[The_Toecutter]

It's pretty simple math really. Lets say we decide "poor" is less than $10,000 per year per person. You can choose any number you want, it's the math we are going over here and 10,000 just makes the math easier.

Anyway, if the poverty level was 10,000 per person per year, everyone would receive a "prebate" of $3,000 at the beginning of the year. This would cover everyone's sales tax up to the poverty level for all new goods and services (used goods are not taxed). So if you make less than the poverty level, your sales taxes are covered with the prebate. So, show me where the poor are the only ones who pay taxes when their taxes are given back to them before they even spend them.

I would prefer a tax structure that doesn't compel people to share personally identifying information with the government in order to have a job, purchase goods and services, or own property(also why I despise the social security system). The government has no business knowing how much I make, where I work, where I live, or anything else. If I am free, then I have the right to be left alone. They have long since waaaaaay over-stepped their bounds though, and much of it was enabled by the "need" to enforce tax laws on people, and then later by the private sector via Credit Reporting agencies, databrokers, and their ilk.

Liberty is much better off when a government is exclusively taxing non-persons, and that subset today so happens to be where the majority of the money is at too. The Citizens United ruling needs to be overturned, the IRS either rendered impotent against human entities or abolished altogether(nothing wrong with using it to tax corporations, but it needs to get out of our personal lives), the credit ratings agencies should be either abolished outright or prevented from rating people and violating their privacy, and our congress must be forced to maintain a balanced budget.

The amount of electronic surveillance of our activities by both government and the private sector has destroyed freedom. It appears to me that enforcing such a "fair tax" will still require intrusion into our lives.

Get the tax money from non-persons only, and this ceases to be an issue.

[careinke]

I would prefer a tax structure that doesn't compel people to share personally identifying information with the government in order to have a job, purchase goods and services, or own property(also why I despise the social security system).
(So we agree the present system sucks, and something should replace it. Preferably something simple easy to implement and understand, that protects the privacy of human beings.)

The government has no business knowing how much I make, where I work, where I live, or anything else. ( Agree) If I am free, then I have the right to be left alone. They have long since waaaaaay over-stepped their bounds though, and much of it was enabled by the "need" to enforce tax laws on people, and then later by the private sector via Credit Reporting agencies, databrokers, and their ilk.

Liberty is much better off when a government is exclusively taxing non-persons (I think you mean humans, not persons, the Supreme Court has already determined that corporations are persons), and that subset today so happens to be where the majority of the money is at too. The Citizens United ruling needs to be overturned, the IRS either rendered impotent against human entities or abolished altogether(The Fair Tax does that)(nothing wrong with using it to tax corporations, but it needs to get out of our personal lives), the credit ratings agencies should be either abolished outright or prevented from rating people and violating their privacy, and our congress must be forced to maintain a balanced budget.

The amount of electronic surveillance of our activities by both government and the private sector has destroyed freedom. It appears to me that enforcing such a "fair tax" will still require intrusion into our lives.(What intrusion? You don't report your income, you don't fill out tax forms, the burden on businesses involves a small program modification in their cash register to calculate the tax, and the merchant actually gets paid to collect the sales tax! In addition, the business owner no longer has to make payroll taxes (saving 7.5% of his payroll costs).)

Get the tax money from non-persons only, and this ceases to be an issue.(That type of tax will be passed directly onto the consumer, making it a hidden and very regressive tax)

[kublikhan]

Not true at all! Payroll Tax, Sales Tax, Taxes on liquor, Tobacco, gasoline etc. The only proposal I know off that will completely un-tax the poor, is the Fair Tax.

I spent alot of time looking into the fairtax a few years ago. I came to the conclusion I did not like it. Here were a few reasons why:
1. It is highly regressive. It shifts much of the tax burden off of the wealthy and onto the middle class.
2. It double taxes retirees. After they paid income taxes all their lives, they must now pay the fairtax again on top of it?
3. The numbers don't add up. You will have to do some digging if you want to verify this one but there are many figures trumpeted by fairtax supporters that don't hold up under scrutiny. For example, in Boortz fairtax book he claims consumer prices will not rise because embedded costs(like payroll taxes) will fall. But this only works if the employee gives his employer back what he used to pay to the federal government. Yet at the same time Boortz claims you can keep your entire paycheck. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. Also, the 23% rate appears woefully short of the actual number needed. Studies by the Treasury Department, President's tax panel, Congressional committees on taxation, economists, etc have all found the needed rate to be much higher. Once you start jacking up the rate the appeal of the fairtax drops quickly.

[Plantagenet]

The best way to increase US tax revenue would be to start growing the number of US jobs. The loss of millions of jobs and the shrinkage of the US workforce over the last four years means that there are millions fewer people paying taxes.

(1) More jobs means more taxes for the government.

Another simple way to increase tax revenue would be to institute European style VAT taxes in the USA. These stealth taxes of 15-25% are added in BEFORE the item is sold, so the purchaser NEVER sees them on their bill. Everybody pays them, so they are as fair as possible, and people who buy more pay more tax, so they hit the rich harder.

(2) Institute VAT taxes in the USA.

[careinke]

The best way to increase US tax revenue would be to start growing the number of US jobs. The loss of millions of jobs and the shrinkage of the US workforce over the last four years means that there are millions fewer people paying taxes.

(1) More jobs means more taxes for the government.

Another simple way to increase tax revenue would be to institute European style VAT taxes in the USA. These stealth taxes of 15-25% are added in BEFORE the item is sold, so the purchaser NEVER sees them on their bill. Everybody pays them, so they are as fair as possible, and people who buy more pay more tax, so they hit the rich harder.

(2) Institute VAT taxes in the USA.

A VAT is way to regressive for the moochers and looters to accept. Plus, it gives an advantage to imported goods.

[Pops]

All consumption taxes are regressive simply because the richer you are the smaller the proportion of income goes toward "consumption" and thus is taxed. In the case of eliminating cap gains & estate tax, AMT, etc the surplus is not taxed at all.

They are great if the goal is to hand over more money and power to the plutocracy.

[Plantagenet]

Institute VAT taxes in the USA.

A VAT is way too regressive for the moochers and looters to accept.

Europeans are very liberal and they use the VAT tax.

ALSO The moochers, looters, and liberals all claim they like higher taxes----the VAT would give 'em exactly what they say they want. Plus, because its imposed BEFORE they get the bill, the tax will be invisible to them....they'll never even figure out they are being taxed!

[careinke]

Institute VAT taxes in the USA.

A VAT is way too regressive for the moochers and looters to accept.

Europeans are very liberal and they use the VAT tax.

ALSO The moochers, looters, and liberals all claim they like higher taxes----the VAT would give 'em exactly what they say they want. Plus, because its imposed BEFORE they get the bill, the tax will be invisible to them....they'll never even figure out they are being taxed!

Alright....good points, you win.

LETS HAVE A VAT TAX!!!

However, can we drop the other taxes? OK you can also tax the hell out of all those self serving evil non team player companies (that will show them!).





***************FOR PLANTS EYES ONLY*******************

Hey Plant, do you think they will figure out that taxes on corporations has exactly the same effect as a VAT?

[Pretorian]

It's pretty simple math really. Lets say we decide "poor" is less than $10,000 per year per person. You can choose any number you want, it's the math we are going over here and 10,000 just makes the math easier.

Anyway, if the poverty level was 10,000 per person per year, everyone would receive a "prebate" of $3,000 at the beginning of the year. This would cover everyone's sales tax up to the poverty level for all new goods and services (used goods are not taxed). So if you make less than the poverty level, your sales taxes are covered with the prebate. So, show me where the poor are the only ones who pay taxes when their taxes are given back to them before they even spend them.

Well, my definition of " poor" also includes " a person who has to work for a living". Of course with a free $3k you can satisfy somebody who makes 10K. Your link is a rich man's dream nevertheless.

[careinke]

I'm for the individual. One individual. One individual who owns everything. Now, lets discuss how tax policy should work. It's not that far fetched as that is how it was and it seems we are heading back in that direction.

Sort of like the game of monopoly, one person eventually owns everything.