that more people abuse the system than use it properly.

For every 1 person using the welfare system correctly, there are 10, who abuse it.
That's pretty definitive. Have any references. Other than fox and cato.
My figuring is more or less the other way around. No references, but its as good as your statement.

Whether you like it or not, welfare has existed for decades. All Western countries have welfare programs. You claim it's wrong because it's not capatalist, but guess what? Most countries have some elements of other systems. We aren't honor bound to deny the poor aid because it's "socialist".

So I guess that why if I make moderate income, I pay like 30% of my income to taxes. Someone who is poorer than me will pay like 15% or 20%. Someone richer than me will pay like 40% or more. Are they able to sustain a higher tax burden, yes, but should they, no. I'll tell you why to. See, what you just describe with the "they modreate it with fairness to help other.", that is a socialist system! WE ARE NOT A SOCIALIST SYSTEM! We are a CAPITALIST society and economy! The fact that poor tend to pay less percentages of their income to taxes, well, they're the one paying less to taxes. Believe it or not, it's up to you. All I know is that more people abuse the system than use it properly.
Slight correction. The progressive income tax is Communist Manifesto material, not Socialist. But you're right about the tax on success. Why should it exist?

Well I dunno about you, but I am TIRED of 30% of MY paycheck, the money that I earned, go towards service that I don't chose. You haven't even looked at the website. The tax system is still there, but it get rids of the national income taxes. Instead it taxes the things that we buy (new only, not used stuff).

You might say that now, but when you are old and can't work you will love that little check from the govt that is available through those taxes.

You might say that now, but when you are old and can't work you will love that little check from the govt that is available through those taxes.
Most of us can see the future and save money to prepare. Why should I depend on the generosity of future generations when I can prepare myself for the future?

Everyone has lost sight of the original premise. That is that the Fair Tax, HB-25 is a superior taxation system, when compared to the present method of income taxation.

The retail sales tax, as proposed, will only replace the current system. There are no efforts at rearranging payments to pay poor less.

Is there any way to get back on track?

Most of us can see the future and save money to prepare. Why should I depend on the generosity of future generations when I can prepare myself for the future?
If you can save enough to preclude outside help, fantastic! Many people. though. simply cannot subsist off their savings for many years, especially if they take expensive prescription drugs. With Americans living longer, someone who is say, unable to work after 65, might be spending another 15 years living off their savings. Not everyone has enough saved for that long, whether through poor planning or simply an inadaquate income.

Still, again, I applaud people who are able to get along without government support, but many can't.:(

You might say that now, but when you are old and can't work you will love that little check from the govt that is available through those taxes.

Actually I save my own money through a 401K plan. I know I'm not getting anything back when I retire, and I don't plan on counting for those little government checks, I plan on counting on ME, MYSELF and I.

Whether you like it or not, welfare has existed for decades. All Western countries have welfare programs. You claim it's wrong because it's not capatalist, but guess what? Most countries have some elements of other systems. We aren't honor bound to deny the poor aid because it's "socialist".

Stop twisting my words, I'm not saying that the Welfare system is socialist, but the The progressive income tax is. It's the progressive income tax that is socialist.

It is the progressive income tax that makes welfare possible. You say the rich are more burdened, yet consider again the fact that a flat tax would but even more of a burden on the poor.

It is the progressive income tax that makes welfare possible.

And like I said in an earlier post, both the tax system and the welfare system need major overhauls.

Slight correction. The progressive income tax is Communist Manifesto material, not Socialist. But you're right about the tax on success. Why should it exist?

Progressive taxation is based of the law of diminishing utility. After a certain amount of money the utility gained per dollar decreases. So a flat tax even though it taxes an equal percentage of income it is regressive in percentage of utility taken. Flat taxes hurt the poor more.

Slight correction. The progressive income tax is Communist Manifesto material, not Socialist. But you're right about the tax on success. Why should it exist?

It shouldn't, actually I think that's part of the reason you don't see many success stories, I mean why succeed just to have your success taxed more than the average income.

Are you implying people choose not to be successful because of the higher taxes?

Well I dunno about you, but I am TIRED of 30% of MY paycheck, the money that I earned, go towards service that I don't chose. You haven't even looked at the website. The tax system is still there, but it get rids of the national income taxes. Instead it taxes the things that we buy (new only, not used stuff).

That's right! I deserve to be a callous bastard! I work for me and me alone, to hell with the rest of humanity, I want to buy a boat! Why do I need to worry about people outside my tribe? In the good old days we would just capture their warriors and eat their hearts! That's the way it needs to be again!

