• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:

  • Total voters
    133
Catawba said:
Yes, they are in fact opposites.
Click to expand...

Not at all, opposites would be having lower and middle tax payers paying the highest margin while having rich earners paying the lowest margin.

I should of phrased it differently, they are considered regressive because they aren't punitively progressive.

Catawba said:
They are sold as being less onerous on the middle class which does not betray that they will be more onerous on the middle class. That is why they are regressive from the point of view of the middle class.
Click to expand...

I haven't made that claim, the middle class should pay their fair share.
They don't, they pay less than half of those costs and represent at least half of the population.

It's wrong.


Catawba said:
As they should since they own a majority of the wealth. The problem is that with the National sales tax more burden will be shifted to the middle class.
Click to expand...

As it should be, they should be paying their share of the costs.

Catawba said:
Who do you think the 3 trillion dollar war to conquer the middle east for their oil is going to benefit the most? Or the 1 trillion in tax cuts for the rich that Bush gave away?
Click to expand...

The tax cuts benefited everyone, everyone got a tax rate cut.

The lowest tax rates were reduced from 15% to 10% but because the rich pay the majority of taxes they benefited the most while the poor pay practically no taxes they benefited the least.

You can't reduce taxes for people who don't pay taxes in the first place.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Prosperity isn't what this is about
Click to expand...

Which Americans are not interested in Prosperity?

having to forfeit 1/3 of your income to pay taxes on services you don't use isn't reasonable, rational or fair.
Click to expand...

That is what the middle class pay. How do you justify shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class who are barely scraping by now?
Yep, but what if someone doesn't need $7.25 an hour to live?
What if their personal living wage is lower than $7.25?
Click to expand...

Who, if they have the ability to do a full time job to the satisfaction of their employer does not deserve $7.25 an hour? Even if some are teenagers living at home saving for college which now costs more and more since the states have cut education budgets so much.

There is no such thing as a static living wage for everyone.
Click to expand...

We are talking about a bare bones minimum wage here. We are not talking $20 an hour ok. States can then adjust it higher in those states where the cost of living is higher.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not at all, opposites would be having lower and middle tax payers paying the highest margin while having rich earners paying the lowest margin.
Click to expand...

From the point of view of the middle class they are regressive because some of the tax burden would be shifted from the upper classes to the middle classes.


I haven't made that claim, the middle class should pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

The middle class feel they already pay their fair share. The numbers of the National sales tax, or Fair tax that some call it, have made it clear that those making less than $200,000 will see a tax increase.

The middle class already pays their fair share, and then some, considering the percentage of wealth they own.

The tax cuts benefited everyone, everyone got a tax rate cut.
Click to expand...

But not an equal tax cut. The rich got a bigger cut in addition to the elimination of estate taxes. And this was put on the tab for future tax payers to pay, so the middle class ends up paying back that small pittance of a tax break they got so the rich could get a larger one.
 
Last edited:
Freedom isn't free.

The status quo is fine, people just like the hype of Boston-tea-party-esque protests and false libertarianism.

Don't wanna spend money? Fine, that's the freedom you have in this country. As long as you live here though, you are enjoying that freedom as well as the freedom to change your mind, but it should cost you. Yeah that sounds bad, but realistically the opposite is probably worse.
 
Catawba said:
The middle class feel they already pay their fair share. The numbers of the National sales tax, or Fair tax that some call it, have made it clear that those making less than $200,000 will see a tax increase.
Click to expand...

If the Fair Tax were passed? No such thing.

The Fair Tax is 23% embedded, or figured the other way, 30% of the price of the item alone.

Now, I am square in the middle of the middle class. For 2008, I sent $17K to Washington. That's a lotta money.

However, I was sending $1,400 / month to a mortgage on a house that I bought that was existing, so it would not have been Fair Taxed. That $1,400 / month is $16,800 that I didn't spend where it would get Fair Taxed.

Additionally, I saved 10% of my gross in a 401K-like plan. That's another $10K I didn't spend.

