NationStates Jolt Archive

This is so galling that I almost considered bying a gun.

According to house speaker Dennis Hastert (if you say his name three times he comes to your house and eats you, according to Lovecraft) "...if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes... (http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={449BBE79-704A-423C-AF88-6D9DF9D989D8}&DE={7BDEAFD5-8743-421B-8F2F-656D7E768CE1})"

Wow! You mean I don't... Wait, my wife and I still pay taxes, and if it hadn't been for the interest on my student loans I would have owed more than was taken already.

Stupidity! And, what's worse, is that this guy is #3 in line, so we can't get rid of shrubby and prick without inflicting this guy on us. :(

Cue Bush apologists and Republican cheerleaders:

"Yeah, but Democrats misspeak too!"

I'm not sure about the 40K but it's not that far off. Between EIC and the CTC, you would get back most if not all that you paid in at that amount.

Cue Bush apologists and Republican cheerleaders:

"Yeah, but Democrats misspeak too!"
Considering the amount of stupidity that comes out of the Congress, you can actually tell the difference between Republican stupidity, and Democratic stupidity?

Or that it matters what they do in there?

The bureaucracy has a writ to do damned near anything they please, just by posting regulations in the name of vaguely written "Acts" - the Clean Air Act is a good, vague example.

If you want to see sloth, greed, and stupidity in action, I'll take you on a tour of the EPA building - and you'll see stupidity affecting people right now.

This is so galling that I almost considered bying a gun.

According to house speaker Dennis Hastert (if you say his name three times he comes to your house and eats you, according to Lovecraft) "...if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes... (http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={449BBE79-704A-423C-AF88-6D9DF9D989D8}&DE={7BDEAFD5-8743-421B-8F2F-656D7E768CE1})"

Wow! You mean I don't... Wait, my wife and I still pay taxes, and if it hadn't been for the interest on my student loans I would have owed more than was taken already.

Stupidity! And, what's worse, is that this guy is #3 in line, so we can't get rid of shrubby and prick without inflicting this guy on us. :(

It seems quite evident to me that when he said "you dont pay any taxes" he was speaking in realitive terms. A family of 4 on 40k a year essentially pays no taxes when compared to higher tax brackets... Which is why such families can expect a farily small tax break (because they pay almost nothing to begin with). Let us not forget 60% of the nations taxes are paid by the top 20% wealthiest households.

To harp on the specifics of his words, when the point was so dreadfuly clear seems rather childish to me, and apparent Democrats are scrounging for what little ammunition they can get... Perhaps democrats should spend less time scruitizing the republicans every word, and start comming up with some policy positions on healthcare, taxes, and government spending (rather then their current position of "Republicans are wrong")

Hence the age old truth,
Republicans are the party of Bad Ideas,
and the Democrats the party of No Ideas...

It seems quite evident to me that when he said "you dont pay any taxes" he was speaking in realitive terms. A family of 4 on 40k a year essentially pays no taxes when compared to higher tax brackets... Which is why such families can expect a farily small tax break (because they pay almost nothing to begin with). Let us not forget 60% of the nations taxes are paid by the top 20% wealthiest households.

To harp on the specifics of his words, when the point was so dreadfuly clear seems rather childish to me, and apparent Democrats are scrounging for what little ammunition they can get... Perhaps democrats should spend less time scruitizing the republicans every word, and start comming up with some policy positions on healthcare, taxes, and government spending (rather then their current position of "Republicans are wrong")

Hence the age old truth,
Republicans are the party of Bad Ideas,
and the Democrats the party of No Ideas...


What's the problem with actually saying what you mean? If that was supposed to be a metaphor, it was a really bad one. He's a grown ass man, and should have enough snese to know not to "speak figuatively" on things such as this, if in fact he was, as you are seeming to claim. Personally I don't believe you.

If you make 40K/yr and are married with 2 kids, you would probably get all that income tax back, wouldnt you?

Either way, youre still paying sales/property tax (if you own), so he is being an idiot :p

This is so galling that I almost considered bying a gun.

