The reason I voted for this was because the ross perot initiative, in my opinion, either hurts the poor, or rewards the rich.. neither of which ought to be the goal of a society...

the fair tax, again in my opinion, wouldn't work, but because of psychologial reasoning. if thats the only tag, then you're going to have a tough time explaining to someone that the $20,000 car they're buying has an extras $10,000 in taxes..

I personally think our current income tax system should remain, but should be raised higher for those making 100 thousand plus dramatically.. in the excess of 55%..

8 months ago onassar wrote

The reason I voted for this was because the ross​ perot initiative, in my opinion, either hurts the​ poor, or rewards the rich.. neither of which ought​ to be the goal of a society... the fair tax, ag... moreThe reason I voted for this was because the ross​ perot initiative, in my opinion, either hurts the​ poor, or rewards the rich.. neither of which ought​ to be the goal of a society... the fair tax,​ again in my opinion, wouldn't work, but​ because of psychologial reasoning. if thats the​ only tag, then you're going to have a tough​ time explaining to someone that the $20,000 car​ they're buying has an extras $10,000 in​ taxes.. I personally think our current income​ tax system should remain, but should be raised​ higher for those making 100 thousand plus​ dramatically.. in the excess of 55%.. less

First, thanks for the response. It's good that people are able to discuss things like this because everyone can learn from differences of opinion.

Now, from my research, using todays tax system, the rich actually pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes because of loopholes and exemptions. So the common person pays a higher amount, percentage-wise.

With the Fair Tax, no matter what you earn, if you spend anything, you'll be paying the same tax as everyone else. I know that you were over stating the taxes on your car purchase analogy, but I believe that even an additional 7-8% increase would make a good tax income for the federal government.

When Ross Perot was pushing the flat income tax, the going suggested rate was around 7%, so that would be in line with that.

Raising the taxes on the wealthy would have the affect of stifling investment. Like it or not, but if the wealthy are taxed more, they won't have the funds or incentive to reinvest, thus creating more jobs and helping the economy to grow.

what is important here is the idea of discretionary income

Gross income - taxes - necessities = Discretionary income

removing tax from the equation first, its pretty clear to see the difference between a poor person and a rich person. most of the poor persons gross income (if not all) is swallowed by the necessities portion of the equation, leaving very little to no income left. the current tax system (or similar variations of it) attempts to attack what is left from gross income after necessities is taken into consideration. the flat tax system, on the other hand, attacks the gross income part of the equation, and doesnt take into consideration the necessities expense. so although in a flat tax system, everyone is technically paying the same percentage on their gross income, when you include a fixed value for necessities into the equation then poor people are paying a much higher portion of their discretionary income towards taxes, which hardly seems fair at all

the fair tax is not a good solution in my opinion either. personally, i love how huckabee calls income tax "productivity tax", trying to imply that we are currently taxing Americans on how productive they are in society, since the more you make the more youre taxed (how unamerican is that...) . anyway, he wants fair tax, or what he calls "consumption tax" which taxes everyone about 25% on all their purchases. my point here is similar to what onassar said, by making sales tax that excessive youre making spending money very unattractive for people. sure theyll have more disposable income since there is no income tax, but it doesnt outweigh the cost to the economy of having people be reluctant to spend their money on things anymore. the effect of this type of system isnt known completely, but i could see it causing an absolute disaster. afterall, what difference does taxing incomes matter when people are getting laid off and have no income to be taxed at all because their businesses arent selling as much because people are too cautious to spend their money due to the national sales tax? thats an extreme case but it could very well happen depending on how people react to the change.

in my opinion i doubt we'll ever see anything other then the system we have now

8 months ago haris wrote

what is important here is the idea of​ discretionary income Gross income - taxes -​ necessities = Discretionary income removing tax​ from the equation first, its pretty clear to see​ the difference ... morewhat is important here is the idea of​ discretionary income Gross income - taxes -​ necessities = Discretionary income removing tax​ from the equation first, its pretty clear to see​ the difference between a poor person and a rich​ person. most of the poor persons gross income (if​ not all) is swallowed by the necessities portion​ of the equation, leaving very little to no income​ left. the current tax system (or similar​ variations of it) attempts to attack what is left​ from gross income after necessities is taken into​ consideration. the flat tax system, on the other​ hand, attacks the gross income part of the​ equation, and doesnt take into consideration the​ necessities expense. so although in a flat tax​ system, everyone is technically paying the same​ percentage on their gross income, when you include​ a fixed value for necessities into the equation​ then poor people are paying a much higher portion​ of their discretionary income towards taxes, which​ hardly seems fair at all the fair tax is not a​ good solution in my opinion either. personally, i​ love how huckabee calls income tax​ "productivity tax", trying to imply that​ we are currently taxing Americans on how​ productive they are in society, since the more you​ make the more youre taxed (how unamerican is​ that...) . anyway, he wants fair tax, or what he​ calls "consumption tax" which taxes​ everyone about 25% on all their purchases. my​ point here is similar to what onassar said, by​ making sales tax that excessive youre making​ spending money very unattractive for people. sure​ theyll have more disposable income since there is​ no income tax, but it doesnt outweigh the cost to​ the economy of having people be reluctant to spend​ their money on things anymore. the effect of this​ type of system isnt known completely, but i could​ see it causing an absolute disaster. afterall,​ what difference does taxing incomes matter when​ people are getting laid off and have no income to​ be taxed at all because their businesses arent​ selling as much because people are too cautious to​ spend their money due to the national sales tax?​ thats an extreme case but it could very well​ happen depending on how people react to the​ change. in my opinion i doubt we'll ever​ see anything other then the system we have now less

In all honesty, this is the first that I remember hearing about the tax amount (25%).. I would have to agree that a sales tax of that magnitude would never be passed and certainly would be harmful. I might have to rethink my view on that, after some research..

I can understand about the discretionary income. But without being able to have the monetary benefits of being wealthy, what would be the incentive to excel? One needs a goal to strive for. And it isn't for the wealthy to support the less well to do. That is more of a socialist concept, not a capitalist one (which is what our country is founded on).

I am far from rich, but sometimes people need to realize that Life isn't Fair. There are rich and poor. That's a fact of life. Luckily within the US, there is a very strong middle group, because they have a goal to reach for, that is obtainable with enough luck and skill..

8 months ago leslewis65 wrote

In all honesty, this is the first that I remember​ hearing about the tax amount (25%).. I would have​ to agree that a sales tax of that magnitude would​ never be passed and certainly would be harmful. I ... moreIn all honesty, this is the first that I remember​ hearing about the tax amount (25%).. I would have​ to agree that a sales tax of that magnitude would​ never be passed and certainly would be harmful. I​ might have to rethink my view on that, after some​ research.. I can understand about the​ discretionary income. But without being able to​ have the monetary benefits of being wealthy, what​ would be the incentive to excel? One needs a goal​ to strive for. And it isn't for the wealthy​ to support the less well to do. That is more of a​ socialist concept, not a capitalist one (which is​ what our country is founded on). I am far from​ rich, but sometimes people need to realize that​ Life isn't Fair. There are rich and poor.​ That's a fact of life. Luckily within the US,​ there is a very strong middle group, because they​ have a goal to reach for, that is obtainable with​ enough luck and skill.. less

leslewis, i looked it up to be sure, and the fair tax is actually equivalent to 30% sales tax, hidden behind a 23% figure that is misleading (i attatched the link below). hardly attractive, but then again it does also mean there are no other taxes. like i said, no one knows how it would work, but i personally wouldnt want to find out. everyone has their own opinion.

as for your point of not having an incentive to excel, we will have to agree to disagree on this. People will still excel, its impossible to be worse off by making more money even if youre pushed into a higher tax bracket. afterall, when you reach a new tax bracket it is only the income in that portion of the bracket that get taxed at a higher rate. in a basic example with 2 tax brackets, (0% up to $30,000 and 10% after $30,000,) someone who makes $35,000 will still have their first $30,000 taxed at the first rate (0%) and only the excess $5,000 at 10%. so theres no reason people wont want to excel in my opinion.

8 months ago haris wrote

leslewis, i looked it up to be sure, and the fair​ tax is actually equivalent to 30% sales tax,​ hidden behind a 23% figure that is misleading (i​ attatched the link below). hardly attractive, but​ then a... moreleslewis, i looked it up to be sure, and the fair​ tax is actually equivalent to 30% sales tax,​ hidden behind a 23% figure that is misleading (i​ attatched the link below). hardly attractive, but​ then again it does also mean there are no other​ taxes. like i said, no one knows how it would​ work, but i personally wouldnt want to find out.​ everyone has their own opinion. as for your​ point of not having an incentive to excel, we will​ have to agree to disagree on this. People will​ still excel, its impossible to be worse off by​ making more money even if youre pushed into a​ higher tax bracket. afterall, when you reach a new​ tax bracket it is only the income in that portion​ of the bracket that get taxed at a higher rate. in​ a basic example with 2 tax brackets, (0% up to​ $30,000 and 10% after $30,000,) someone who makes​ $35,000 will still have their first $30,000 taxed​ at the first rate (0%) and only the excess $5,000​ at 10%. so theres no reason people wont want to​ excel in my opinion. less

I certainly have no problem with agreeing to disagree. That's what makes intelligent debates to wonderful.

I'll think about what you said, though my favorite has always been (and still is) the flat income tax..