Each month, I sent in about $500 to my pension plan from where I work, another $6,000 that I didn't spend.

And then there's the Medicare tax, that was about $100 / mo., or $1,200 / yr.

So, my spending money leftover after the non-taxable spending and saving under the Fair Tax was $51,000.

As a single person, I would get 23% of the $11K single-person poverty rate, which is $2,530. So, I'm that much richer.

So, anyway, 23% of my spending at $51K is $.11,730. That's $5,270 less than my $17K I sent to DC, and of course, there's the $2,530 prebate that I also have in my pocket.

Now, you may say that I should calculate it as 30%. OK, 30% of $51,000 is $16,300. The $17,000 I sent to DC, plus the $2,530 prebate, equals $19,530, so I'm still paying $3,230 less.

Then there's the price advantage of the Fair Tax to consider. When the income taxes, all of them, are removed from the prices of goods manufactured here, they should fall anywhere from about 10% to 22%. If 10%, then that $51,000 I'm spending would be only about $45,900 in order to buy the same stuff. If 22%, then I only have to spend $39,780 to buy the same stuff.

So, there's no such thing as me paying more tax $$$ if the Fair Tax is passed. In fact, the numbers are fairly dramatically in my favor. Depending on how much the price of goods manufactured here falls, the savings can be quite substantial.
 
samsmart said:
I want a simplified progressive income tax.

A flat tax is too regressive against the poor, while a national sales tax won't bring in enough tax revenue.
Click to expand...
Total crap, the poor aren't taxed. Besides, if less money comes in I guess the spendthrifts in Congress will have to lower their expectations. :mrgreen:
 
rally2xs said:
If the Fair Tax were passed? No such thing.

The Fair Tax is 23% embedded, or figured the other way, 30% of the price of the item alone.

Now, I am square in the middle of the middle class. For 2008, I sent $17K to Washington. That's a lotta money.

However, I was sending $1,400 / month to a mortgage on a house that I bought that was existing, so it would not have been Fair Taxed. That $1,400 / month is $16,800 that I didn't spend where it would get Fair Taxed.

Additionally, I saved 10% of my gross in a 401K-like plan. That's another $10K I didn't spend.

Each month, I sent in about $500 to my pension plan from where I work, another $6,000 that I didn't spend.

And then there's the Medicare tax, that was about $100 / mo., or $1,200 / yr.

So, my spending money leftover after the non-taxable spending and saving under the Fair Tax was $51,000.

As a single person, I would get 23% of the $11K single-person poverty rate, which is $2,530. So, I'm that much richer.

So, anyway, 23% of my spending at $51K is $.11,730. That's $5,270 less than my $17K I sent to DC, and of course, there's the $2,530 prebate that I also have in my pocket.

Now, you may say that I should calculate it as 30%. OK, 30% of $51,000 is $16,300. The $17,000 I sent to DC, plus the $2,530 prebate, equals $19,530, so I'm still paying $3,230 less.

Then there's the price advantage of the Fair Tax to consider. When the income taxes, all of them, are removed from the prices of goods manufactured here, they should fall anywhere from about 10% to 22%. If 10%, then that $51,000 I'm spending would be only about $45,900 in order to buy the same stuff. If 22%, then I only have to spend $39,780 to buy the same stuff.

So, there's no such thing as me paying more tax $$$ if the Fair Tax is passed. In fact, the numbers are fairly dramatically in my favor. Depending on how much the price of goods manufactured here falls, the savings can be quite substantial.
Click to expand...

30% much less 23% consumption tax/National sales tax/ Fair tax will not bring in the revenues we are getting with the current system. It will be closer to 50% as has already been shown previously in the thread here:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/63479-income-tax-flat-tax-national-sales-tax-no-tax-15.html#post1058473187


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/63479-income-tax-flat-tax-national-sales-tax-no-tax-15.html#post1058473215

Just using common senses it doesn't stand to reason that everyones taxes can be lowered and the government have the same revenue coming in.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Besides, if less money comes in I guess the spendthrifts in Congress will have to lower their expectations. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Different topic, but it would make a good thread.
 