According to house speaker Dennis Hastert (if you say his name three times he comes to your house and eats you, according to Lovecraft) "...if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes... (http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={449BBE79-704A-423C-AF88-6D9DF9D989D8}&DE={7BDEAFD5-8743-421B-8F2F-656D7E768CE1})"

Wow! You mean I don't... Wait, my wife and I still pay taxes, and if it hadn't been for the interest on my student loans I would have owed more than was taken already.

Stupidity! And, what's worse, is that this guy is #3 in line, so we can't get rid of shrubby and prick without inflicting this guy on us. :(
so whats really bugging you about this?

the part where when he said "family of 2" he meant a family of 4 with a husband wife and 2 children under 17?

the part where you need to have a bit more money taken out of your paycheck so you dont have to pay more income tax? (not that i recommend that as long as you have enough money to cover what you need to pay in addition to what's taken out)

the part where EVERYONE pays taxes even if they dont end up paying income tax? it bugs me to no end when they conveniently forget SS taxes, gas tax, phone tax, myriad fees and licenses, etc.

It seems quite evident to me that when he said "you dont pay any taxes" he was speaking in realitive terms. A family of 4 on 40k a year essentially pays no taxes when compared to higher tax brackets... Which is why such families can expect a farily small tax break (because they pay almost nothing to begin with). Let us not forget 60% of the nations taxes are paid by the top 20% wealthiest households.

To harp on the specifics of his words, when the point was so dreadfuly clear seems rather childish to me, and apparent Democrats are scrounging for what little ammunition they can get... Perhaps democrats should spend less time scruitizing the republicans every word, and start comming up with some policy positions on healthcare, taxes, and government spending (rather then their current position of "Republicans are wrong")

Hence the age old truth,
Republicans are the party of Bad Ideas,
and the Democrats the party of No Ideas...

Apparently someone's never heard of the "payroll tax". Since that tax is capped at the first $90,000 in income, by proportion of income someone with $40,000 per year not only pays taxes (put altogether, he'd probably pay around $8,000 a year, in fact), but pays them at a far higher proportional rate than does someone who makes $400,000 per year.

If you make 40K/yr and are married with 2 kids, you would probably get all that income tax back, wouldnt you?

Either way, youre still paying sales/property tax (if you own), so he is being an idiot :p
And don't forget the big ones. Payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare take about 11 percent of one's gross pay. We never get that back.

Apparently someone's never heard of the "payroll tax". Since that tax is capped at the first $90,000 in income, by proportion of income someone with $40,000 per year not only pays taxes (put altogether, he'd probably pay around $8,000 a year, in fact), but pays them at a far higher proportional rate than does someone who makes $400,000 per year.
Do Congressmen pay into Social Security? I don't think so. Just another measure of how out of touch these guys are. Time to throw them all out.

Do Congressmen pay into Social Security? I don't think so. Just another measure of how out of touch these guys are. Time to throw them all out.
Actually, they do (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp), though they didn't always.

Apparently someone's never heard of the "payroll tax". Since that tax is capped at the first $90,000 in income, by proportion of income someone with $40,000 per year not only pays taxes (put altogether, he'd probably pay around $8,000 a year, in fact), but pays them at a far higher proportional rate than does someone who makes $400,000 per year.

really... doesn't an individual making 40k a year fall into the 25% tax bracket ? mean while those ppl making above 90k are upwards of 32% ? while the percentages maybe off cause i dont really feel like looking them up right now, i fail to see how someone in a lower tax bracket is paying a higher proportional rate then someone in a higher tax bracket >.>.

Besides, we arn't talking individuals here but families... there are (flat) deductions per child and marrage etc etc... so at the end of the day, the person in the lower tax bracket really is paying next to nothing (in income tax) compared to someone making 400k+

Edit: actually after reading yourpost again, i think you wholey misunderstand the meaning of the tax cap... its not caped upto the first 90k but after it... meaning everyone 90k and above pay the same % in taxes... while everyone below it pays proportionally less.... (the exact opposite of what you said ~_^)

Do Congressmen pay into Social Security? I don't think so. Just another measure of how out of touch these guys are. Time to throw them all out.

