Guess what time it is!!!

The proposal if it ever comes will be a compromise that lowers and simplifies the income tax, repeals the alternative minimum tax, and brings in a flat tax in the form of a national federal sales tax.
In Canada in 1988 the Conservatives of Brian Mulrony brought in the federal GST goods and services tax of 7% which was printed on every retail bill as a visible tax.
With a typical 8% provincial sales tax suddenly people were paying 15% on top of the purchase price of goods and services, even professional fees.
A new level of buroucracy and bookeeping was created to credit the GST companies paid against the GST they collected, with the difference remitted every month or 1/4.
This replaced a hidden FST(federal sales tax) manufacturers tax which was 9% for a long time then got raised to 11% then 13 1/2% just before the implementation of the GST.
As the economy became more service oriented the FST didn't apply to that part of the economy which is why the GST on every transaction was brought in to generate more revenues for the government.
The average joe was never aware of the hidden FST and the government tried to sell it as it's only 7% replacing a 13.5% tax. The fact it was only 9% a mere 18 months before was conveniently forgotten and overlooked.
Having it visible instead of buried in the price was a big tactical miscalculation at the time.
It made the Conservative government extremely hated and in the next election the Liberals ran on a platform of abolishing the GST without saying what they would do to replace it.
The Conservatives who had a majority were routed from office and reduced to a chump party of 5 seats in the parlament and still haven't recovered to this day.
The Liberals of course didn't do anything about abolishing the GST for 15 years other than lowering it to 5 % just last year since Canada's economy was so much stronger than the floundering (of late) US and the treasury had a tremendous surplus.
States have their own income taxes too which complicates the situation.They also have sales taxes in the 5-9% range and some cities tack on their own sales taxes so with a flat federal tax there would be a combined sales tax of 15 to 20+%
like they have in europe where it's called the VAT for value added tax.

Revolutions usually come at the barrel of a gun and it would almost require the taking up of arms to accomplish a flat tax.
Perhaps the NRA could be called upon and Charleston Heston could lead the charge.


Plus of course 1/2 the population is of below average intellegence, ignorant and uninformed, concerned only with their small lives. But some of them do vote so these fair tax proposals would have to be presented on an almost grade school level the way one would talk to a child.
But Bush did say "Childrens do learn"
 
The problem I have with the Fair Tax is the 16th Amendment.
It is foolish to pass the Fair Tax before the income tax is repealed. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before we're facing both - a national sales tax and a federal income tax.


Interesting point. didn't realize that. Thanks for enlightening me! :)
 
Yes of course,
Death came about as a direct result of the income tax.
Everyone knows that.
Before then life was worth living.
Not like now with electricity jetliners, american idol and petrochemicals to curse us.

But seriously fossten I suppose we import enough stuff that we could just raise taxes on that to fund the modern life most of us seem to be enjoying.
Isn't that what funded the government before the "temporary" income tax.
Of course a temporary tax is an oxymoron just like military intellegence, progressive conservative and good government.

You're ignoring the fact that two thirds of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs. "Funding the government" is sugarcoating the truth - "confiscating our earnings" is more accurate. The government doesn't need more money, it's bloated. It needs to spend less and shrink.
 
The 16th amendment according to FairTax.org:
Could we end up with both the FairTax and an income tax?

No current supporter of the FairTax would support the FairTax unless the entire income tax is repealed. Moreover, concurrent with the repeal of the income tax, a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment and prohibiting an income tax will be pushed through Congress for ratification by the states (filed as HJR 16 in the 110th Congress).
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#50
They also have sales taxes in the 5-9% range and some cities tack on their own sales taxes so with a flat federal tax there would be a combined sales tax of 15 to 20+%
like they have in europe where it's called the VAT for value added tax.
Just to make this clear, the FairTax is NOT a VAT. I think you probably realize that, but just to clarify for those who may just skim over this and catch "VAT" out of the corner of their eye.

I don't think it will be legal for states to tax on top of the FairTax. They can still charge a sales tax, but that tax can't be levied on the amount of the FairTax, if that makes sense.
In other words, there will not be taxes on top of taxes like there is in a VAT.
 
Good post, 97stscaddy. Thanks for the clarification. Many people who don't bother to research the FairTax end up throwing stones out of ignorance. I still support Ron Paul's tax plan first, but the FairTax would be an acceptable alternative, if it would ever happen in my lifetime.
 
The proposal if it ever comes will be a compromise that lowers and simplifies the income tax, repeals the alternative minimum tax, and brings in a flat tax in the form of a national federal sales tax.
It has absolutely nothing to do with income. You would get taxed on what you spend. You spend less, you pay less tax. You spend below the calculated poverty level, and you pay effectively no tax at all thanks to the Prebate, which would go to every single household in the United States.

This seems to be the hardest part for people to understand, that their income will be absolutely free of taxation. A lot of home owners complain about losing their home mortgage interest deduction. The idea that they will be paying absolutely no tax on their income, therefore there will be no deductions, generally takes some time to sink in.