Catawba said:
30% much less 23% consumption tax/National sales tax/ Fair tax will not bring in the revenues we are getting with the current system. It will be closer to 50% as has already been shown previously in the thread here:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/63479-income-tax-flat-tax-national-sales-tax-no-tax-15.html#post1058473187


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/63479-income-tax-flat-tax-national-sales-tax-no-tax-15.html#post1058473215
Click to expand...

Don't see a link to the actual articles, and these were posted by mbig, who hasn't a clue about how the Fair Tax really works. I'd really have to read the original stuff, and no, not from some guy making an Op-Ed to the New York Times, to have any confidence that those aren't simply political hit pieces.

For instance, the 1st line of the 1st one says:

"Does adding 30% to the price of every house sold sound like a good idea to you?"

That's a lie in the very 1st sentence. Not every house sold would be FairTaxed. Only brand new houses would be FairTaxed, and that also makes no effort to figure in the fact the the prices of all the new houses would fall because of the 35% corporate income tax that would NOT be collected on every piece of material, and every construction company / subcontractor that worked on the house. _All_ those people would be charging lower prices, before the Fair Tax is applied.

And, it doesn't matter what the tax rate needs to be for parity, the statutory rate of the Fair Tax is 23%. If it isn't enough, well, the Fair Tax law sunsets in 7 years if the 16th Amendment is not repealed. If the Fair Tax isn't working, just keep the 16th Amendment, and go back to the income tax. Simple.

Catawba said:
Just using common senses it doesn't stand to reason that everyones taxes can be lowered and the government have the same revenue coming in.
Click to expand...

That would be true, if everyone's taxes are lowered. But, no one is claiming that. Lots of people who are not paying taxes at all, or are underpaying taxes, would start paying their fair share.

Last year, there were only 142 million income tax returns from a country with about 305 million citizens and probably 20 million illegal aliens. How can that be? Because, there are a hideous amount of people that are NOT PAYING INCOME TAX. The income tax is one of the easiest taxes around to avoid. Anyone can do it, from partially hiding money by doing jobs for cash and not reporting it, to under-reporting and flat out hiding the whole amount, especially in overseas areas. There's $10 - $14 trillion in American money that is overseas, and it is there, both legally and illegally, to avoid the income tax.

Collecting taxes on a whale of a lot of people that are not paying income taxes now, and under-paying income taxes, by taxing them when they buy their fancy cars and big screen TVs, and even nailing the illegal aliens when they buy a Big Mac, will cause the rate to be the predicted 23%.

And, lets not forget the tourists. The Fair Tax taps the tourist trade of between 45 and 56 million tourists each year. If they each spend $5K while they're here, and that is probably low, well, that is a lot of extra money at 23%. Its billions, in fact.

The Fair Tax causes taxes to go down for the people that are currently obeying the law, and causes taxes to go up for those that are not, as well as opening some new sources.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Which would you prefer: (over simplistic - just a poll)

Income tax - nothing changes and the tax system as we know it continues on as always - changing and morphing month to month

Flat tax - Revisions to current tax code in effect doing away with all other forms of taxation except for a low percentage of flat tax across the board

National Sales tax - Revisions to current tax code in effect doing away with all other forms of taxation except for a nation wide sales tax - if you spend nothing, you pay nothing

No tax - The tax codes as written currently are un-Constitutional and therefore should be abolished entirely. In place of taxes, we would rely on donations by private citizens/corporations.
Click to expand...

National sales tax excluding food and toilet paper.
 
Dirty Harry said:
National sales tax excluding food and toilet paper.
Click to expand...

The Fair Tax gives every citizen with a social security number (sorry about that, illegal aliens), a "prebate" equal to the Fair Tax rate (23%) times their poverty level. If they're single, their poverty level is about $11K. If they're in a family of 4, it's about $26K. Everyone gets the prebate, from your favorite street person all the way up to Bill Gates.

