Tax rates. What say you?

Truth Detector said:
I have not seen anything within the FAIR tax equation suggesting a tax of more than 18%.

We're not talking about the buyer or the dealer paying the tax; it is when they buy products themselves they are paying the tax.

First off; you are already paying the increased price. You just never see it.

The bureaucracy would be less than what it currently is. When you abolish the Tax code, you also significantly reduce the massive bureaucracy necessary to run it and audit people. You do understand that the current system is an honor system where the threat of imprisonment is the only enforcement technique. That too would go away under the Fair Tax.
Click to expand...

Unless they have changed recently, the Fair Tax concept used a 23% figure to replace current revenue (including federal income and payroll taxes). Although they claim it is 23%, it is closer to 30%. A $30 tax on a $100 product comes to 30%. But, they claim $30 is
23% of $130.

What agency is going to do all the bureaucratic work entering how many children are in your family and sending out rebate payments to all those households? What keeps you from counting the children of others?
 
Flash said:
Unless they have changed recently, the Fair Tax concept used a 23% figure to replace current revenue (including federal income and payroll taxes). Although they claim it is 23%, it is closer to 30%. A $30 tax on a $100 product comes to 30%. But, they claim $30 is
23% of $130.

What agency is going to do all the bureaucratic work entering how many children are in your family and sending out rebate payments to all those households? What keeps you from counting the children of others?
Click to expand...

No system is perfect

I reject the notion that we have to replace current spending levels. That is the problem. The gobblement just spends and spends.
 
I Love America said:
No system is perfect

I reject the notion that we have to replace current spending levels. That is the problem. The gobblement just spends and spends.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I also don't want to increase the deficit and debt that would occur if revenue decreased.
 
Flash said:
Unless they have changed recently, the Fair Tax concept used a 23% figure to replace current revenue (including federal income and payroll taxes). Although they claim it is 23%, it is closer to 30%. A $30 tax on a $100 product comes to 30%. But, they claim $30 is
23% of $130.
Click to expand...

What they are saying is this:
The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% compared to combining the 15% income tax bracket with the 7.65% of employee payroll taxes under the current system -- both of which will be eliminated!

In other words, you pay at a LOWER rate than you currently pay. The difference is that you don't see it because it is taken from you before you deposit your check.

In addition; when do you pay taxes under the FAIR tax? When you BUY stuff. Buy less; pay less. Get it?

Flash said:
What agency is going to do all the bureaucratic work entering how many children are in your family and sending out rebate payments to all those households? What keeps you from counting the children of others?
Click to expand...

A much SMALLER bureaucracy than the CURRENT bureaucracy that audits millions of people, reviews millions of tax filings for accuracy and takes citizens to court to defend themselves from tax evasion charges.
 
I Love America said:
No system is perfect

I reject the notion that we have to replace current spending levels. That is the problem. The gobblement just spends and spends.
Click to expand...

What Flash doesn't realize is that spending levels will decline as a result of the FAIR tax in the elimination of thousands of Government jobs made irrelevant by this proposal. ;)
 
Flash said:
I agree, but I also don't want to increase the deficit and debt that would occur if revenue decreased.
Click to expand...

Revenue would increase as a result of the FAIR tax and the massive economic boom it would create. The ONLY way to prevent deficits is for Congress to NOT spend more than they take in.

We don't have a REVENUE problem in this country as the Democratic Party of the Jackass claims, but rather, a SPENDING problem.
 
Truth Detector said:
Revenue would increase as a result of the FAIR tax and the massive economic boom it would create. The ONLY way to prevent deficits is for Congress to NOT spend more than they take in.

We don't have a REVENUE problem in this country as the Democratic Party of the Jackass claims, but rather, a SPENDING problem.
Click to expand...

That seems like an argument against the national sales tax---unless you want government to get more of the nation's revenue.
 
I Love America said:
Quite often we hear from our leftist friends on JPP that the federal gobblement just isn't collecting enough of the hard earned money that American citizens make. I hear quite often from JPP leftists that the United States should enact the top marginal tax rates from the 1950s on "the rich". Depending on the leftist, they believe that the federal gobblement should confiscate anywhere from between 70-90% of the income earned by "the rich".

I believe that it is politically cheap to sit and call for what you believe others should have to pay in taxes. That is easy to say, particularly if it will never have to apply to you.


So the question I have for our board leftists is what percentage of your income do you think the federal gobblement should take from YOU personally? Not what you think they should take from others, but what you think they should take from you? What is the highest rate YOU want to pay out of your own pocket.

Personally, I believe that the federal gobblement should take NOmore than 15% from any American citizen. Period.

I wonder how many of our JPP leftist friends will have the courage to step up?
Click to expand...

What we hear is that those the left thinks has too much should have more taken. The left doesn't expect those that take but provide nothing to the cause to do their part.
 
I Love America said:
Quite often we hear from our leftist friends on JPP that the federal gobblement just isn't collecting enough of the hard earned money that American citizens make. I hear quite often from JPP leftists that the United States should enact the top marginal tax rates from the 1950s on "the rich". Depending on the leftist, they believe that the federal gobblement should confiscate anywhere from between 70-90% of the income earned by "the rich".

I believe that it is politically cheap to sit and call for what you believe others should have to pay in taxes. That is easy to say, particularly if it will never have to apply to you.


So the question I have for our board leftists is what percentage of your income do you think the federal gobblement should take from YOU personally? Not what you think they should take from others, but what you think they should take from you? What is the highest rate YOU want to pay out of your own pocket.

Personally, I believe that the federal gobblement should take NOmore than 15% from any American citizen. Period.

I wonder how many of our JPP leftist friends will have the courage to step up?
Click to expand...



America chose empire instead, fuck the unsubstantial people.

U.S. Military Personnel Deployments by Country
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/


The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War'”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.
The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).
Click to expand...
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases-2/5564


The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History
And it’s doing us more harm than good.
Meanwhile for the United States, investing taxpayer dollars in the construction and maintenance of overseas bases means forgoing investments in areas like education, transportation, housing, and healthcare, despite the fact that these industries are more of a boon to overall economic productivity and create more jobs compared to equivalent military spending. Think about what $85 billion per year would mean in terms of rebuilding the country’s crumbling civilian infrastructure.
Click to expand...
https://www.thenation.com/article/t...any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/
 
CFM said:
Have the government stop spending on things for which no delegated authority exists.
Click to expand...

I agree. Does that include immigration control--I don't see any delegated authority for it? Or, the president's power to send troops with no congressional declaration of war? Or, presidential executive orders. Or, the president's power to fire people he has appointed?

I am not opposed to all those things--just pointing out there is no delegated authority for them.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
That seems like an argument against the national sales tax---unless you want government to get more of the nation's revenue.
Click to expand...

You're making ZERO sense right now. The increased revenue is due to a massive economic boom. You know; more people buying things, more tax revenue. The underground economy now actually paying where before they were not.

This is what Liberal progressives fail to understand and taxes and economics. You don't get MORE revenue by finding more creative ways to extract income from those who earn it. You get more by GROWING the economy using smart policies that encourage growth.

The problem with the Liberal Progressive ideology is that it falsely, and moronically, believes that the economy is FINITE. Therefore, they believe, that if someone has MORE, someone else must have LESS. But it is not. It is INFINITE. When Bill Gates created Microsoft and became a millionaire, he significantly expanded the economic pie creating wealth along with his own.

The notion that he should be punished so that some dishonest politicians can buy the votes of willful idiots who think they are entitled to others share of the pie is moronic.
 
Flash said:
I agree. Does that include immigration control--I don't see any delegated authority for it? Or, the president's power to send troops with no congressional declaration of war?
Click to expand...

The President most certainly has the Constitutional DUTY to do whatever is necessary to secure our borders. That is one of the Presidents main duties as written in the Constitution.

You should read it sometime. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top