extranormal's Wealth Redistribution

oldsaw wrote: I'd recommend some investigation into the FairTax. This is a viable alternative to a flat tax and it also stipulates coverage for those whose incomes fall below national poverty levels - amongst many other things.

I believe I understand what the Fair Tax is and on the face of it there's nothing I dislike about it. I'm not a big consumer, so it works well for me.

But I wonder about some of the assumptions. We talk about taxes all the time an suggest that a move of 2 or 3% on income tax well affect how people are incentivized to make money. Fair enough. But won't a 23% tax on goods have a dramatic effect on consumption? Yeah, people will have more money, but when it comes time to plunk down an additional 23% on that TV or new car, won't people think twice about how much the really need it?

And, personally, I think that's great! But if that happens, it can't be 23% anymore. And the higher it goes the more that happens.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But giving people the choice of paying tax or not, I think a lot of folks just won't.

racerfink wrote: Until you realize that it's a MOVEMENT, and not a political party...

I realize that's what it was before the Koch brothers got their wallets out.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: But won't a 23% tax on goods have a dramatic effect on consumption? Yeah, people will have more money, but when it comes time to plunk down an additional 23% on that TV or new car, won't people think twice about how much the really need it?

Hence the recommendation for more investigation. The FairTax is NOT an additional 23% tax rate. It eliminates the 22% (as calculated) costs of Federal taxes that are ALREADY part of the costs of goods and services.

oldsaw wrote: Hence the recommendation for more investigation. The FairTax is NOT an additional 23% tax rate. It eliminates the 22% (as calculated) costs of Federal taxes that are ALREADY part of the costs of goods and services.

No, I understand that. I have no problem investigating it. Like I said, it appeals to me morally as it encourages saving. But I'm affraid that's such a dramatic departure from our current course it would have a lot of unexpected fall out.

oldsaw wrote: Hence the recommendation for more investigation. The FairTax is NOT an additional 23% tax rate. It eliminates the 22% (as calculated) costs of Federal taxes that are ALREADY part of the costs of goods and services.

Wait, maybe I don't understand.

So there's a TV that costs $200.

You're saying that $44 of that is taxes that would go away? What are those taxes?

And then we'd add a $46 in taxes to it- so it would only cost $2 more?

Maybe I'm misreading you. I thought it was elminiation of income and payroll taxes but a flat 23% on all purchases.

tuna55 wrote: See? Now you're back to inflammatory.

By the way, you're right. I take this stuff way too personally. I know I'm right all the time and I don't understand how the rest of you don't see that.

You guys suffer me petty well on the whole. Thanks for that. Just know that I'm not trolling and I'm sorry if I get bent out of shape too easily.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

racerfink wrote: Until you realize that it's a MOVEMENT, and not a political party...

I realize that's what it was before the Koch brothers got their wallets out.

huge-O-chavez wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

racerfink wrote: Until you realize that it's a MOVEMENT, and not a political party...

I realize that's what it was before the Koch brothers got their wallets out.

Eddie, No worries, this is how trolling is done... you're doing okay.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Eddie- this is what makes us as a country great, we can get on here and talk and argue and disagree but at the end of the day, we are all still Americans. Despite all our bickering and whining like a bunch of spoiled kids, we still live in a pretty great place. Are we the bell cow for the world now? Maybe not, but I sure as hell would rather live here than in China- try their system on for size if you think we have inequalities. Cheers and have a great day

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Wait, maybe I don't understand. So there's a TV that costs $200. You're saying that $44 of that is taxes that would go away? What are those taxes? And then we'd add a $46 in taxes to it- so it would only cost $2 more?

When you factor-in the costs (of applicable Federal taxes) that are incurred by those who manufacture, distribute and sell products/services the amount is calculated at 22%. The FairTax renders those costs (plus the resulting loss of productivity in reaching compliance within the current tax code) moot. The 23% FairTax rate covers the losses of mandated Federal burdens and adds a bit more to boot.

Here's a brief synopsis: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Oh, it also eliminates the need for a bureaucratic monstrosity commonly known as the IRS. Can that be a bad thing?

It seems kind of optimistic to think that our government could inexpensively and smoothly transition and implement a whole new system of taxing our country. And the law of unintended consequences looms large here also.

oldsaw wrote: When you factor-in the costs (of applicable Federal taxes) that are incurred by those who manufacture, distribute and sell products/services the amount is calculated at 22%. The FairTax renders those costs (plus the resulting loss of productivity in reaching compliance within the current tax code) moot. The 23% FairTax rate covers the losses of mandated Federal burdens and adds a bit more to boot.

I'm going to look into this some more when I have a little time. Meeting after meeting today. I could get something done if I didn't have so many meetings about getting things done...

carguy123 wrote: Flat sales tax? I'm all over it! As long as there's no income tax to go along with it. Then everyone pays tax in proportion to what they use. Rich and spend a lot then you pay a lot! Poor and don't buy so much? Then you don't pay much!

Actually, that is incorrect. Then the preponderance of the tax burden would fall on people who make less money. Wealthier people spend a lower percentage of their money on goods than people with less money.

The less you make, the greater percentage you spend on food, clothing, and basic goods. People who make more have a greater ability to save or invest. They also spend a greater proportion of their money on non-taxable services.

Frankly, the best proposal I've heard was the one that a small bi-partisan congressional committee came up with about 4 months ago. The basic plan was to lower the general tax rate and eliminate virtually all deductions and "tax incentives". This would have simplified the tax code and effectively lowered the tax rate for most individuals (particularly middle class), while increasing tax revenue. It did not pass.

N Sperlo wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have money, and you want to make money, you invest it. If you invest it and you make money, you must report that to the IRS. I make under 30g a year and don't get to invest outside of savings.

Depends. If I run a business that operated at a loss of $1, but I opened up 100 new stores this year, did I make any money?

alfadriver wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: FWIW, not saying it's right, wrong, good, bad, etc., but... The reason capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, and some believe they should have no tax, is based on the theory that capital investment is good for everyone. If I've got $1M sitting in a CD, it's not doing anyone any good. But if I invest that $1M in an injection molding company, which allows them to buy a new molding machine, then that $1M has gone toward the employees who run that machine, maintain it, the ones who designed and built it in the first place, etc. Capital investments are the key to economic growth, so they should be encouraged. That's the theory at least.

If that is the actual intent for capitol gains taxes, that would be a decent reason. But since at least 95% of the stock and bond sales are trades, and NOT direct investments in companies, then the current application falls apart.

In my eyes we are simply buying out a position that was placed in the company when it did its initial fund. Someone else took a risk to fund, now you are taking a risk to fund.

To not do this is dangerous. We are actually trading risk and it gets money moving in the market because if it stagnates in something like a savings fund its becomes a burden as well. Japan's is a good example of this. If there was no way to trade the risk and dividends did not make sense no one would fund the IPO.

On a side note I do not understand the huge drive to cut military spending. Its not like we are buying warships made in France or Iran. Its a local product and you get big financial impact on the US without sending tons of money overseas. IE we spend the money here and it is then spent and retaxed. Then the excess equipment/production/technology is repurposed for non military purposes which we as a country are good at selling to others.

Some nice thoughts in here. Too bad it will never happen. As long as politicians can use the tax code to buy donations and votes they will never change it to something they can't hide their purchases in.

Toyman01 wrote: Some nice thoughts in here. Too bad it will never happen. As long as politicians can use the tax code to buy donations and votes they will never change it to something they can't hide their purchases in.

Also, the people who vote for the politicians would also have to be willing for their pet perk to disappear for the greater good.

The revised tax plan I mentioned earlier was killed because it would have cut deductions for things like house purchases. Although those people may have been benefited in the long run, they would be hurt in the short term. That would virtually guarantee that any Representative and a significant portion of Senators who voted for the change would be voted out of office.

Salanis wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Some nice thoughts in here. Too bad it will never happen. As long as politicians can use the tax code to buy donations and votes they will never change it to something they can't hide their purchases in.

Also, the people who vote for the politicians would also have to be willing for their pet perk to disappear for the greater good. The revised tax plan I mentioned earlier was killed because it would have cut deductions for things like house purchases. Although those people may have been benefited in the long run, they would be hurt in the short term. That would virtually guarantee that any Representative and a significant portion of Senators who voted for the change would be voted out of office.

DING!

We get the tax code, the politicians, the laws that we collectively want. Those who keep trying to blame outside sources such as rich folks and corporations or look at politicians as people who are trying to screw them are really some sad people. Think about it.. You know those folks, the ones who are constantly coming up with excuses as to why this project was late or those deadlines slipped.. It wasn't their fault.. You know if only the folks in upper management could get their heads out of their asses and ... blah blah blah blah. This mentality is berkeleying bullE36 M3. It is defeatist. I see it completely embedded inside the bagger "movement"... Boot straps folks.. Boot straps.

We voted in the current crop of folks, we got our laws through the politicans we have historically voted in.. If more people actually gave a damn about politics on all levels, we'd have a better place to live. Think voter turnout is low for a presidential election, go to your local ones... How many folks turn out for town meetings?

To be very fair, I am glad that the baggers are around. I'm happy more people are now involved and thinking about politics and our nation.. Hopefully, they'll come to their senses(yeah right) understand politics is a two way street and start working in a collaborative method. Because all their are doing right now is sinking the republicans.... They've got them all between a rock and hard place. If they actually get things done in a collaborative manner the baggers hate them for being "RINO's" and instantly start working to vote them out. If they don't work in a collaborative manner then they lose the middle ground. Fun.

My net income tax liability in 2010 was $0. I earned less than $20,000, and paid about $3500 for tuition, which was deductible thanks to some credit or another, and whatever else TurboTax could find me. Am I "The Problem?"

In reply to MitchellC:

That doesn't really bother me. Did you have to pay any state income taxes?

Edit: never mind. I see you are in Florida.