The prebate will pay for the Fair Tax on everything a person buys up to the poverty level. That would be a poor person's food, toilet paper, rent / mortgage, everything.

So, I think the Fair Tax is really what you're talking about.
 
rally2xs said:
The Fair Tax gives every citizen with a social security number (sorry about that, illegal aliens), a "prebate" equal to the Fair Tax rate (23%) times their poverty level. If they're single, their poverty level is about $11K. If they're in a family of 4, it's about $26K. Everyone gets the prebate, from your favorite street person all the way up to Bill Gates.

The prebate will pay for the Fair Tax on everything a person buys up to the poverty level. That would be a poor person's food, toilet paper, rent / mortgage, everything.

So, I think the Fair Tax is really what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

No, I just want a sales tax on everything, but food and toilet paper. Simple as that.
 
rally2xs said:
I didn't see a link to the actual articles
Click to expand...

"Here you go, the figures used are from the fairtax.org website:
According to the group's figures, at 1995 levels a new sales tax would have to raise $1.36 trillion to replace all Federal income taxes, payroll taxes and estate and gift taxes. Under its plan, the group says, taxable spending would be $4.6 trillion (after accounting for rebates to partly protect lower-income families).So, $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion would be the required sales tax rate. Fine, except that $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion is not 23 percent. It's about 30 percent.

It turns out that the group's purported 23 percent tax rate is misleading and hypothetical. It came up with that number by dividing the sales tax by the cost of a purchase plus the tax. So if the tax on a $100 purchase is $30, the group prefers to call it a 23 percent "tax inclusive rate" ($30 divided by $130). Ever hear of computing a sales tax like that?

The fact that the group's sales tax, even by its own figures, entails a 30 percent tax rate is only the beginning of the math problems. The group's backup materials also assert that almost a third of its projected sales-tax revenue is supposed to come from taxes the Government will pay to itself. Build a road, pay yourself a tax. Buy some planes for the Air Force, pay yourself some more. And so on.

Unfortunately, that shell game won't work. Without these phantom governmental tax payments, the sales tax rate would have to jump to 42 percent to break even.

A bit more digging reveals that a quarter of the remaining sales taxes are supposed to be paid on things like church services, free care at veterans hospitals and a variety of hard-to-tax financial services like free checking accounts. If we discount the taxes on these items, the sales tax rate would have to climb to an astronomical 56 percent to break even."
The 23 Percent Solution

And, it doesn't matter what the tax rate needs to be for parity, the statutory rate of the Fair Tax is 23%. If it isn't enough, well, the Fair Tax law sunsets in 7 years if the 16th Amendment is not repealed. If the Fair Tax isn't working, just keep the 16th Amendment, and go back to the income tax. Simple.
Click to expand...

There will be no need for that as no congress in their right mind will pass this crazy tax scheme that will further shift the tax burden to the lower classes that will not produce half the money needed to operate the government. Nice pipe dream for the rich I suppose.

That would be true, if everyone's taxes are lowered. But, no one is claiming that. Lots of people who are not paying taxes at all, or are underpaying taxes, would start paying their fair share.
Click to expand...

Yeah all those people making less than $200,000 would finally have to pay their fair share. And the popular support for this will come from where?

How did the GOP candidate for President fare in the 2008 primary that had the fairtax on his platform?

"Consumption taxes are by nature regressive because the poor must spend more of their money than the rich – while it is the rich who do most of the saving."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/tax/tax.htm#cons
 
Last edited:
American said:
Total crap, the poor aren't taxed. Besides, if less money comes in I guess the spendthrifts in Congress will have to lower their expectations. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Honestly, to rein in a spendthrift Congress, I think we'll need a Constitutional amendment that restricts Congress's duties to a strict interpretation of what the Constitution dictates and b) otherwise prohibits any disbursement of taxpayer monies or any Federal policy that does not benefit all citizens, rich and poor alike, equally.

If we did that, we would immediately reduce the needs of the Federal government by a substantial percentage and thus reduce the amount of revenues necessary to fund it, and we eliminate 99% of the corruption that is now built into the system and that is demonstrated in those who dispense government benevolence and those who receive it.

It would require easing into it to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering, but we sure as heck could turn it around and start the process.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think we'll need a Constitutional amendment that restricts Congress's duties to a strict interpretation of what the Constitution dictates
Click to expand...

I am not aware of the Supreme Court determining current Congressional duties to be unconstitutional. Do you have a link for that?
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
Which Americans are not interested in Prosperity?
Click to expand...

Tax rates are part of a number of factors that drive prosperity.
Even then it has to be sustainable.

Catawba said:
That is what the middle class pay. How do you justify shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class who are barely scraping by now?
Click to expand...

Since when is the middle class scraping by?
Some may be scraping by because they got over their heads in debt, you can't cure that type of thing with lower taxes.

I'm lower income and I'm not scraping by.

Catawba said:
Who, if they have the ability to do a full time job to the satisfaction of their employer does not deserve $7.25 an hour? Even if some are teenagers living at home saving for college which now costs more and more since the states have cut education budgets so much.
Click to expand...

He or she may not be doing anything that deserves that much, it's all subjective.
Someone may be happy to be a full time Walmart greeter making less than that.

Catawba said:
We are talking about a bare bones minimum wage here. We are not talking $20 an hour ok. States can then adjust it higher in those states where the cost of living is higher.
Click to expand...

Your living wage you cited earlier is more than I make and I have a family of 4.
I don't use any government programs and have the ability to save money for a house as well as retirement.

Living wages are subjective, what one person can live on in one state, another can't live on in that very same state, in that very same town.
 
Catawba said:
From the point of view of the middle class they are regressive because some of the tax burden would be shifted from the upper classes to the middle classes.
Click to expand...

Does that make it inherently wrong?

Catawba said:
The middle class feel they already pay their fair share. The numbers of the National sales tax, or Fair tax that some call it, have made it clear that those making less than $200,000 will see a tax increase.

The middle class already pays their fair share, and then some, considering the percentage of wealth they own.
Click to expand...

"The latest data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half of all federal individual income taxes—50.8 percent—are paid by the five percent of taxpayers who earn the most. In 1996, the latest year for which data are available, this top five percent consisted of 6.0 million earners whose adjusted gross incomes (AGI) were higher than $101,202."

"Even among this prosperous group, the highest earners paid the lion's share. The top one percent of earners in the country are paying close to a third of all the taxes collected. That's approximately 1.2 million earners who paid 32.3 percent of 1996's federal individual income taxes."

The Tax Foundation - Top Five Percent of Taxpayers Pay Over Half of Total Federal Individual Income Taxes

After seeing this, do you believe that 5% of the population uses 50.8% of government services to incur that much in tax payments?

Do the top 1% use nearly 1/3 of government services?

Catawba said:
But not an equal tax cut. The rich got a bigger cut in addition to the elimination of estate taxes. And this was put on the tab for future tax payers to pay, so the middle class ends up paying back that small pittance of a tax break they got so the rich could get a larger one.
Click to expand...

How can it ever be equal, they will always pay more in taxes even if the rate is universally 10% they will always pay more in taxes if the rate is cut.
They always pay more than anyone else.

So when it is cut they will always be the group that gets the biggest dollar amount, because they pay the biggest dollar amount.

They did not get any special treatment with a tax rate cut, everyone who actually pays taxes, got the cut.

It is a tax rate cut and considering that the middle class doesn't pay for half of the government it wants, why should they get any kind of break?
 
rally2xs said:
Why tax income? Income taxes are taxes on prosperity. As Ronald Reagan said, "If you want less of something, tax it."

