Fair Tax Act?

[jamestx10]

Originally Posted by xds&chevys

On the contrary if you make 100,000,000 you would only have pay taxes on the amount of your spending (say you could get by on 1,000,000).

So I believe that this new system is proposed to allow the rich to not have to pay anywhere near the amount of income that they currently pay and to put the burden on the lower and middle class

That is why it is called the fair tax. You pay taxes on what you spend not what you make. Why does it raise the burden on the lower class? You stated that the lower class person would spend the $40k they made that year while the rich guy spent $1 million. So the rich guy would still be paying a lot more in taxes then the lower class guy. Plus all the money that is hidden from income taxes(under the table) now would get taxed when they spend it.

[Brickboy240]

This will never see the light of day.

Not that is is not a good idea...it has many strong points, but the mere fact that it will take power away from many that enjoy our current bloated and confusing income tax system adn they're not likely to let that happen without a huge fight.

If the Fair Tax DOES ever see the light of day, it better happen ONLY if we abolish the 16th Ammendment, entirely, at the same time. Otherwise, if the political makeup of Congress and a lefty president comes along...we'll have BOTH a fair tax and an income tax together. Hey...it could happen!

However, I don't ever see this making it very far. Partly because it IS simple and makes sense and puts the power of taxation back in the people's hands.

(and yes..I have read Boortz's book)

- Brickboy240

[akhimark]

Originally Posted by kannibul

Yeah, and yet I was getting ripped for even suggesting that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor, because the dollar has less meaning for the rich than the poor.

Just remember, fairness is defined by the following plan:
From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

If collectively, we would all work for the common good, we would not only have equal opportunity, but equal outcome. If, by winning life's lottery, you make more than your neigbhor, you should pay more to make up for his lack of contribution. How can you say that's not fair when each of you end up with the same amount? Just because you have more education, work harder and make more for you employer, doesn't mean you should get to keep more than him.

[Judge]

That's not fairness by any standard, other than Karl Marx... We saw how his vision worked out, everyone was poor and needy and freedoms were very curtailed.

Where did you get that from?

Fairness is defined by "He who will not work shall not eat." and "take care of the widows and orphans" - -which is an admonition to individuals, not gov't.

Originally Posted by akhimark

Just remember, fairness is defined by the following plan:
From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

If collectively, we would all work for the common good, we would not only have equal opportunity, but equal outcome. If, by winning life's lottery, you make more than your neigbhor, you should pay more to make up for his lack of contribution. How can you say that's not fair when each of you end up with the same amount? Just because you have more education, work harder and make more for you employer, doesn't mean you should get to keep more than him.

[xds&chevys]

Originally Posted by jamestx10

That is why it is called the fair tax. You pay taxes on what you spend not what you make. Why does it raise the burden on the lower class? You stated that the lower class person would spend the $40k they made that year while the rich guy spent $1 million. So the rich guy would still be paying a lot more in taxes then the lower class guy. Plus all the money that is hidden from income taxes(under the table) now would get taxed when they spend it.

I think that by cutting the taxes that are being paid by the upper class now that that money has to be made up for somewhere. By adding a 23% tax to the lower and middle class who are already spending everything they get to just make it, in my opinion would place a burden on them.

I'm really having a hard time wrapping my mind around the word "fair." I don't think is fair that we have tax brackets, and that the higher you are the more you should pay, because we are all "equal". But if you look at the tax brackets the tax percentages themselves aren't fair either. There is a bigger increase from lower class to middle class than from middle class to upper class.

I understand the concept that everyone would pay the same amount of taxes as everyone else, but at the same time there are people who can barely afford to keep a roof over their head and feed their family. I don't believe that its my fault that its hard for them, but they are a part of my family, my community and my country.
I would feel better about this tax change if our "great" government would spend more of the money that its sending to foreign aid to help the lower class people of this country get back on their feet I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about a program that you would actually have to qualify for(in a way other than having more kids).

[rockerz71]

Originally Posted by akhimark

Just remember, fairness is defined by the following plan:
From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

If collectively, we would all work for the common good, we would not only have equal opportunity, but equal outcome. If, by winning life's lottery, you make more than your neigbhor, you should pay more to make up for his lack of contribution. How can you say that's not fair when each of you end up with the same amount? Just because you have more education, work harder and make more for you employer, doesn't mean you should get to keep more than him.

I think you're joking. I really hope so anyway...

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by akhimark

Just remember, fairness is defined by the following plan:
From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

If collectively, we would all work for the common good, we would not only have equal opportunity, but equal outcome. If, by winning life's lottery, you make more than your neigbhor, you should pay more to make up for his lack of contribution. How can you say that's not fair when each of you end up with the same amount? Just because you have more education, work harder and make more for you employer, doesn't mean you should get to keep more than him.

I'm going to assume this was posted as a joke unless told otherwise by the poster.

[Brickboy240]

It may sound like a joke, but there ARE some around here that really think that way.

...seriously!

- Brickboy240

[ichy_trigger]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

I'm going to assume this was posted as a joke unless told otherwise by the poster.

That was a Hillary quote.

[Blunt]

A person making 100000 a yr Will spend a smaller percentage of his income than some one making 24000. a better way would be a flat tax with uniform personal deductions for everyone regardless of income level. if everyone paid in at 33% or whatever was determined to be the appropriate amount there wouldn't be the need for such a large tax agency. every Pennie in profit gets taxed no loop holes no special exceptions after the per head deduction. depending on the rate we could even drop that so someone with 6 kids would pay the same as someone with none.