Don't they do that in Britain? I think it's a good idea, but the consumer still pays for it in the end.

Something that is usually lost in the typical Retail Sales Tax debate is the tremendous cost of compliance with the present tax code. Consider this from the fairtax.org FAQ.


It is estimated that Americans spend at least $250 billion a year to comply with the tax code – that’s $850 for every man, woman, and child in America. That is the cost of three Iraq wars. Billions of dollars in compliance costs are wasted each year, and we have nothing of value to show for this expenditure – not one single productive service or product is added to our nation’s wealth. It is estimated that the FairTax dramatically cuts such compliance costs, perhaps as much as 95 percent.


This is $250 billion dollars that the economy is going to gain on day 1. How can we pass up this opportunity? Here is a quarter trillion dollars that is wasted today, yet tomorrow could be put to constructive purposes.

You know, it might be better to find a third party study, seeing as how a site dedicated to that tax system would likely have pretty rosey numbers wouldn't it? My $00.02...

My $00.02...
I wouldn't give that much for your opinion. But I'm really trying to get this out of the welfare rut and back to the retail sales tax discussion.

But, since it's easy, how about this citation for the total costs of compliance:
"Compliance Cost of Alternative Tax Systems II," House Ways & Means Committee Testimony, Arthur P. Hall, the Tax Foundation, March 1996.

These numbers aren't coming out of thin air, unlike your arguments.

I wouldn't give that much for your opinion. But I'm really trying to get this out of the welfare rut and back to the retail sales tax discussion.

But, since it's easy, how about this citation for the total costs of compliance:
"Compliance Cost of Alternative Tax Systems II," House Ways & Means Committee Testimony, Arthur P. Hall, the Tax Foundation, March 1996.

These numbers aren't coming out of thin air, unlike your arguments.
Oooh, personal insults, real effective debating tactics. Ciao.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. What I'm trying to say is that these people CAN get out of the poverty. Is it going to be hard, yes. Will you have to make scracifice, yes. However, knowing that you're able to support yourself even on a low paying job, is a far better reward than living off of welfare. Do I think poor people possess the ability to move up, yes. Do some of them buy into the crap that they are poor forever, yes. Is it right that they are being told that, no. I'm not saying that their lazy, all I'm saying is that those who are complaining that Welfare isn't enough, or that you don't have enough money, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Don't wait for the government to step in, try to figure it out yourself.


Although I'm not on welfare, I've come very close over the years, and even now I consider myself fortunate to be making enough to start saving a little bit here and there. I have to say, I doubt you know anything about what it's like to be really poor. If we could go back in time, swap babies at the hospital and send you home to an urban ghetto, just how wonderfully would your life turn out? You'd be a little more tolerant of gov't help programs I bet.

It is the progressive income tax that makes welfare possible. You say the rich are more burdened, yet consider again the fact that a flat tax would but even more of a burden on the poor.

No. It would put an equal burden on all citizens. I really don;t see the reasoning behind the current "tax the rich because they can afford it" logic

Yes. They worked hard. they helped the economy by doing so. why should we punish them?

Oooh, personal insults, real effective debating tactics. Ciao.
Break my heart.

No. It would put an equal burden on all citizens. I really don;t see the reasoning behind the current "tax the rich because they can afford it" logic

Yes. They worked hard. they helped the economy by doing so. why should we punish them?
And yet the retail sales tax isn't a flat tax. Remarkably, it's progressive because the 'unfortunate' get rebates, bringing their rates down. Those who buy more still get the rebates, but they are a much smaller percentage of the sales taxes paid. That makes their effective rate higher. See, we can still have class envy.

I have to jump in here on this subject (though I openly admit that my understanding of economic and legal standings are limited). I state strictly My opinion on this matter:

I like this idea, personally, as I have read it. Being a single male, I'd get back something on the order of... (wait, let me double check this here) $180 monthly. Okay, that's my gas for the month (and that's actually more than my gas for the month, if I've done all of the math correctly), or my groceries for the month (Maybe a bit less than, as I like to eat, and I like to cook... for larger groups of people). So there's that. That'd help to a fair degree.

The "Voluntary" aspect: Here's how I see this. Yes, there are certain things you cannot buy "Used". Food, that's the biggest and more blaring example. But, who says you have to buy the best and brightest? Get the base ingredients of those dishes you like to eat, and learn to cook, for crying out loud! I can say with some degree of certainty that it'd cost you less to buy the ingredients and cook than it would be to get the premade stuff. Also, the "grocery store brands" tend to cost less than the "name brands", and the difference isn't that significant (okay, you caught me here, I have noted a few things where there was a BLARING difference).