That's how our country has been going - less and less prosperity. As foreigners have become more and more able to compete, they are overwhelming the USA, and siphoning off all the good jobs that made the middle class prosperous. It is getting so you need a masters degree to be prosperous now. And, I think it'll get worse.

Study the Fair Tax, a tax on consumption. It has many advantages, and would, I believe, bring jobs back from overseas.
Click to expand...

Do you think taxation is at an all time high or something?
 
Catawba said:
AlbqOwl said:
I am not aware of the Supreme Court determining current Congressional duties to be unconstitutional. Do you have a link for that?
Click to expand...

SCOTUS does not arbitrarily choose issues to rule on. SCOTUS rules on cases filed with the Supreme Court by others.

The Constitution started out pretty clear on what the duties of government were and what government could not do. That has become somewhat ambivalent and fuzzy over the years and some unfortunate precedents have been set by courts including the Supreme Court.

Because of that, I think it will take a Constitutional Amendment to further clarify what the Federal government is and is not authorized to do. That would not be unprecedented either as we have had numerous amendments to clarify this or that when the original Constitution did not anticipate issues that would come up in subsequent generations.
Click to expand...
 
EmpiricalTruth said:
Do you think taxation is at an all time high or something?
Click to expand...

In relative terms, that could be true.

We have a near-40% tax rate on business. The rest of the world has been reducing their business tax rates. Companies are setting up operations in Ireland (Ireland???? C'mon...) 'cuz of their best-in-Europe 12.5% business tax rate.

So, we and Japan, with a near-identical almost 40% business tax rate are hung out with respect to the rest of the world. Japan's big advantage is a "work-for-peanuts" labor force, while we have this high cost of living environment that demands a high wage just to live even modestly.

So... it could be true, in a relative sense, that the taxes are at an all time high, in comparison to the rest of the world. And, its the business taxes that really count in this - they are what is hammering the job growth here.
 
rally2xs said:
In relative terms, that could be true.

We have a near-40% tax rate on business. The rest of the world has been reducing their business tax rates. Companies are setting up operations in Ireland (Ireland???? C'mon...) 'cuz of their best-in-Europe 12.5% business tax rate.

So, we and Japan, with a near-identical almost 40% business tax rate are hung out with respect to the rest of the world. Japan's big advantage is a "work-for-peanuts" labor force, while we have this high cost of living environment that demands a high wage just to live even modestly.

So... it could be true, in a relative sense, that the taxes are at an all time high, in comparison to the rest of the world. And, its the business taxes that really count in this - they are what is hammering the job growth here.
Click to expand...

That's not true, the motivation behind Japanese workers is they get compensated well and have a "cradle to the grave" relationship with the keiretsu(benefits are given upfront and insurance coverage is not *****footed around with)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Tax rates are part of a number of factors that drive prosperity.
Even then it has to be sustainable.

Exactly, that is why a consumption tax makes no sense.

Since when is the middle class scraping by?

"Rich Buying Again, But Middle Class Still Hurting"

"The poor have no assets to protect them against inflation.

The middle class have some assets to protect them against inflation.

The rich have most of their assets protected against inflation.

Those with Government contracts are protected against inflation because they receive the newly created money through government contracts. This is value indirectly stolen from the poor and middle class and given to the rich.

Consider this: you are poor and you would like to save up cash for a large purchase. As you save money, you reach a point when the cash you have in savings loses value faster than the rate at which you can save.

Each year new money is created out of nothing and put into existence. This is an indirect tax on the poor and middle class or anyone who is not hedged against inflation. This is an immoral, though lawful, system."
How Does Inflation Hurt the Poor and Middle Class?


He or she may not be doing anything that deserves that much, it's all subjective.
Click to expand...

You mean like the hedge fund manager's that earn 400 times what a high school history teacher makes with no more education than the history teacher.


Living wages are subjective, what one person can live on in one state, another can't live on in that very same state, in that very same town.
Click to expand...

That's why it is a MINIMUM wage. States where it is more expensive to live can set their wages higher.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom