American attitudes, where are we at today.

In reply to The_Jed:

I see what you're saying and I'm uncertain of understanding what exactly a fair share tax is....The most important question you guys are facing is "We have to do something, but what do we do?" Stay the course isn't an option either.

Edit: I didn't see page 6 before I typed, I think my conclusion is the same as mtn's. And FWIW, I'll have to find the source, but hasn't Wisconsin's union membership rate dropped dramatically by just giving people a choice?

www.fairtax.org

In reply to z31maniac:

That won't load for me

yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: That won't load for me

Not sure if serious. But in the time it took you type your response, you could have just typed it into the browser bar and hit enter.

If you're unfamiliar, it essentially eliminates all current income/payroll taxes and replaces it with a national sales tax.

Nothing said here is meant to be personal and should not be taken as such. Personal attacks are not welcome. Second, this isn't meant to be political

Goes on to make primarily personal and political comments.

Irony, it is so ironic. Please do not interpret this as a personal attack, I just found the initial post to be hilariously ironic.

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

z31maniac wrote: ....If you're unfamiliar, it essentially eliminates all current income/payroll taxes and replaces it with a national sales tax.

Sounds like VAT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax

Already being used heavily in Europe and such. It has it's own set of challenges of course. Not as simple as it sounds. WHEN and how much you tax something can become an issue.

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

And all that is accounted for with the fairtax

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

please explain this to me. I hear the same mantra over and over on this. If essentials of life are not taxed (food, medicine), then how does the lower income bear the burden? Are they purchasing things the cannot afford? If so, that's a life choice and they're berkeleying up.

I would like to add that anyone who is just a tad bit interested in the subject should spend a little time researching how the fairtax came about.

z31maniac wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: That won't load for me

Not sure if serious. But in the time it took you type your response, you could have just typed it into the browser bar and hit enter. If you're unfamiliar, it essentially eliminates all current income/payroll taxes and replaces it with a national sales tax.

calling it a national sales tax and not elaborating is doing the fair tax a dis-service

things like the pre-bate, and the way the fair tax will make a huge incentive for companies to return to the US, and how it's designed to be revenue and tax burden neutral

I've read their book, and would whole hardily push for it … especially if I thought the special interest groups would ever let it pass

IRS gone (for all intents and purposes) … tax lawyers gone … what's not to like

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

that's why I posted that he was doing a dis-service to the FairTax by calling it a national sales tax and letting it go at that

the way it's set up the poor don't carry anymore tax load than they do now

Bobzilla wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

please explain this to me. I hear the same mantra over and over on this. If essentials of life are not taxed (food, medicine), then how does the lower income bear the burden? Are they purchasing things the cannot afford? If so, that's a life choice and they're berkeleying up.

But our economy is based on people buying things they can't afford.

I browsed that website for awhile and it comes across as a bit optimistic.

This would absolutely hurt the lower and middle classes more than the rich, who tend to buy very little in proportion to their incomes.

Banks and credit card companies would love this as people would essentially put their taxes on credit as well.

yamaha wrote: In reply to The_Jed: I see what you're saying and I'm uncertain of understanding what exactly a fair share tax is....The most important question you guys are facing is "We have to do something, but what do we do?" Stay the course isn't an option either. Edit: I didn't see page 6 before I typed, I think my conclusion is the same as mtn's. And FWIW, I'll have to find the source, but hasn't Wisconsin's union membership rate dropped dramatically by just giving people a choice?

I would be shocked if this were true. Not calling you a liar, but I've worked in union shops and non-union shops and I would choose union 10 times out of 10. As would every machinist and mechanic I know. I'll do some digging and see what I can find.

I guess I may have judged Rauner a bit harshly. Like you and MTN have said, at least he's doing something and seems to have positive motives for what he's doing.

Ian F wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

please explain this to me. I hear the same mantra over and over on this. If essentials of life are not taxed (food, medicine), then how does the lower income bear the burden? Are they purchasing things the cannot afford? If so, that's a life choice and they're berkeleying up.

But our economy is based on people buying things they can't afford. I browsed that website for awhile and it comes across as a bit optimistic. This would absolutely hurt the lower and middle classes more than the rich, who tend to buy very little in proportion to their incomes. Banks and credit card companies would love this as people would essentially put their taxes on credit as well.

keep in mind that ANY solution will hurt the lower classes more than it will the upper (money wise)

Found it:

All over the state, public executives are exercising new authority. Instead of raising teachers’ salaries, the Mequon-Thiensville School District, near Milwaukee, froze them for two years, saving $560,000. It saved an additional $400,000 a year by increasing employee contributions for health care, said its superintendent, Demond Means. And it is starting a merit pay system for teachers, a move that has been opposed by some teachers and embraced by others. Ted Neitzke, school superintendent in West Bend, a city of 31,000 people north of Milwaukee, said that before Act 10 his budget-squeezed district had to cut course offerings and increase class sizes. Now, the district has raised the retirement age for teachers and revamped its health plan, saving $250,000 a year. “We couldn’t negotiate or maneuver around that when there was bargaining,” Mr. Neitzke said. “We’ve been able to shift money out of the health plan back into the classroom. We’ve increased programming.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/business/wisconsins-legacy-for-unions.html?_r=0 Good stuff, it's about time we reined in the salaries of those overpaid teachers! (sarcasm) Now their pay falls behind the cost of living, they have to pay more for healthcare and they have to wait longer to retire, if they get to retire at all. Not a fan of Scott Walker.

wbjones wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: That won't load for me

Not sure if serious. But in the time it took you type your response, you could have just typed it into the browser bar and hit enter. If you're unfamiliar, it essentially eliminates all current income/payroll taxes and replaces it with a national sales tax.

calling it a national sales tax and not elaborating is doing the fair tax a dis-service things like the pre-bate, and the way the fair tax will make a huge incentive for companies to return to the US, and how it's designed to be revenue and tax burden neutral I've read their book, and would whole hardily push for it … especially if I thought the special interest groups would ever let it pass IRS gone (for all intents and purposes) … tax lawyers gone … what's not to like

That's why I provided the link so the folks could educate themselves.

