Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 98
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: Sales taxes are not more regressive than income taxes.

  1. #61
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    500
    Thanks
    59

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    please show how your assumptions are based on the actual fairtax plan.
    labrea, Fair-tax is a proposal to eliminate all federal taxes based upon net incomes, replace them with a general sales tax, and provide some compensation for those that do not under the currently pay any federal income taxes.

    This is a proposal to reduce our federal taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, by approximately 2/3, (i.e. by 9.1% of payrolls).
    Hereafter such taxes will fund only social security benefits and will fund no more than ½ of such benefits.
    The lost tax revenue will be more than replaced by enacting a 4.55% general sales tax.

    Refer to
    The FICA payroll tax is the most regressive federal tax

    Respectfully, Supposn

  2. #62
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3024

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    labrea, Fair-tax is a proposal to eliminate all federal taxes based upon net incomes, replace them with a general sales tax, and provide some compensation for those that do not under the currently pay any federal income taxes.

    This is a proposal to reduce our federal taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, by approximately 2/3, (i.e. by 9.1% of payrolls).
    Hereafter such taxes will fund only social security benefits and will fund no more than ½ of such benefits.
    The lost tax revenue will be more than replaced by enacting a 4.55% general sales tax.

    Refer to
    The FICA payroll tax is the most regressive federal tax

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Here's a better idea: penalize American corporations that set up shell games to off-shore their profits senselessly, cynically, completely stupidly by claiming that some other company in the Caymans actually owns all of Bristol Myers intellectual property, and they pay this company "royalties" to manufacture their drugs. Forget about "capital gains" and call it what it is: income. Restore some of the top tax brackets that Reagan and Co. stripped away in 1981, up to 70% for the top dollars.

    Here's a general tip: you cannot tax people who don't have anything. If you try, eventually they are going to chop your fucking head off in your sleep. They do not exist on this world to fund your fucking yacht or to pay for the military that protects your business.
    Thanks from Babba

  3. #63
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    labrea, Fair-tax is a proposal to eliminate all federal taxes based upon net incomes, replace them with a general sales tax, and provide some compensation for those that do not under the currently pay any federal income taxes.

    This is a proposal to reduce our federal taxes levied only upon wages and payrolls, by approximately 2/3, (i.e. by 9.1% of payrolls).
    Hereafter such taxes will fund only social security benefits and will fund no more than ½ of such benefits.
    The lost tax revenue will be more than replaced by enacting a 4.55% general sales tax.

    Refer to
    The FICA payroll tax is the most regressive federal tax

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Nobody disputes that social security taxes that top out for those at the upper end of the pay scale are regressive, that doesn't prove that the fairtax isn't.

  4. #64
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    500
    Thanks
    59

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Nobody disputes that social security taxes that top out for those at the upper end of the pay scale are regressive, that doesn't prove that the fairtax isn't.
    Labrea, this proposal is not Fair-tax. It's a proposal to reduce the most regressive federal taxes, FICA & SECA.
    Respectfully, Supposn

  5. #65
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    500
    Thanks
    59

    This is a transcript of what I posted within a different internet discussion group.
    It provides an insight to my cynical opinion regarding our federal income tax system.
    Respectfully, Supposn
    /////////////////////////////////

    Consider the alleged pages from Donald trump's IRS form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return of 2005 published by the NY Times. Refer to:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ype=Multimedia
    Line 38, Adjusted gross income = $49, 592, 825.
    Line 44, tax = $5, 310. 340.

    Thus, using the taxable 2005 years normal IRS regulation's waiver, exceptions and tax rate discounts within our federal income tax regulations, Trump's tax accountants and attorneys could whittle his tax bill down to less than 5.5% of his adjusted gross income.

    //////////////////////////////////////
    To put that into perspective:
    There are so many tax waivers, reduced tax rates, and exclusions from taxable incomes for those favored industries or persons, that conceivably an adjusted gross income of over 49.5 million dollars can to be taxed at a rate of less than 5.5%

    [The vast majority of USA's working-poor do not qualify for earned income credit; EIC is a very narrow opening within a very slim needle within IRS's haystack of tax regulations].

    There are so many tax waivers, reduced tax rates, and exclusions from taxable incomes for those favored industries or persons, that conceivably an adjusted gross income of over 49.5 million dollars can to be taxed at a rate of less than 5.5%, but employees that cannot afford health insurance for themselves and their dependents, and pay no income taxes, all pay a minimum of 7.65% FICA based upon every dollar of their wages.
    ////////////////////////////////////

    I can well understand why Trump is so strongly opposed to the alternative minimum tax.
    Line 45, Alternative minimum tax = $31, 261, 179.

    That seems a bit high for an adjusted gross income = $49, 592, 825;
    previously, line 21, Other income. List type and amount = (See statement 1), negative $103, 201, 242
    That reduced his adjusted gross income to only $49, 592, 825.

