I support the FairTax

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current three-million-word-plus word tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a 23% national sales tax on purchases of new goods and services. This rate is equal to the lowest current income tax bracket (15%) combined with employee payroll taxes (7.65%), both of which will be eliminated.

On a sidenote, what makes me sick is this:

I could have paid my mortgage, all utilities, all groceries and my car payments with what I paid last year in taxes.

and I'm not "rich"

So a college kid working his way through school should pay a flat tax?? Same as someone who's making whatever a year?

Further more if a flat tax is implemented how do you think that will stimulate the economy? If person A is making 30k a year and person B making 200k a year both are paying a flat tax of say 10k. Just exactly how does person A go out and buy stuff like cars, houses, furniture etc?? When people don't spend the economy crashes.

Ok. Lets all pay the same flat dollar amount. I propose that the amount be 15 million US dollars per year. All in favor?

$$$ and % are different things. A larger percentage does not mean a larger amount.

People who earn more can afford to pay more? How about.... People who earn more can afford to have more taken from them?

For that matter.... my local grocery store has a shitload on it's shelves. It can afford if some of it is just taken or handed out to people for free. Right?

If taxes are kept at a reasonable rate people don't move because they want to enjoy those things in life taxes pay for? I was with you right up to the "taxes pay for" part.

I was that 20 year old kid once and felt the same I do now.

Why should a 20 year old be treated the same as the 50 year old btw? The 50 year old has more experience, more time in life to have built up what they have desired.

Get rid of deductions, make it straight across the board. I don't give a rats ass if you are a person or business, treat them all equally. Businesses reap massive benefits right now in comparison to individuals..... another discussion in and of itself entirely.

did you read any other article? he got that loan reduced by threatening ot take all the liquid cash from the loan, and bonus it to all the partners

with that threat, the government decided to allow the reduction in order to get any money back at all

can you imagine if we, as individuals, had a similar situation?

He said it's a SALES tax. So yes..everything a corporation buys would be taxed at that rate. They would pay MORE in taxes than they currently do (they write off all that stuff currently...now they would be taxed on it)

its the same thing

no, they already pay taxes.

well no doubt part of the reason you live where you live is it has decent roads, your kids can go to good schools, you can sleep safely in your house because of a police presence.... etc etc its got to be paid for somehow, and taxation is the means. if you don't like it go and live in a 3rd world shithole where no one pays taxes.

I'd say it's fairly accurate to say the the less a person makes the less they can afford to have taken out. After all, if you have $100 and I have $10 and the flat tax is $9 I'm pretty much wiped out while you are pretty much fine.

So obviously it doesn't need to be said really.. a percentage is what a flat tax is about, not a dollar amount.

And a clearly perverted picture is the $100 person paying 15% while the $10 person pays 25%. Right? Right. So very simple.

I thought we were discussing the idea of a national sales tax? That's what you originally were answering about when I answered you.

And in that scenario...everything would have a national sales tax. Doesn't matter if you, me, my dog, or a corporation buys something..it will be taxes at the suggested 23% national sales tax.

So a big corporation that buys a hundred million dollars worth of supplies..they currently write that off their taxes.
But with the sales tax...they would pay $23 million dollars in sales tax.

1- Nope, not the same thing, the statement "they can afford to pay more" gives a supposition that they are willingly or voluntarily doing so. I prefer to pay as little taxes as possible, irregardless of the amount I have earned over the years. Having it taken from you is forceful and involuntary by nature. I'd much rather give my money to charity that intends to use it in distinct manners than have the government forcefully take it from me and wastefully spend it... and in fact take more from the higher dollars I have earned just because they were above a certain threshhold. How is the first dollar of the year I spend on a gallon of milk that different from the dollar earned at the 110k level spent on milk? Is it because I have more dollars available to spend on milk that I therefore need to give it to the government to distribute it on my behalf for the betterment of society? Sounds reasonable right up until you start discussing how the monies are being spent by the govt and by many of the people receiving the assistance.

2- was just a metaphor for theft... paying taxes had nothing to do with it

3- Yes, you are correct. Paid for by taxes. But who's taxes? If I'm effectively paying 20% and my neighbor is only paying 7% due to our earnings, who's actually paying? What if my effective bill is 1million but his is only 17k? In those instances we are not paying the same and therefore your question is... who pays for it? Overwhelmingly, the higher earners and higher tax payers are. Even under a flat tax scenario they would be.

Yes, it's got to be paid for somehow. It is being paid for. It's overwhelmingly paid for by (borrowing mostly, but repayments being made by) the higher earners and on the whole they use less of the services (although road usage and post office usage and military usage is pretty much equal for everyone; just not equally paid for by everyone).

Equality is a myth.

Unequal taxation is theft.

Taxation is merely society agreeing to absorb societal costs among the collective to help benefit the collective.

Suggestions on how to make things work otherwise?

he doesn't believe in society, even though it's pretty much a natural state for all creatures.

it's a chicken/egg thing for sure, but it all goes back to sex.

Lol at you. You useless cunt

Easy now. This is a discussion on politics. Things get heated. But no need to resort to childish name calling.

You do represent Mark's company on GFY, remember that.

Fair enough lol but this is GFY. I'd guess maybe 10% of the members are actually in this industry. Also, have you seen johnnys posts?? I stand by by statement. Its funny that people still think gfy means shit to this industry. GTS has been bashed for years here but we continue to thrive.

This society is just one rung on the evolution of the natural society.

This persona of yours, while it often addresses valid points about the state of mankind, sometimes it's too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

It makes the mistake that most people who lack scholarship make- on ESPN it's called "prisoner of the moment".

This society has its flaws and weaknesses, like any organism, but it's head and shoulders ahead of anything we've seen before.

My friend, you know nothing of nature, then.

There are so many awesome quotes about this, but here's one that should make sense.

It's safe to assume you don't believe the family is a society?

Violence is not something that is taught.

It's non-violence that must be taught.

Even a two year old quickly realizes hitting is a means to satisfaction.

It just is. I can't explain it, so you're right, It doesn't make sense- not just human nature- it's all animals, insects, fish, mammals.

Being abused as a child has nothing to do with anything.

You see, there's this little thing called fear. Read up on it- explains a helluvalot.

:pimp Hit me up with Dating APIs:thumbsup

Yeah, Johhny Clips has some ideas that are a little bit extreme to say the least.

But still...whether you think it has meaning or not, it's never a good idea to get too caught up in these debates for someone in your position.
If anything, you should be writing Johnny Clips in private and pretending to agree with him and see if you can't sell him a link. :)

Ed, I don't know if anyone has put it this way, but...

Let's say the number for each person is $5000. That means someone earning $20k/year would be paying 25% of their income in taxes, leaving them $15k to survive on. Someone earning $500k/year would be paying 1% of their income, leaving them $495k to 'survive' on.

In what universe is that in any way fair or equal?

How much did you swipe?

Well, If you asked me I would think the most fair thing is for people to pay a very very low amount to the government. That would not really hurt anyone, but It would still add up to an extra income for the gov. People who make more money, spend more money, and they are paying taxes for everything they buy. Cars, Houses etc. are all taxed every year according to there value. I think making a 20% tax on everything would be a better way to go. 10% to the state, 10% to the government. No need for tax cuts etc. at the end of the year, no bitching about the % in you have to pay, If you want to pay less taxes, Live more modest.

DTK... How do you think it works now? You are just reversing how things work and then assuming it's fair because it "seems" balanced.

25% from the poor but 1% from the wealthy seems unfair; yet 1% from the lesser and 25% from the greater does seem fair? How so? Explain to me how a dollar to one person is different than a dollar to another person. If the argument begins that "they can afford to pay more", just rephrase and say "they can afford to be taken from more". It's legalized theft is all it is.