Why do people always think that, we and situations, were better back then....

I'd say.. We haven't really changed and things have gotten better overtime.

In reply to z31maniac:

I just don't understand what what the big deal is. For the majority of people, Federal taxes are dead-simple. It seems to me much of this fearful mindset is driven by either the rich - who actually do have complicated taxes and would benefit from a simplified tax system, or the companies that profit from selling fear of the tax system: H&R Block, TurboTax, etc.

I've looked at that Fairtax thing before. The way I see it, at best, is that it will effectively have a similar tax load on most people and greatly decrease it on the rich. And we've all seen how cutting rich people's taxes has been working for the last few decades, and leading up to the Great Depression, I hope.

I still don't like the idea that's it's basically a sales tax, which is inherently regressive, with a reverse income tax band-aid stuck on the bottom end so it won't instantly squash the poor. You'd think people with the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" mindset would hate how it basically sets up a slippery slope to climb for anyone who wants to escape near-poverty.

Bobzilla wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

please explain this to me. I hear the same mantra over and over on this. If essentials of life are not taxed (food, medicine), then how does the lower income bear the burden? Are they purchasing things the cannot afford? If so, that's a life choice and they're berkeleying up.

The math is pretty easy- between the amount saved and the amount needed to survive, the tax is a higher burden on the lower income. I did a spreadsheet about this for a previous election.

And it does not take into account the ability to spend money overseas. Given a choice, I, for sure, would probably go anywhere else on vacation than the US, to save money. And I'm not nearly in a high income bracket. Heck, I bet to attract money to countries, they would streamline VAT return systems. (recall- Canada changed their distillation rules once Prohibition went into place, fully knowing that it would be smuggled into the US)

The idea sounds good until one actually does the math. Then it's not so good.

Any system needs to be fair and at least even across income brackets. Even right now, the actual tax burden maxes out at high middle income before going down for the upper income brackets- just got to IRS.gov to see the data.

In reply to alfadriver:

Thanks for the reminder. I still have to finish up my taxes. When I looked at how much has already been taken from me via withholding and how much more I'm going to have to pay this year it was too disheartening to finish them last month. Between Federal and state income taxes, sales tax, property tax, gas tax and on and on, I feel like I pay more than my fair share. Not sure if the fair tax would fix that or not.

The_Jed wrote: Found it:

All over the state, public executives are exercising new authority. Instead of raising teachers’ salaries, the Mequon-Thiensville School District, near Milwaukee, froze them for two years, saving $560,000. It saved an additional $400,000 a year by increasing employee contributions for health care, said its superintendent, Demond Means. And it is starting a merit pay system for teachers, a move that has been opposed by some teachers and embraced by others. Ted Neitzke, school superintendent in West Bend, a city of 31,000 people north of Milwaukee, said that before Act 10 his budget-squeezed district had to cut course offerings and increase class sizes. Now, the district has raised the retirement age for teachers and revamped its health plan, saving $250,000 a year. “We couldn’t negotiate or maneuver around that when there was bargaining,” Mr. Neitzke said. “We’ve been able to shift money out of the health plan back into the classroom. We’ve increased programming.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/business/wisconsins-legacy-for-unions.html?_r=0 Good stuff, it's about time we reined in the salaries of those overpaid teachers! (sarcasm) Now their pay falls behind the cost of living, they have to pay more for healthcare and they have to wait longer to retire, if they get to retire at all. Not a fan of Scott Walker.

I am not against teachers, and I believe they need their unions.

But really, they're complaining about the retirement age rising from 55 to 57? Give me a berking break.

Ian F wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I just don't understand what what the big deal is. For the majority of people, Federal taxes are dead-simple. It seems to me much of this fearful mindset is driven by either the rich - who actually do have complicated taxes and would benefit from a simplified tax system, or the companies that profit from selling fear of the tax system: H&R Block, TurboTax, etc.

It's not particularly difficult no. But this would eliminate it completely for households.

T.J. wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Thanks for the reminder. I still have to finish up my taxes. When I looked at how much has already been taken from me via withholding and how much more I'm going to have to pay this year it was too disheartening to finish them last month. Between Federal and state income taxes, sales tax, property tax, gas tax and on and on, I feel like I pay more than my fair share. Not sure if the fair tax would fix that or not.

If you look at the IRS.gov site, as far as I know about the GRM income spread, most of this board are close the higher overall percentage of their income paid in taxes. So you do pay your fair share.

Looking at this page- http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income and 2012 data, (the total income tax)/(total taxable income) peaks at 28% for 500k-2M income, and then drops to 22% as it climbs to 10M. Compared to gross income, it's roughly the same range, but 24%.

IMHO, looking at the raw data makes the ideas a whole lot simpler. Especially when you look at income sources. I'd like to see all income treated equally- that would fill a lot of holes.

Plus, I need to file my taxes, too. darn it. did them a month ago.