It's bad, but its small potatoes compared to some of the real problems. I don't mind paying payroll taxes, but its the fact that the tax code has been increasingly shifted onto the shoulders of the middle and working classes while the wealthy get more and more loopholes in the tax code that chaps my ass. There's also the fact that payroll taxes were hiked back in the 80's for the express purpose of paying down the debt and building up the Social Security reserves, only for us to blow it on giveaways to those who don't need them.

What's idocy ?

really... doesn't an individual making 40k a year fall into the 25% tax bracket ? mean while those ppl making above 90k are upwards of 32% ? while the percentages maybe off cause i dont really feel like looking them up right now, i fail to see how someone in a lower tax bracket is paying a higher proportional rate then someone in a higher tax bracket >.>.

Besides, we arn't talking individuals here but families... there are (flat) deductions per child and marrage etc etc... so at the end of the day, the person in the lower tax bracket really is paying next to nothing (in income tax) compared to someone making 400k+

People making upwards of $90,000 can afford accountants to exploit loopholes in the income tax code that people who make $90,000 or more per year have instructed their legislators to put into said tax code. Moreover, you are ignoring the fact that the income tax is only one of several ways that the federal government taxes. Most of the ways that impacted the rich primarily, such as capital gains and inheritance taxes, have been slashed or abolished. By contrast, regressive payroll taxes have gone up, not down, in the last 25 years. As a consequence, our tax program taken as a whole is effectively a flat tax already, albeit one with a dropoff at the high end: Americans who made $100-200,000 in income in 2002 paid a higher share of their income in payroll and income taxes than those making $10,000,000 or more.

It's bad, but its small potatoes compared to some of the real problems. I don't mind paying payroll taxes, but its the fact that the tax code has been increasingly shifted onto the shoulders of the middle and working classes while the wealthy get more and more loopholes in the tax code that chaps my ass. There's also the fact that payroll taxes were hiked back in the 80's for the express purpose of paying down the debt and building up the Social Security reserves, only for us to blow it on giveaways to those who don't need them.

Seeing how the burden of taxation is disproportionatly on the shoulders of the wealthy to begin with (in a system which is suppose to be supporting equality) i fail to see why your crying so much... As well, those "hand outs" as you call them are what essentially saved the economy from a prolonged recession (according to the FEderal Reserve and most economists) and are what helped create the rather robust economy we have now... And as far as i see it, tax cuts came proportional to the manner in which they were collected... where is the unfairness again? (unless unfair is when people are treated equally rather then using classism)

Actually, they do (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp), though they didn't always.
I do remember reading that once upon a time. From what I read, it appears that they may as well not pay Social Security, though. It covers about 1/5 of their typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

... Americans who made $100-200,000 in income in 2002 paid a higher share of their income in payroll and income taxes than those making $10,000,000 or more.
And that doesn't bother me a bit. There needs to be a limit on what one person is expected to pay for government.

People making upwards of $90,000 can afford accountants to exploit loopholes in the income tax code that people who make $90,000 or more per year have instructed their legislators to put into said tax code. Moreover, you are ignoring the fact that the income tax is only one of several ways that the federal government taxes. Most of the ways that impacted the rich primarily, such as capital gains and inheritance taxes, have been slashed or abolished. By contrast, regressive payroll taxes have gone up, not down, in the last 25 years. As a consequence, our tax program taken as a whole is effectively a flat tax already, albeit one with a dropoff at the high end: Americans who made $100-200,000 in income in 2002 paid a higher share of their income in payroll and income taxes than those making $10,000,000 or more.

if you go to H&R Block, for 80 bucks you can take advantages of many of those same loopholes.... And given that 60% or more of the nations population hold stocks, bonds and other varities of investments (esp after the housing boom) I would think the reduction in capital gains and inheritance taxes actually benifit the middle class as well. Of course not to the lvl of the upper class, but then we just dont have the same lvl of assets as they do.

