Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

14.1%


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
149 replies to this topic

#97 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,181
  • Reputation: 5,315
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:48 PM

Who's against it?


I don't know. I've heard arguments from liberals that it's not a progressive tax, and I can see the point and feel the rebate covers that problem.

I think it's just not known or popular enough for people to be "against it."

"Opposition to the FairTax is bi-partisan in Washington. While most co-sponsors are Republican, those supporting the FairTax represent a minority of Republican Members. Eight years of majority rule by the GOP did not see the FairTax enacted. Democrats have been even less moved by the potential of the FairTax."

http://www.fairtax.o...rticle&id=10339

#98 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 25,717
  • Reputation: 6,839
Moderators

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:49 PM

Would a consumption tax stymie the economy and industries?

#99 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,181
  • Reputation: 5,315
HUDDLER

Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:04 PM

Would a consumption tax stymie the economy and industries?

The tax only applies to final consumption sale to the consumer, not wholesale or sales to processing/industry. Would cut production cost, which would actually lower prices to the consumer and thus improve the economy.

Of course, this has never been tested, so it's just a theory.

#100 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • Joined: 22-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,091
  • Reputation: 451
HUDDLER

Posted 25 September 2012 - 06:55 AM

And now it's about %.

Which is it?

So that's not enough, right? or you don't want to answer me cause you don't wanna face the truth. That this man has kept his legal obligation to the people by paying his taxes, which based by %, is far more than most will pay in alifetime. But he also kept his obligation to his god and donated 44% along with the inheritance his father left. not to mention what he paid the other years of his professional life. No you'd rather try to turn the arguement and not face the fact that your views are not fair and straight biased. This whole eat the rich mentality is stupid. Sounds like a bunch of haters to me. I am probably one of the poorest people I know. But if you're successful and make it big, I ain't gonna be mad at ya.

#101 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 25,717
  • Reputation: 6,839
Moderators

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:26 AM

The only thing I am jealous of is his tax rate. After my deductions I still paid 25% (payroll, fed, and state).

If I could pay 14% I could save, invest, or spend an additional 10% of my income.

That's what I'm jealous of...

#102 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,271
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:45 AM

Fair Tax is just a consumption tax.

Rich people "consume" more right? Bigger cars...bigger houses...bigger food budgets...etc.

I'm for it.

#103 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,010
  • Reputation: 2,375
HUDDLER

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:31 AM

The tax only applies to final consumption sale to the consumer, not wholesale or sales to processing/industry. Would cut production cost, which would actually lower prices to the consumer and thus improve the economy.

Of course, this has never been tested, so it's just a theory.


At the outset, it sounds good, but not sure it would not be a huge break for top income earners.

Example

Spending by a 100k per year couple for cars, food and such might be 50k
Spending by a 10 million per year couple for cars food and such might be 250k

Even though he makes 100 times more than the first couple, his taxes are only 5 times as much. I know it is not fleshed out, but looks good at the outset.

Remember, how much the top 2% pay in taxes? There would have to be a LOT of spending by these guys to equal same amount by fair tax

#104 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,337
  • Reputation: 5,884
HUDDLER

Posted 25 September 2012 - 09:40 AM

Yeah but I pay a higher percentage in taxes. God doesn't want money he wants your heart.

41 Now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw how the people put money into the treasury. And many who were rich put in much. 42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood."

I give of my time and money. I'm on the outreach council at my church and provide a lot of services to the destitute and poor around Charlotte. Do I give as much? Who knows... There might be some that say I give way more.


You ONLY pay a lower percentage because you did not give 25% of your income to charity.

Now he should be ridiculed because he chose to give a substantial portion of his income to charities? I guess by your warped logic, he should have not given to charities and paid a higher % in taxes? Is that what you are saying.

He could have easily done that....and kept more money for himself at the same time.

Your hatred is quite comical.

I am not questioning your generosity to charities. I commend your efforts in donating both your money and your time. Yet, you insult romeny for giving millions of dollars to charity. You do realize that most of these charities need cash donations as well as time donations.

#105 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,337
  • Reputation: 5,884
HUDDLER

Posted 25 September 2012 - 09:44 AM

The only thing I am jealous of is his tax rate. After my deductions I still paid 25% (payroll, fed, and state).

If I could pay 14% I could save, invest, or spend an additional 10% of my income.

That's what I'm jealous of...


Give 25% of your salary to charity and I bet you would pay 14% in taxes.

Your first sentence summed it up....you are jealous that he makes a lot of money.

#106 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,181
  • Reputation: 5,315
HUDDLER

Posted 25 September 2012 - 11:47 AM

The Church of Mormon is not a charity, no matter how many times you try to make him look like he's solving world hunger or something.

#107 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,265
  • Reputation: 141
HUDDLER

Posted 25 September 2012 - 12:56 PM

I don't understand what you mean by "Either rich people like Romney aren't paying as high a percentage as the middle class and the poor..." Are you disputing this fact? The % is right in the thread title. 14.1%. The tax rate for most of the middle class is 25%. Romney paid a lower tax rate. Are you arguing that he didn't, cause he's the one who released that number, not me.

Secondly, yes, a flat tax will place the burden onto the middle class and poor. You have to think in human terms rather than detaching yourself and just looking at the numbers. Taking 20% from someone working their ass off for 14,500 per year is ludicrous. You can't live off of that. That's all that needs to be said about it; it's a regressive system and it would destroy demand and the economy.

There is only 1 actual fair system, and it isn't proposed by anyone employed by our government. That is to abolish the income tax, and tax what is spent, not what is earned.


A flat tax rate of 20% across the board would be fair.

Just because you have more money doesn't mean you should have to pay more, if it did what is there really to strive for? Capitalism encourages greatness to strive for something bigger and better.

The variable tax rate is socialism the poor are a burden on both the rich and the middle class if we were living in a true Darwinist society (since liberals are all godless atheists) you should believe in letting them fend for themselves survival of the fittest.

#108 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • Joined: 22-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,091
  • Reputation: 451
HUDDLER

Posted 25 September 2012 - 01:21 PM

Tax the rich more if you want. but I promise they will pass the extra cost down to you. Remember poor people do not create jobs. So if you are buying goods and services from the wealthy, you'd be better suited to support a fair or flat tax. On the same note, increasing minimum wage creates a similar situation for the poor. You wanna be fair and help people earn more? Abolish income taxes. I bet minimum wage workers would appreciate that a whole lot more. As well as the rich. That's bipartisan.