That's what it comes down to. You decide how much you want to spend, therefore you "decide" how much tax goes into the coffers of the federal government. I like this idea. It seems more.... fair.... to me.

Again, this is strictly opinion. Thank you for your time. (It's a shame I went and turned my nation here into an example of everything I despise. I really should be a bit more careful when debating issues.)

Neu, please refrain from trying to tell us what "serious" libertarians are against. You're usually above that kind of grandstanding, dude, and I expect more from you. Mises himself isn't qualified to make such sensationalist statements, and he was a libertarian. :rolleyes:
The question is...why would libertarians support this sort of policy? It's still taxation, the total burden on the taxpayer would still be the same. Plus it will contain checks by the government on what households earn and spend, which is certainly against libertarian thinking.
And Mises didn't write that bit, it was just published on a website for people of his type, ie Austrian libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists.
Personally, I think that type is the only type of libertarian that has a leg to stand on, precisely because they shut themselves away from reason and instead argue along moral lines, which of course cannot be disproven.
CSE-type libertarians use economic theory...which clearly proves them wrong. They rely on a mechanism that doesn't exist in real life, the limitations of their models are covered in every first-year course, and yet they don't give up on them.
As for the Libertarian Party, well...their policies regarding civil liberties are good. Their economic case is full of holes, and will result in so much unrest in the population that their type of government would almost certainly either fall or eventually turn itself into some sort of military dictatorship just to stay in power.

And don't use the capital "l" unless you know when to use it. You don't.
English is still my second language, and sometimes I get the various rules confused.
Christians are spelled with a capital C, libertarians aren't. Unless of course they're from the libertarian party, which makes them Libertarians.

That's what it comes down to. You decide how much you want to spend, therefore you "decide" how much tax goes into the coffers of the federal government. I like this idea. It seems more.... fair.... to me.

Thing is - someone on a very low wage will have to spend their entire income each year - as the bill for food, clothing, fuel and so on and hence their entire income is subject to tax. They do not get to choose how much they spend as they have to spend it all to survive.
Then you have someone on a high income - they do not have to spend their entire income on surviving and hence can choose how much to spend after paying off rent/food/fuel and so on. They will pay a lower portion of their income in tax than a guy arning $5 an hour at maccas. Also beyond a point people will pay no additional tax - once you spend a certain amount there is not much more to spend. This means a billionaire will pay a very low portion of their income.

I really wonder what would happen to the US if the number of the poor in america dropped dramatically, thus tipping the balance in favour of the workers rathr than the employers. If the underclass in the US was half the size it is now the wages paid to it would double (at least) - this would make things a lot more expensive and many convinences that currently exist would vanish as they would be too expensive to keep up. really i think the US economy would buckle without a large underpaid labor force

The Robot Army']Although I'm not on welfare, I've come very close over the years, and even now I consider myself fortunate to be making enough to start saving a little bit here and there. I have to say, I doubt you know anything about what it's like to be really poor. If we could go back in time, swap babies at the hospital and send you home to an urban ghetto, just how wonderfully would your life turn out? You'd be a little more tolerant of gov't help programs I bet.

Nope, I still wouldn't count on the government to help me out. I would find myself a job, work hard at it, manage a budget, move up in the company, go to school part time, etc. The problem here is that people should not rely on the government as a first option. Reliance on the government should be a last resort thing.

I have to jump in here on this subject (though I openly admit that my understanding of economic and legal standings are limited). I state strictly My opinion on this matter:

I like this idea, personally, as I have read it. Being a single male, I'd get back something on the order of... (wait, let me double check this here) $180 monthly. Okay, that's my gas for the month (and that's actually more than my gas for the month, if I've done all of the math correctly), or my groceries for the month (Maybe a bit less than, as I like to eat, and I like to cook... for larger groups of people). So there's that. That'd help to a fair degree.

The "Voluntary" aspect: Here's how I see this. Yes, there are certain things you cannot buy "Used". Food, that's the biggest and more blaring example. But, who says you have to buy the best and brightest? Get the base ingredients of those dishes you like to eat, and learn to cook, for crying out loud! I can say with some degree of certainty that it'd cost you less to buy the ingredients and cook than it would be to get the premade stuff. Also, the "grocery store brands" tend to cost less than the "name brands", and the difference isn't that significant (okay, you caught me here, I have noted a few things where there was a BLARING difference).

That's what it comes down to. You decide how much you want to spend, therefore you "decide" how much tax goes into the coffers of the federal government. I like this idea. It seems more.... fair.... to me.

Again, this is strictly opinion. Thank you for your time. (It's a shame I went and turned my nation here into an example of everything I despise. I really should be a bit more careful when debating issues.)

THANK YOU! Finally common sense from ANOTHER single male! Yes I am single, I live alone and I support MYSELF. I want to buy you a beer!

I support that idea in theory. I think that it's unfair that American citizens have to pay for services they don't use (not to mention the fact that there isn't a flat income tax. Why should the rich have a higher tax rate than the poor? They earned their money the same way.)

However, such an idea is not feasible at this time. The American economy is rather fragile at the moment, and such an idea, unless slowly (and I mean SLOWLY) could screw up the economy and kick the US of A into one hell of a depression.

Nope, I still wouldn't count on the government to help me out. I would find myself a job, work hard at it, manage a budget, move up in the company, go to school part time, etc. The problem here is that people should not rely on the government as a first option. Reliance on the government should be a last resort thing.
And if one job isn't enough, you get roommates or a second job. Been there.

I support that idea in theory. I think that it's unfair that American citizens have to pay for services they don't use (not to mention the fact that there isn't a flat income tax. Why should the rich have a higher tax rate than the poor? They earned their money the same way.)

However, such an idea is not feasible at this time. The American economy is rather fragile at the moment, and such an idea, unless slowly (and I mean SLOWLY) could screw up the economy and kick the US of A into one hell of a depression.

Well it might not be fesiable if we try to impliment it in one day, but a gradual implimatation would work.

And if one job isn't enough, you get roommates or a second job. Been there.

Yep, see, there are litterly hundreds of way you can make it work without the government help. You just got to know what they are and how to access them.

Then how come, when my parents retire, they're not going to see a dime that they put into the Social Security system via taxes? Why should anyone have to pay into a system, that is going to give them little to no return? I mean I know that I'm not going to get anything out of the Welfare system when I tretire, that why I plan on having a 401K plan.

The Fair Tax program will hopefully cut down on government spending, make the government smaller, and forces people to not splurge all the time.

You know you have the option of not paying Social Security taxes?

You know you have the option of not paying Social Security taxes?

How do you do that?

It's a load of bullshit. Yeah, let's just forget about the people who actually need services provided by tax money.

the less socialism, the better. i've grown sick and tired at the attitude of some... that they are owed my hard-earned money. We should put the onus on getting people back to work so that they can

a)Be productive members of society
b)No longer depend on the work of others
c)Feel better about themselves given the accomplishment of earning one's own way in life.
d)Have more money to spend.. on.. beer. hehe

i have no problem, of course, with lending some of my tax dollars to help those who are mentally or physically disabled and cannot work... or someone who gets laid off and needs short-term help.

This tax would help our economy immensely because it simplifies the situation so much. Less money being wasted while still producing revenue along with the savings from a downsized tax infrastructure. Plus, it's a lot harder for people to evade paying it. I support it.

Did you know that US corporations pay a higher effective tax rate than Sweden because our tax code is so complex and uneven?

However, such an idea is not feasible at this time. The American economy is rather fragile at the moment, and such an idea, unless slowly (and I mean SLOWLY) could screw up the economy and kick the US of A into one hell of a depression.
Fragile? Every economic indicator charted is great! The only lagging indicators are the jerks on the TV news.

How do you do that?
You can be a Congressman or a Senator. That takes care of 535 of us.

How do you do that?

Easy ways, don't work and move to another country.

Hard and foolish way, repudiate your Social Security number in writing to the federal government.
You will then no longer have a Social Security number. Most if not all employers will not hire someone without a SS#, difficult if not imposible to get a drivers liscence without a SS#, no credit cards without SS#, more than likely will be on a shit list of the Fed and anything else that needing a social security number for. If you ever become disabled, no disability.

1130.3 Is an exemption available? (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.11/handbook-1130.html)
Ministers, members, or practitioners who are conscientiously opposed to, or because of religious principles are opposed to, the acceptance of benefits based on their earnings from these services may elect to be exempt from coverage by applying to IRS for an irrevocable exemption. (See §§1131 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.11/handbook-1131.html)-1132 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.11/handbook-1132.html).)

Ministers, members, or practitioners who are conscientiously opposed to, or because of religious principles are opposed to, the acceptance of benefits based on their earnings from these services may elect to be exempt from coverage by applying to IRS for an irrevocable exemption.
Hehe, I wonder how many people who usually rant on and on about SS would actually do that and risk having to live off charitable help if things went pear-shaped...

Wait, about the welfare thing, aren't the majority of people on welfare single mothers and children?

Wait, about the welfare thing, aren't the majority of people on welfare single mothers and children?

Prove it.

Prove it.

I can't prove it, but I've read statistics that indicated about one half of recipients of welfare are women with young kids...usually as a result of divorce. Half of those were back off welfare within 2 years.

For what it's worth to the discussion.

Prove it.
I'm not stating anything, I'm asking a question. I remember hearing it somewhere and I want to know if it's true.

Prove it.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

Otherwise, you can go through the relevant bureaus and find what you're looking for.
http://www.bls.gov/
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/tables.htm
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/govtsoclaw.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

Otherwise, you can go through the relevant bureaus and find what you're looking for.
http://www.bls.gov/
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/tables.htm
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/govtsoclaw.html

Only the first link actually have any revelency to the discussion, and it pretty much debunk the whole "mostly single mothers are on them."

Myth: People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time.

Fact: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.

For those who are actually intrested in the fair tax system, go to this link.

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#1

For those who hate the tax system in the United States, please support the Fair Tax Program.

www.fairtax.org

What it basically does is, you're only taxed on what you buy. So for those of us who don't spend our money like drunken sailor, will actually make it out ahead of those who do.
The US doesn't need a flat tax. Just cut defence spending in half and that would generate a savings of $250 BILLION or enough for $847 for EVERY man woman and child in the US.

Even with the whopping 50% cut, the US would still be spending 1/2 of what the rest of the entire world spends on defence.

The US doesn't need a flat tax. Just cut defence spending in half and that would generate a savings of $250 BILLION or enough for $847 for EVERY man woman and child in the US.

Even with the whopping 50% cut, the US would still be spending 1/2 of what the rest of the entire world spends on defence.

If you didn't notice, the US is the principal supplier of troops for peacekeeping operations and such. We'd be amenable to cutting defense spending if the rest of the free world picks up the slack.

1. This is a Capitalist society, and our economy is Capitalist, if you want a social state, go to Russia. Oh, sorry, their economy is in the toilet.

Ironically enough, the Russian Federation recently adopted a flat 17% income tax. Suddenly the wealthy had to pay for the money they made.

From my understanding, the problem with the system as is, aside from its complexity, is that there are too many loopholes throughwhich the wealthy can jump and not have to pay the government a dime. Which, of course, creates the brutal irony that Bush's tax cuts don't even help the wealthy.

The other part of the problem is a goodly number of people (especially in the South), live off of their welfare. They do nothing all day but drink cheap wines, sit on their porches, and watch the world go by while they wait for their next welfare check. I know of people who live off of their welfare checks and go skiing everyday. Now try telling me why I should continue in uni and get a good job, when I could live off of a welfare check?

Another way of looking at tax is as theft. Ergo, many people would ask themselves whether it's better than they have their pocket picked by someone's hands or by someone's politicians.

Perhaps they should make taxation voluntary. I mean, at the end of the day, if everyone who was against the war in Iraq could refuse to pay federal income tax to support a government with government policies that they don't approve of, either national debt would sky-rocket, or we'd pull out of Iraq PDQ.

The problem with letting people choose what they want their tax money to go to is 1. Many people would choose not to pay any taxes at all. 2. One department might get billions of dollars, while others may get zlitch. The current system is messed up, but at least with either a flat income tax or the FairTax program (taxing consumption), things will be simplier, and better for everyone.

The problem with letting people choose what they want their tax money to go to is 1. Many people would choose not to pay any taxes at all. 2. One department might get billions of dollars, while others may get zlitch. The current system is messed up, but at least with either a flat income tax or the FairTax program (taxing consumption), things will be simplier, and better for everyone.

And if people don't pay any taxes at all, the government would have to shrink and local governments would become more important. We would have a more agrarian society and the pleasant Chinese invention would be gone from American soil. (The "pleasant Chinese invention" referring to beaurocracy.)

In the end it means the government will have to market itself, rather like a business, only it sells a national army, an educational system, among others. And each department will have to market itself, as well. And, like a business, it will have to be careful to avoid irking any of its customers, instead of just pleasing 40%+ of them. The government might even get influxes of money from other nations (not likely, but hey, you never know. The government has given them billions, so they might show some gratitude). It also means the government will actually represent the people, instead of being a bunch of wealthy beaurocratic thieves.

If you didn't notice, the US is the principal supplier of troops for peacekeeping operations and such. We'd be amenable to cutting defense spending if the rest of the free world picks up the slack.
Well, no. Peacekeeping is actually pretty low on the US's agenda.

"Peacekeeping" is providing security for the local population (ie playing police) and helping with reconstruction.
The US is primarily engaged in fighting insurgent- and other groups. The only place where US Forces are actually doing peacekeeping is Iraq AFAIK, and not all of the troops either.

And as far as UN Peacekeeping missions are concerned, Wiki says the US accounts for a whopping 0.6% of total personnel involved. Although they pay 27% of the money.

That being said, yes, if the US was to stop waving the big stick, there would be a need for more multilateral cooperation to have a collective stick about the same size when it comes to dealing with issues like the Iranian Nuclear Program etc.
Which would be fine by me.

And if people don't pay any taxes at all, the government would have to shrink and local governments would become more important. We would have a more agrarian society and the pleasant Chinese invention would be gone from American soil. (The "pleasant Chinese invention" referring to beaurocracy.)

In the end it means the government will have to market itself, rather like a business, only it sells a national army, an educational system, among others. And each department will have to market itself, as well. And, like a business, it will have to be careful to avoid irking any of its customers, instead of just pleasing 40%+ of them. The government might even get influxes of money from other nations (not likely, but hey, you never know. The government has given them billions, so they might show some gratitude). It also means the government will actually represent the people, instead of being a bunch of wealthy beaurocratic thieves.


Hmm, that's a good way to look at it, but we all know the government would never allow us to choose what we want to pay on. Hell if I had the choice I would only send money to the education department, national defense, roads, and to aviation related taxs.

LOL! Dude, I'm not even going to report something this stupid. Wow.
What's stupid about what I said? You essentially said, "I'm taking your money and don't give a rat's ass what you think about it." This is not a good way for tax eaters to make peace with angry taxpayers.

This is rediculous. If you truely believe that people are poor because their lasy and will become rich automatically if they work, here's a newsflash: If you want to truely give the poor a boost out of their current state, lobby your republicans to RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO A LIVABLE INCOME!.
[/COLOR]How much is that exactly?

1: True. There are a lot more problems... Capitalist indoctrination being near the top.

2: Yeah, I know. But, for some people who actually can't work, it's their only income. And it isn't nearly enough.

3: There are more people in this country who care about the unfortunate than there are who don't. Good luck with that dream of yours.

Why, exactly CANT you work?

Yes, but recession/depression tends to set off a deflationary spiral:

a). You suffer from recession/depression, people spend less.Recessions are caused by the contraction of credit following a credit expansion. When they occur, they are necessary corrections. Although, they are avoidable so long as there is no inflationary credit expansion.


b). Due to falls in demand, prices are cut and workers laid off to reduce or avoid losses.This is a description of a recession.


c). Unemployment goes up and people start saving even more.

d). Demand continues to fall.

e). The economy is screwed.

With reduced revenues, the government would be unable to fuel demand and maintain public services at the same time, leading to budget cuts that would further reduce demand and have dire consequences for the most vulnerable in society.Unemployed people have no income to save.
Government does not fuel demand.
Budget cuts virtually never result from recessions, but they have the opposite effect on demand.



No, you would just have taxation on consumption which would result in the explosion of the black market as people tried to avoid paying Sales Taxes, leading to a further fall in revenue and thus resulting in the Sales Tax representing a fundamental inefficiency.
I tend to agree here until you use the word 'inefficiency'. What do you mean by it?

interesting way of addressing the issue of freeloaders.

Then how come, when my parents retire, they're not going to see a dime that they put into the Social Security system via taxes? Why should anyone have to pay into a system, that is going to give them little to no return? I mean I know that I'm not going to get anything out of the Welfare system when I tretire, that why I plan on having a 401K plan.

The Fair Tax program will hopefully cut down on government spending, make the government smaller, and forces people to not splurge all the time.

A little something called social justice.

For those who hate the tax system in the United States, please support the Fair Tax Program.

www.fairtax.org

What it basically does is, you're only taxed on what you buy. So for those of us who don't spend our money like drunken sailor, will actually make it out ahead of those who do.

The British government adopted a simmilar position in the 80's. Thatcher lowered general income tax and increased VAT. For a while this worked well but did lead to a very consumerist society, and the system did eventually crash