And of course ppl making 100k compared to 10mil wil show more disparity, because they are both traped in the capped tax bracket (which has nothing to do with you and me who are in the lower tax bracket enjoying a far lower proprotional tax burden) somehow, though, you'll be hard pressed to find me crying for the ppl making 100k that they can't take advantage of the same tax loopholes as though earning 10mil and more. (maybe this is where your interest lies but im more focused on the middle class)

Seeing how the burden of taxation is disproportionatly on the shoulders of the wealthy to begin with (in a system which is suppose to be supporting equality) i fail to see why your crying so much... As well, those "hand outs" as you call them are what essentially saved the economy from a prolonged recession (according to the FEderal Reserve and most economists) and are what helped create the rather robust economy we have now... And as far as i see it, tax cuts came proportional to the manner in which they were collected... where is the unfairness again? (unless unfair is when people are treated equally rather then using classism)

Are you proposing to abolish all taxes with the except of a Head Tax (you are taxed X dollars for being a citizen. Exactly the same, no matter how much money you make. EX: If it was $1000 then a person making $1 million/year would pay $1000 and a person making $10K per year would pay $1000)? That's what most economists would say is best for the economy and clearly treats everyone "equally" as you say.

If you make 40K/yr and are married with 2 kids, you would probably get all that income tax back, wouldnt you?

Either way, youre still paying sales/property tax (if you own), so he is being an idiot :p
lol, thats local and states taxes, the feds don't have control over what your city board tax you for.

Are you proposing to abolish all taxes with the except of a Head Tax (you are taxed X dollars for being a citizen. Exactly the same, no matter how much money you make. EX: If it was $1000 then a person making $1 million/year would pay $1000 and a person making $10K per year would pay $1000)? That's what most economists would say is best for the economy and clearly treats everyone "equally" as you say.
hes not saying that! he is saying that people are wineing because the rich are not taxed into poverty, and have no right to when they are paying a large share of the burrden.

What's idocy ?

The Republican budget policy it appears.

Seeing how the burden of taxation is disproportionatly on the shoulders of the wealthy to begin with (in a system which is suppose to be supporting equality) i fail to see why your crying so much... As well, those "hand outs" as you call them are what essentially saved the economy from a prolonged recession (according to the FEderal Reserve and most economists) and are what helped create the rather robust economy we have now... And as far as i see it, tax cuts came proportional to the manner in which they were collected... where is the unfairness again? (unless unfair is when people are treated equally rather then using classism)

Saved the economy from what? Restructuring was necessary in the 1970's because American companies suddenly had to compete with cheap, subsidized imports from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. It is absurd, however, to suggest that by ceasing investment in poor workers and investing more in the already most highly-equipped sector of society that we are somehow making ourselves more efficient.

To put it bluntly, trickle-down economics is a myth, not a description of reality, and equally mythical is the belief that shifting money to the already-wealthy is the best way to improve economic efficiency. The fact that trickle-down economics does not, in fact, trickle down is indisputable: economic productivity in the 90's surged by better than 50%, but wages for the median wage-earner barely ticked above 5% over the same period.

The fact that shifting money to the wealthy not being the best way to improve economic efficiency ought to be equally apparent: the single best way to increase productivity in the long term is investment in human capital, by increasing the training of workers and increasing their flexibility from job to job. That is, in fact, why legislative acts like the G.I. Bill and Education Act of 1965 were so successful. But because we have simultaneously slashed aid to the economically disadvantaged in this country while at the same time shifting the tax burden onto the shoulders of the economically disadvantaged, we have in fact excluded a huge amount of qualified people from getting access to those human capital investments. That's why gaps in college enrollment by class and race now as wide as they were 30 years ago. It's also why in 2001, 410,000 college-qualified students were forced to enroll in community college programs rather than full universities and another 168,000 people didn't enroll at all. That doesn't increase worker's productivity, flexibility, or capability. In fact, it stymies it.

Are you proposing to abolish all taxes with the except of a Head Tax (you are taxed X dollars for being a citizen. Exactly the same, no matter how much money you make. EX: If it was $1000 then a person making $1 million/year would pay $1000 and a person making $10K per year would pay $1000)? That's what most economists would say is best for the economy and clearly treats everyone "equally" as you say.

No, i wouldn't be running to this idea either, as the impoverished surely would suffer disproportionatly under such a system, but im not so sure I like the idea of income tax to begin with. I lean more towards a consumption tax which promots national saving and economic growth, as well as being simpler..
http://tax.aicpa.org/Resources/Tax+Advocacy+for+Members/Tax+Legislation+and+Policy/Understanding+Tax+Reform+A+Guide+to+21st+Century+Alternatives.htm

To put it bluntly, trickle-down economics is a myth, not a description of reality, and equally mythical is the belief that shifting money to the already-wealthy is the best way to improve economic efficiency. The fact that trickle-down economics does not, in fact, trickle down is indisputable: economic productivity in the 90's surged by better than 50%, but wages for the median wage-earner barely ticked above 5% over the same period.
Tell me how tax refunds are trickle down economics, it dosn't give grants to the rich it gives money back to the average citizen.

No, i wouldn't be running to this idea either, as the impoverished surely would suffer disproportionatly under such a system, but im not so sure I like the idea of income tax to begin with. I lean more towards a consumption tax which promots national saving and economic growth, as well as being simpler..
http://tax.aicpa.org/Resources/Tax+Advocacy+for+Members/Tax+Legislation+and+Policy/Understanding+Tax+Reform+A+Guide+to+21st+Century+Alternatives.htm
So you support the fair tax plan.

Saved the economy from what? Restructuring was necessary in the 1970's because American companies suddenly had to compete with cheap, subsidized imports from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. It is absurd, however, to suggest that by ceasing investment in poor workers and investing more in the already most highly-equipped sector of society that we are somehow making ourselves more efficient.

To put it bluntly, trickle-down economics is a myth, not a description of reality, and equally mythical is the belief that shifting money to the already-wealthy is the best way to improve economic efficiency. The fact that trickle-down economics does not, in fact, trickle down is indisputable: economic productivity in the 90's surged by better than 50%, but wages for the median wage-earner barely ticked above 5% over the same period.

The fact that shifting money to the wealthy not being the best way to improve economic efficiency ought to be equally apparent: the single best way to increase productivity in the long term is investment in human capital, by increasing the training of workers and increasing their flexibility from job to job. That is, in fact, why legislative acts like the G.I. Bill and Education Act of 1965 were so successful. But because we have simultaneously slashed aid to the economically disadvantaged in this country while at the same time shifting the tax burden onto the shoulders of the economically disadvantaged, we have in fact excluded a huge amount of qualified people from getting access to those human capital investments. That's why gaps in college enrollment by class and race now as wide as they were 30 years ago. It's also why in 2001, 410,000 college-qualified students were forced to enroll in community college programs rather than full universities and another 168,000 people didn't enroll at all. That doesn't increase worker's productivity, flexibility, or capability. In fact, it stymies it.

While all this is well and good, the fact that tax reductions post 2001 helped keep money in peoples pockets and left consumer confidence high enough to prop up the economy while corporate america lagged far behind is an undisputable fact. It was the tax deductions (again according to economists) which brought the economy out of the recession. Whether or not you belive trickle down is a description of reality or not has little baring on the facts at hand. Tax cuts came proprotional to the manner in which they were collected, and the economy has risen from a recession to levels not seen since 2000 (with unemployment at 4.5% (essentally full employment) and the stockmarket just off historic highs)

I also imagine students not being able to afford univeristies had something to do with the fact that in 2001 the economy was in a recession (again something tax reductions helped minimize)

No, i wouldn't be running to this idea either, as the impoverished surely would suffer disproportionatly under such a system, but im not so sure I like the idea of income tax to begin with. I lean more towards a consumption tax which promots national saving and economic growth, as well as being simpler..
http://tax.aicpa.org/Resources/Tax+Advocacy+for+Members/Tax+Legislation+and+Policy/Understanding+Tax+Reform+A+Guide+to+21st+Century+Alternatives.htm

A comsumption tax would put a ridiculously high proportion of the burden on low wage earning households. When you have to use 90% of your income just to be able to eat, have shelter, and other necessities of life, you are being taxed for 90% of your income. When you can use a mere 10% or whatever of your income on that you are only taxed for 10% of your income. On top of being able to use the other 90% to make even more income (and that will not be taxed either).
Hmm, "fair" indeed.

A comsumption tax would put a ridiculously high proportion of the burden on low wage earning households. When you have to use 90% of your income just to be able to eat, have shelter, and other necessities of life, you are being taxed for 90% of your income. When you can use a mere 10% or whatever of your income on that you are only taxed for 10% of your income. On top of being able to use the other 90% to make even more income (and that will not be taxed either).
Hmm, "fair" indeed.
Not if it's done right. A rebate for basic subsistence items is a necessity. And it's included in the Fair Tax plan.

So you support the fair tax plan.

correct.. a progressive consumption tax system seems to be the fairest !

A comsumption tax would put a ridiculously high proportion of the burden on low wage earning households. When you have to use 90% of your income just to be able to eat, have shelter, and other necessities of life, you are being taxed for 90% of your income. When you can use a mere 10% or whatever of your income on that you are only taxed for 10% of your income. On top of being able to use the other 90% to make even more income (and that will not be taxed either).
Hmm, "fair" indeed.

Those in terms of a traditional consumption plan.. however more progressive plans would make incomes of 25k or lower tax exempt (much as they are today with payroll and income taxes) and then it would promot more savings for middle class families (an essential component especial when the national savings rate diped into negative territory last year)

if you go to H&R Block, for 80 bucks you can take advantages of many of those same loopholes.... And given that 60% or more of the nations population hold stocks, bonds and other varities of investments (esp after the housing boom) I would think the reduction in capital gains and inheritance taxes actually benifit the middle class as well. Of course not to the lvl of the upper class, but then we just dont have the same lvl of assets as they do.

And of course ppl making 100k compared to 10mil wil show more disparity, because they are both traped in the capped tax bracket (which has nothing to do with you and me who are in the lower tax bracket enjoying a far lower proprotional tax burden) somehow, though, you'll be hard pressed to find me crying for the ppl making 100k that they can't take advantage of the same tax loopholes as though earning 10mil and more. (maybe this is where your interest lies but im more focused on the middle class)

If I go to H&R Block and shell out $80, I have to not eat for a week or two to cover it, and for no gain. I paid no income taxes last year, because I'm a college student. I did, however, pay payroll taxes that amounted to about 20% of my total income at my job.

That is beside the point, however, because you don't seem to understand 1) what degree the tax system you are proposing is best known as "class warfare", and 2) how dangerous such a system of class warfare is to the state of the republic.

60% of the nation owns stock, but that is by and large irrelevant. What really matters is the fact that only 12.4% of households in the bottom quintile of income own any stock at all, compared to 90% of households in the top quintile; furthermore, actual holding in wealth are heavily concentrated at the top. The top 10% of the country owns 77% of all stock. Therefore, higher stock prices may benefit a few small fry at the bottom, providing a pittance in increased wealth. At the top, however, it has exploded the wealth holdings in the U.S. As a result, the top 1% of the country owns 33% of the wealth, the next 4% own another 26% of the wealth, and the next 5% own another 12%, meaning that in total, the top 10% of the population in this country owns a whopping 71% of the wealth in this nation. The 95-99th percentile in wealth owns only slightly less of the total wealth in this country than the bottom 80%. In the meantime, the bottom 18% has no or negative wealth, meaning that they owe more than they own. The next 22% has a positive value, but own only .3% of the total wealth in this nation. That alone should tell you that something is rotton in the state of America, because that's the kind of wealth distribution that I would associate with a banana republic or a feudal state, not a capitalist democracy.

What's more, this unequal distribution is fundamentally and inherently dangerous to the well-being of any well-ordered society, because it undermines the whole concept of a society. A society only exists when people group together for common gain and have a common outlook on what constitutes "common gain". As you can see from the statistics, however, one group is gaining while the others are not. Moreover, this increasing stratification creates radically diverging outlooks on what "common gain" is. By undermining this common outlook, you undermine the cohesion and the sense of "we're all in this together" that makes society work in the first place.

Those in terms of a traditional consumption plan.. however more progressive plans would make incomes of 25k or lower tax exempt (much as they are today with payroll and income taxes) and then it would promot more savings for middle class families (an essential component especial when the national savings rate diped into negative territory last year)

How exactly does this plan work? I assumed your consumption tax would be in the form of sales tax, as that is a pretty good way to know what you bought. If you have a different way to figure out consumption, I'd love to see it.
If it is a sales tax as I assumed, would you have to have some type of proof of income to not have to pay it?

While all this is well and good, the fact that tax reductions post 2001 helped keep money in peoples pockets and left consumer confidence high enough to prop up the economy while corporate america lagged far behind is an undisputable fact. It was the tax deductions (again according to economists) which brought the economy out of the recession. Whether or not you belive trickle down is a description of reality or not has little baring on the facts at hand. Tax cuts came proprotional to the manner in which they were collected, and the economy has risen from a recession to levels not seen since 2000 (with unemployment at 4.5% (essentally full employment) and the stockmarket just off historic highs)

I also imagine students not being able to afford univeristies had something to do with the fact that in 2001 the economy was in a recession (again something tax reductions helped minimize)

That is what we in technical parlance call a load of horsecrap. The very fact that the intended purpose of the tax cut kept shifting (first, it was we need tax cuts because our economy is doing great, then it was because we need tax cuts because the economy is doing poorly, and only in retrospect did they become necessary because they helped buoy a sinking economy during a recession) ought to have given us pause. The fact that afterwards, when the value of the tax cut declined from "It will bring our economy back to the Clinton years of prosperity" to the much-lesser "It helped our economy tread water during the recession", as well as the fact that investment after the end of the recession and increased unemployment currently lags behind every other recovery since the Great Depression ought to put that to the lie. The unemployment statistics you cite are belied by the fact that they are high (the actual unemployment rate is 5.0%), and the fact that the unemployment rate doesn't count the thousands of people who have not only lost their jobs but have also stopped looking for them. Even further, the fact that the average value of a Bush recovery job pays $9,000 less per year than the average value of a job lost on the Bush administration's watch, coupled with the fact that the median job lost had health insurance while the average job gained does not shows this "recovery" for what it is. Namely, it is "not helping who its supposed to be helping".

The simple fact is that a tax cut can, if properly implemented and rescinded at the right time, support the economy as Keynsian economics stresses. The Bush tax cut, however, was not one of those properly implemented tax cuts. It's done little or nothing to support the economy, it's been financed by debt that in the future is going to cripple our economy for a generation, and it's been done purely to line the pockets of the very rich. That's not a good tradeoff.

if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes...

Wow! You mean I don't... Wait, my wife and I still pay taxes, and if it hadn't been for the interest on my student loans I would have owed more than was taken already.

Stupidity! And, what's worse, is that this guy is #3 in line, so we can't get rid of shrubby and prick without inflicting this guy on us. :(

Whoever does your taxes is incompetent, then.

If I go to H&R Block and shell out $80, I have to not eat for a week or two to cover it, and for no gain. I paid no income taxes last year, because I'm a college student. I did, however, pay payroll taxes that amounted to about 20% of my total income at my job.

That is beside the point, however, because you don't seem to understand 1) what degree the tax system you are proposing is best known as "class warfare", and 2) how dangerous such a system of class warfare is to the state of the republic.

60% of the nation owns stock, but that is by and large irrelevant. What really matters is the fact that only 12.4% of households in the bottom quintile of income own any stock at all, compared to 90% of households in the top quintile; furthermore, actual holding in wealth are heavily concentrated at the top. The top 10% of the country owns 77% of all stock. Therefore, higher stock prices may benefit a few small fry at the bottom, providing a pittance in increased wealth. At the top, however, it has exploded the wealth holdings in the U.S. As a result, the top 1% of the country owns 33% of the wealth, the next 4% own another 26% of the wealth, and the next 5% own another 12%, meaning that in total, the top 10% of the population in this country owns a whopping 71% of the wealth in this nation. The 95-99th percentile in wealth owns only slightly less of the total wealth in this country than the bottom 80%. In the meantime, the bottom 18% has no or negative wealth, meaning that they owe more than they own. The next 22% has a positive value, but own only .3% of the total wealth in this nation. That alone should tell you that something is rotton in the state of America, because that's the kind of wealth distribution that I would associate with a banana republic or a feudal state, not a capitalist democracy.

What's more, this unequal distribution is fundamentally and inherently dangerous to the well-being of any well-ordered society, because it undermines the whole concept of a society. A society only exists when people group together for common gain and have a common outlook on what constitutes "common gain". As you can see from the statistics, however, one group is gaining while the others are not. Moreover, this increasing stratification creates radically diverging outlooks on what "common gain" is. By undermining this common outlook, you undermine the cohesion and the sense of "we're all in this together" that makes society work in the first place.

Didn't national statistics last year report a 37% increase in the number of millionaires ? It seems as though the upper echelons are growing in numbers as well as the lower ones... but that as well is a side note. While its true the lower quartile of the country have no or negative wealth.. they also are by in large tax exempt in income tax, and benifit the most from the services they will receive from what they pay in payroll taxes (Social Secuirty and Medicare etc..)

And as you gave that rather nice distribution of wealth for the nation, its also relevant for you to note (again) the top 20% of the nations wealthy pay 60% of the tax revenues (serivces which the impoverished benifit most from).

And as you may well know, America works in a largely capitalistic structure, putting less empahisis on society, more empahisis on personal success (which in a whole largely produces greater productivity and income for the average person). This of course is most prevalent if you compare socialist economies (France) to ours. We have greater average income, and lower unemployment. And while France enjoys greater social services you'll note their economy is now suffering (largely from a lack of productivity) to the point at which they can no longer support those services (and are looking to privatize them). So I would argue your claim that societies perform better with a "common gain" outlook rather then an individual one

Whoever does your taxes is incompetent, then.

I second that, as a student your open to a great number of deducations, exemptions and rebates... (providing your not claiming yourself as a dependant through your parents, in which case you shouldn't be crying)

Didn't national statistics last year report a 37% increase in the number of millionaires ? It seems as though the upper echelons are growing in numbers as well as the lower ones... but that as well is a side note. While its true the lower quartile of the country have no or negative wealth.. they also are by in large tax exempt in income tax, and benifit the most from the services they will receive from what they pay in payroll taxes (Social Secuirty and Medicare etc..)

And as you gave that rather nice distribution of wealth for the nation, its also relevant for you to note (again) the top 20% of the nations wealthy pay 60% of the tax revenues (serivces which the impoverished benifit most from).

And as you may well know, America works in a largely capitalistic structure, putting less empahisis on society, more empahisis on personal success (which in a whole largely produces greater productivity and income for the average person). This of course is most prevalent if you compare socialist economies (France) to ours. We have greater average income, and lower unemployment. And while France enjoys greater social services you'll note their economy is now suffering (largely from a lack of productivity) to the point at which they can no longer support those services (and are looking to privatize them). So I would argue your claim that societies perform better with a "common gain" outlook rather then an individual one

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, at several levels.

In the narrower point, your citation about their tax rates is misleading. Yes, they pay 60% of the income taxes, but there are other taxes that fall mostly on the poor that make this breakdown much less severe. 40% of all federal revenue comes from payroll taxes that are paid far more heavily by the bottom 80% than the top 20%, for instance. In a slightly less narrow point, the very fact that the people who cumulatively own 84.7% of the wealth in this nation only pay 60% of the income tax suggests that something is amiss.

In the larger point, however, I'm not making a socialist versus capitalist point at all. I'm saying that for us to define ourselves as a people, however we choose to organize ourselves economically, we have to have a common conception of what our society ought to be like, and what rules we want to live under. That's the essence of a social contract. By having one small group of people owning so much and gaining so much by our policies, and the masses by contrasting losing ground, we are undermining the very nature of the social contract, because we are undermining the concept of "we" as a people. There's only "us" and "them", and a society cannot long endure such a divide.

How exactly does this plan work? I assumed your consumption tax would be in the form of sales tax, as that is a pretty good way to know what you bought. If you have a different way to figure out consumption, I'd love to see it.
If it is a sales tax as I assumed, would you have to have some type of proof of income to not have to pay it?
This is the beauty of the Fair Tax plan. Or one of the beautiful things, anyway. Everyone receives the same prebate check. It only depends on family size, not on income. The government never needs to know your income again.

www.fairtax.org for further information.