States will more than likely conform to a similar sales tax system as well. Since there are several states ( 9 or 10 I forget exactly) currently which do not tax income at all, people would start packing up and moving to those states to get away from income taxes altogether.
 
The 16th amendment according to FairTax.org:
The 16th amendment according to FairTax.org:

No current supporter of the FairTax would support the FairTax unless the entire income tax is repealed. Moreover, concurrent with the repeal of the income tax, a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment and prohibiting an income tax will be pushed through Congress for ratification by the states (filed as HJR 16 in the 110th Congress).

And you think that they'll be able to just push through the repeal of the 16th amendment?

Fact is, the Fair Tax Bill is NOT contingent upon the repeal of the 16th amendment first. It would apply the Fair Tax and THEN hope the repeal were to take place.


fairtax.org:
Passing the original 16th Amendment and the income tax wasn’t easy and repealing the income tax and the 16th Amendment won’t be easy either. That is why the FairTax has undertaken to build a grassroots movement and grassroots alliances to support the effort. When the FairTax generates unprecedented economic growth in the first few months of its effective date, citizens nationwide will make it clear to Washington that they want to make the change permanent. But this will only happen when the American people rally behind the effort, throw off the yoke, and demand rectification of 90 years of wrongs done by the income tax.
 
Bottom line though, is that people won't stand for it. It'll either be FairTax or back to the income tax, or every politician on capitol hill will lose his/her job. Politicians are smart enough to know that, and you'd be hard pressed to find one that is willing to take that chance.
 
guy needs to get off the elephant and take a ride on a donkey.


Billionaire Buffett still complaining his taxes are too lowDavid Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday October 30, 2007

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_Warren_Buffett_wants_more_taxes_1030.html



Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has been complaining for years that his taxes are too low. Last June, he said at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton that he was taxed at only 17.7% last year on his $46 million in income, while his secretary paid 30% of her $60,000.

NBC's Tom Brokaw recently interviewed Buffett, "whose approach doesn't make him very popular with his fellow billionaires."

"The taxation system has tilted toward the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years," Buffett, the nation's third richest man, told Brokaw. Buffett said he did an informal survey of federal taxes paid by his own office staff, and the average was 32.9%, compared to his 17.7%.

"There wasn't anybody in the office, from the receptionists on, that paid as low a tax rate," Buffett stated, noting that "I have no tax planning, I don't have an accountant, I don't have tax shelters."

"It's not right," one of Buffett's receptionist's told Brokaw.

"In theory, a progressive consumption tax makes the most sense," Buffett suggested to Brokaw -- referring to a form of sales tax that exempts basic necessities entirely and has higher rates on luxuries. However, that method has been criticized as likely to lead to distortions in the economy and corruption in setting rates.

Buffett has now challenged his fellow members of the "Forbes 400" to do the same survey he did, saying he'll bet a million dollars their average rate will be less than that of their receptionists.

"How much are you hearing from your fellow richfellows?" Brokaw asked.

"I don't hear from them. They're happy," chuckled Buffett.

The tax code has not been a major issue among the presidential candidates, but Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has recently offered a plan to increase taxes on super-wealthy hedge fund managers, who currently pay at the 15% capital gains rate, while lowering them for most families that earn under $500,000.
 
1 man 1 vote.

Hmmm.
Buffett is an idiot and a liar if he expects anyone to believe this: Buffett stated, noting that "I have no tax planning, I don't have an accountant, I don't have tax shelters.".

I'm looking at Publication 15 (Circular E), Employers Tax Guide for 2008.

Secretary makes 5,000/month. If single claiming 1, she pays in $844, or 16.88%. Add to that FICA and THE EMPLOYERS 'contribution', which is the biggest hidden tax in the whole world at 12.4% plus Medicare @ 2.90%.

16.88 + 12.4 + 2.90 = 32.18

So she is contributing a little over $19,000/yr.

Buffett claims a rate of 17.7% on $46 mil.

46,000,000 x 17.7% = $8,142,000

1 person, 1 vote for $19,000
1 person, 1 vote for $8,142,000

No wonder this country is going in the toilet and entitlements are drowning us. It's the great Robin Hood money grab. Steal from the rich and give to the poor.:rolleyes:
 
Buffett said he did an informal survey of federal taxes paid by his own office staff, and the average was 32.9%, compared to his 17.7%.
Warren Buffetts main source of income is in CAPITAL GAINS from investments. That said, the Capital gains tax rate is only 15%, therefore the tax that Buffett pays on his earned income (while it may be considerably less, if any) would be up to par with the current income tax rates.

His staff make obviously less money, and many of them probably do not have any major investments similar to those of Buffett in that they would become a primary source of income. Therefore: Buffetts staff pay a higher percentage in taxes because they pay Federal INCOME taxes on their EARNED INCOME.

And no I did not think of this myself, even though it should have been obvious, it had to be explained to me as well. :p
 

Members online

Back
Top