Take everything out of it and just suppose for a moment that we all are really equal at birth and then move forward. Assume that we are all responsible for our own lives and we truly shouldn't be required to support our neighbor (not asked to voluntarily do so, but required to). At what point does that change? At what point do we determine a man's value requires that he then must (not voluntarily, but require do) do more than others must?

If you want to say that a percentage of every dollar is equal in taxation, I'm fine with that. Everyone would be equalized; but why should a dollar further down the road (in April? in July? in September/October/November/December) be taxed differently than the dollar in January just because person B is receiving more than person A?

Take away ridiculous and unchecked government spending and you get the answer that it's all unbalanced. Person B is being asked to give more solely because he has more with no consideration other than "he can afford to give more". What if all the givers, en masse, decided to tell this great nation to go fuck itself and walked out. What then?

You have a gigantic class of people that are taking, but are not contributing (or are contributing so minimally that it's laughable in comparison to the percentage contributed by the class that just walked out).

Balance shit out and stop the spending. Require that people balance things out. Stop handing out voting as a privilege when contribution is minimal. It's a political shell game and nothing more.

Wouldn't that discourage consumption? Would that be good for a capitalist system?

Kevin, first off, you're taking what I said about a specific idea (everyone pays the exact same dollar amount) and twisting it into a completely different argument. and yeah, i'm a bit of an economics nerd, so i do know how it works now.

Generally, i either disagree with or find irrelevant most everything you said.

For me, that part of what you're saying dies right there. Obviously we aren't aren't anything remotely resembling equal at birth, so we're looking at an ivory tower discussion. I prefer to save those for when i'm really baked and in one of those 'in a perfect world...' moods. :rasta

The january/march/september thing is nonsense. We figure these things on an annual basis.

The people you're referring to (the poor, mostly) contribute next to nothing because they have next to nothing. You know the saying 'you cant squeeze blood from a rock'? There ya go. Blaming the poor for the current state of our economy is not only far right-wing class warfare at it's finest, but it's factually inaccurate. I'm pretty sure destitute, poorly educated people weren't running Citi, BofA, Chase etc when they were creating and pushing mortgage products that were destined to drive us to the brink of a second Great Depression. In fact, i'm certain it was very wealthy, very amoral people running that show.

Stop handing out voting as a privilege? Are you fucking shitting me? You're basically talking about going back to feudalism. I'll pass.

That said, i do agree that current spending is not sustainable. The military budget needs to come down drastically, but in an orderly fashion. Cutting the DoD budget in half overnight would be economically disastrous. Also, did you know we spend $50 Billion (with a B) per year on the stupid, corporate-profit motivated, utterly fucking pointless War on (some) Drugs??

Here's the immediate problem: history has shown time and again that austerity in tough economic times ALWAYS leads to disaster. Fortunately, we currently have a once in a lifetime opportunity to borrow money for virtually nothing (adjusted for inflation, it's actually free money) so we can continue to stimulate an economy that desperately needs it.

But we're not. Never will be. There are heirs to enormous fortunes that don't lift a finger.

If the government takes the same from the rich heir that they take from the schoolteacher, there won't be enough money to run anything.

We can't have this system which allows 400 people to have more than 1/2 the country and then expect everyone to pay the same in taxes. It can't work.

So higher taxes is one of the heavy crosses millionaires have to bear.

Or we can have socialism, I guess, where everyone has the same amount. Then nobody can bitch about having to pay more in taxes than a firefighter or special ed teacher.


-- Bill Maher

So you guys think people should be given handouts? and also it seems you are saying that the rich people are better than you?

I don't have alot of money, but what I do have I work hard for, Hopefully I can leave alot to my children so they can be those people you guys seem to hate. Guess you are ok with your kids being poor? anyways..... If it were up to me, Starting tomorrow there would be no handouts. no food stamps notta! But I would have programs set up that anyone in need could get a job from the state/government.

do you think 'rich people' should be given handouts?