    $31, 261, 179 tax upon $49, 592, 825 income seems a bit high. I'd might have more sympathy for poor Donald trump if I could have a peek at “statement 1”. I cynically suspect that aberration of tax rate Is due to some peculiar manner of determining the loss of over a 103.2 million dollars. .

    Of course my cynical suspicions could be proven groundless if president Trump followed what has been the conventional practice of the U.S. Presidential candidates that proceeded him. They exposed their tax returns to public scrutiny and continued to do so while in office. They liquidated their investments or placed them in blind trusts. I suspect that almost a majority of USA voters do not trust our president. That's an entirely different matter than just not approving of our president's policies.

  6. #66
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Labrea, this proposal is not Fair-tax. It's a proposal to reduce the most regressive federal taxes, FICA & SECA.
    Respectfully, Supposn
    By funding SS with another regressive tax?

  7. #67
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    500
    Thanks
    59

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    By funding SS with another regressive tax?
    Labrea, by funding SS & Medicare with a lessor regressive and broader based tax.

    FICA, the federal tax only levied upon wages and payrolls, is of the greatest impact upon the working poor which is statistically effective upon the ENTIRE incomes of our nation's least earners.
    FICA is proportionally a lesser effective tax rate as income brackets increase, and that rate's effectively zero for our the nation's more wealthy. FICA and SECA are our most regressive federal taxes.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  8. #68
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Labrea, by funding SS & Medicare with a lessor regressive and broader based tax.

    FICA, the federal tax only levied upon wages and payrolls, is of the greatest impact upon the working poor which is statistically effective upon the ENTIRE incomes of our nation's least earners.
    FICA is proportionally a lesser effective tax rate as income brackets increase, and that rate's effectively zero for our the nation's more wealthy. FICA and SECA are our most regressive federal taxes.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    You're suggesting that making more stuff subject to the sales tax (flat tax because everyone pays the same rate) that makes it less regressive?

    How about we just tax entire incomes with no limits?

  9. #69
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,737
    Thanks
    8454

    From
    New York

    Sales taxes are not more regressive than income taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    There is no promise that you would have more money up front, just a little double counting, and leading you to assume that means YOU get to keep all them taxes deducted from your paycheck now.

    Actually, FairTax: The Truth is Boortz's second attempt at damage control. As I pointed out in "The Fraudulent Tax," the paperback edition of The FairTax Book, released in 2006, contained some notable changes that had to be made to correct false statements in the original hardcover release about everyone receiving 100 percent of their paycheck after the adoption of the FairTax. It turned out that the portion of the worker's paycheck formerly withheld and sent to the government as taxes that would be returned to him under a FairTax system that eliminated those taxes, thus allowing the worker to keep 100 percent of his paycheck, was the same portion that producers were going to pocket to help them lower their costs. One of the main selling points of the FairTax was (and is) that prices would fall by roughly the same amount of the new national sales tax to be imposed on all goods and services — thus making everything a wash. But in order for employers to cut their costs enough to be able to lower prices by an amount necessary to offset the FairTax, employees would have to settle for their current take-home pay, not 100 percent of their paycheck.

    ...

    Well, the Americans for Fair Taxation website still makes the claim, Congressman Linder's website still makes the claim, the publisher's press release for Boortz's new FairTax book maintains that "Americans would take home every penny they earn," and the new book makes the claim twice, including a statement on the back cover that the FairTax will enable you "to keep all the money in your paycheck."

    So which is it? After the implementation of the FairTax, do workers get to keep their whole paycheck or do they not? Well, that depends on the generosity of their employer.


    https://mises.org/library/there-stil...ing-fair-tax#1

    So now imagine your take home pay is $2,700, and you still have to pay nearly 30% in tax on every good and service you buy.

    BTW, your prebate check only compensates for spending up to the poverty level for your family size.
    The problem is that the author of that piece is assuming employers will actually do what he is stating and there is no proof that will happen. Why, because employers could lower salaries right now regardless of the tax structure in place.

  10. #70
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,737
    Thanks
    8454

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    I'm with labrea here. It's a ruse designed to trick ignorant people into thinking they're getting more money when in the end they will end up paying much more of their income to taxes than they do now.

    Promising me I can have $100 or I can only have $75 if I pay taxes...without mentioning that my tax bill will go up every time I buy toothpaste until I end up with only $60 of actual buying power..

    What kind of shady shell game are you trying to pull here? What the fuck is in this for you? How can you possibly defend something so obvious by pretending it's something it is not? If you have to lie about it then obviously you know it's wrong. So why are you peddling it?
    Disagreed. There is no peddling going on here. This just a difference of opinion on this topic. Nothing more, nothing less.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 31st March 2015, 01:36 AM
  2. Governors attempting to get rid of state income taxes
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22nd January 2013, 01:07 PM
  3. Romney Says He Paid at Least 13% in Income Taxes
    By MGunner in forum Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 18th August 2012, 10:50 AM
  4. Bachmann: no corporate income taxes, that's the solution
    By bonncaruso in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 7th September 2011, 01:12 PM
  5. are income taxes legal? let's review.....
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28th September 2008, 10:15 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed