Fiscal responsibility in DC, who woulda thunk it?

I actually like this as we don't need to subsidize home ownership - which is why I was not in favor of the new home owner tax credit.

Bet people are ready for a revolution after this!

But seriously, we need to pay for the crap we do.
I'd start with massive CUTS, but either way, President George W Bush and President Obama have been seriously irresponsible!

Congress just enabled them...

Fine with me.

I'd be ticked off.

Dang, maybe I might wait on buying a house a little longer then.

If they start going this route, I'm afraid that they might stop the student loan interest deduction as well...

I'm afraid that they might stop the student loan interest deduction as well...

They should IMO.

Heck, if we're taking away deductions, you might as well scrap all business expenses.

Why do we subsidize people who are self employed.

If I earn a wage, I can't deduct stuff that the self employed does.

Make them pay tax on their gross like the wage earner does.

Most of those deductions are hyped up and usually really not business related expenses except to use as a write-off.

Honestly, you buy a business magazine and write it off?

Fuck this. The public will freak.

It's funny, everyone wants fiscal responsibility, except when a cut hits them. Everyone has to sacrifice if we are going to get out of this fiscal mess.

They should tax internet access.
Number of posts.
Tax on the value of the internet name.

Everyone has to sacrifice if we are going to get out of this fiscal mess.

It's funny, everyone wants fiscal responsibility, except when a cut hits them. Everyone has to sacrifice if we are going to get out of this fiscal mess.

#9 | Posted by taxman

I agree. And I'm ok with it if it happens. Just sucks to get by every month being a college graduate within the last year. I know I'll be ok in a few years as long as I can stay employed. I will have to continue to cut things from my budget as I'm sure it's going to have to get tighter.

Sacrificing is one thing. When you have city, state, and fed trying to get more money, you can get hit too hard.

Many cities are also looking at increasing property taxes so homeowners are likely to get a double hit.

In conjunction with substantial reform of SS, Medicare and Medicaid, go with a graduated flat-tax.

10% on up to $100k and 25% above $100k.

Eliminate the capital gains tax and reduce the corporate tax rate to 25%.

Eliminate ALL deductions sans for a couple that are targetted at assisting the poor: EIC and child tax credits.

That's it. That would certainly take a lot of power AWAY from Washington as well as for the wealthiest who lobby to adjust the tax code in their favor.

Good thing I built my own house piecemeal. I don't owe a fuckin' dime on it.

Good thing I built my own house piecemeal. I don't owe a fuckin' dime on it.

#14 | Posted by American1st

Ah Nice! I was looking to buy a house at the end of the year, but it seems I might need to just wait. Got parents that are about to need supporting as I think my stepfather is about to lose his job.

Maybe I'll have a house someday if all this ever clears up. Stuck renting til then I guess.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-06-11 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

If we could reduce the tax gap many of those ideas could be possible.

They should tax internet access.
Number of posts.
Tax on the value of the internet name.

Fine by me, I know how to budget and I can afford it.

Flat tax is fair--needs to apply to every entity and do away with the income tax--no double dipping.

But that won't stop the congress --they want our money and will get it by hook or by crook.

It's the size of gov't that is killing us and their spending--and not the discretionary spending. It is the entire gov't spending for running the gov't that needs a 30% cut across the board in every department.

Flat tax is fair

No it isn't, get off the Boortz wagon - he's an idiot.

"Why do we subsidize people who are self employed."

I think the argument is that businesses get those kinds of deductions, and a self-employed person is a business. So if you want to limit deductions for corporations, then you can move down the scale. Otherwise, you're misfiring.

Oh, and I believe that the new home-owner credit (deduction?) is about stimulating the economy. You have noticed that "new home sales" is one of our key indicators here, no? (Which I think is stupid--another example of unsustainable economic practices. Growth? Our entire fucking economy is predicated on growth?! Urk.)

Why do we subsidize people who are self employed
#12 | Posted by Pirate

I paid 48% of my income in taxes in 2009
Fed/FICA/State/Local/Property

I don't get unemployment, I don't get workmans Comp and you think I'm subsdized?

Why do we subsidize people who are self employed
#12 | Posted by Pirate

----

Wasn't said by me.

"I paid 48% of my income in taxes in 2009
Fed/FICA/State/Local/Property"

I think subsidize was shorthand, PA. Bad shorthand, but. I think the poster was talking about the deductions part, but I don't know.

But to say you paid 48% of your income in taxes is off-point, at least insofar as self-employed deductions go. Local (meaning like school taxes?) and property are not connected to whether you're self-employed or not. And state? Do you mean state income tax? Isn't FICA the only thing that's really different when you're self-employed or employed by someone else? You pay it all instead of the employer paying half? That's how it worked when I was self-employed. And yes, deductions for fed taxes. But I earned a lot less money when I was self-employed.

and property are not connected to whether you're self-employed
#22 | Posted by pragmatist

The Bank and I own the business location so it's valid.

I'm just saying that if I lost all my deductions then I'm done. I would not put my self through this for less. My deductions in 2009 were 30% of my gross income with cost of inventory being 65%. That keeps thing pretty lean for profit.

Any eliminations of deductions or increases in taxes should contain a mandate that the money Congress "saves" or receives be applied directly to the deficit, or contain a corresponding cut in spending. Until a law is passed requiring this sort of thing, we will continue the downward spiral.

This will never happen. If you remove the deduction, you will see massive foreclosures the likes of which have never been seen before. The banks will never although this to go through, and frankly, they shouldn't. We need a stable system in place for long term assets or people will never buy them in the first place. They need to cut spending if they want to close the deficit, more taxes doesn't solve anything when you have 50% of the population that doesn't pay shit and keeps voting themselves more and more entitlements.

How would cutting the mortgage interest deduction result in "massive foreclosures?" People pay mortgage interest regardless, they just get some money back at the end of the year for doing so. Are you suggesting that this deduction is what's holding massive numbers of people from defaulting on their mortgage loans?

"Eliminate the capital gains tax and reduce the corporate tax rate to 25%."

HIlarious. We already have deficits, Jeff wants to make them bigger. Why should someone earning capital gains not pay the same rate as someone earning their income by working????
Let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, we all pay a little more tax. Common sense that worked in the 90's, worked before REagan, will work fine now.

Let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, we all pay a little more tax.

If they are only tax cuts "for the rich," then how would their expiration affect "all" of us?

worked before REagan

Yeah. The economy was booming when Reagan took office.

How would cutting the mortgage interest deduction result in "massive foreclosures?" People pay mortgage interest regardless, they just get some money back at the end of the year for doing so. Are you suggesting that this deduction is what's holding massive numbers of people from defaulting on their mortgage loans?

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2010-06-11 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is going to knock the wind out of the middle class which are just scraping by as it is. Let's say that you $200K mortgage at a 5% interest rate. You are paying $10K/year interest and your cash in pocket from the deduction is probably $2500. For people scraping by, $200/month is make or break time. For others that are looking at this is a pure business/investment transaction (think $500k mortgage), you will see people walk way if they miss out on 10's of thousands of dollars per year. People are already generally under water, if this happens, it will trigger a rash of jingle mail at the bank which will only increase the speed of real estate loses as more people foreclose.

If you want an excellent proxy, look at the cause of the S&L collapse, it was mainly driven by enactment of 26 U.S.C. § 469. This is nothing new. You need stability in your laws/tax code if you want people to make long time horizon investments.

#27

Specifically, with regard to the wealthy, Bush lowered the marginal tax rates for those with incomes over $350,000 (the top tax rate, admittedly on the rich) from 40% to 35%. He also approved the lowering of the capital gains tax from 20% to 15% (which helps everyone who owns stock, real estate, or any other sell-able asset, but admittedly most benefits the wealthiest members of society since they own more of those assets).

That's what he did for the “rich.” But he also lowered every OTHER tax bracket (from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent) and added other of tax credits and breaks for the “poor” such as the child care tax credit, AMT, and earned income tax credit. The following data is taken from the article Bush's Tax Cuts Are Unfair…:

If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut. Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much.

Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. Surprised? I bet not; you're wondering about the other cuts – the ones on dividends, capital gains, and inheritance taxes that allegedly skew gains to the rich. Well lets add all those changes in, along with all the other Bush tax breaks such as the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the AMT, etc.:

The biggest percentage tax cut -- about 17.6 percent -- went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.

"The biggest percentage tax cut -- about 17.6 percent -- went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes."

Nonsense. The biggest percentage tax cut was on dividends for the wealthiest, from 38.5% to 15%, a rate cut of over 60%.

"Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent"

More crap. That only takes into account the bottom line, not all the new tax rules that also gave the wealthier more ways to slash their taxable income.

"Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor"

Yeah. Those who owed fifty bucks before, didn't owe anything after. BFD.

Any eliminations of deductions or increases in taxes should contain a mandate that the money Congress "saves" or receives be applied directly to the deficit

#24 | Posted by JOE

The corksuckers would see the tax revenue as a windfall and spend it on other shit. The government will never reduce spending, will never reduce staff (i.e. layoff gov't workers) and sure as hell won't apply a red cent of the tax revenue towards the debt.

The corksuckers would see the tax revenue as a windfall and spend it on other shit. The government will never reduce spending, will never reduce staff (i.e. layoff gov't workers) and sure as hell won't apply a red cent of the tax revenue towards the debt.

Remember when Ross Perot wanted a $0.50 gas tax to pay down the debt? Hell, we would probably have shifted to green energy by now and the gulf tradegy could have been averted. If only common sense really was common...

Yeah. Those who owed fifty bucks before, didn't owe anything after. BFD.

#31 | Posted by Danforth

Let's see here. They pay $0 and yet they get the same exact benefits as I do despite paying $80K/year. Seems like they are already getting a pretty sweet deal to me. You think we should give them cash handouts on top of all the entitlements they already get? If you want money for nothing, you should go beg a charity or stand in the street like a bum and beg it from passing cars, you should not simply be able to vote to take mine.

If the government were serious about reducing the deficit they would seriously cut back on spending.

As it is, they just keep spending and say "we need more of your money so we can reduce our debt".

If I ran my business or my household like these jokers do, I'd be out of work and bankrupt. (Technically the country is bankrupt. The Chinese are floating us.)

It's funny, everyone wants fiscal responsibility, except when a cut hits them. Everyone has to sacrifice if we are going to get out of this fiscal mess.

#9 | Posted by taxtaxman

perhaps a national consumtion tax is the answer . . . that would force "taxmen" to find productive jobs instead of being drags on the economy

The Fair Tax is the way to go. Read it all the way through. It's not that long...certainly not thousands of pages. Politicians hate it because they lose all their power to offer tax breaks for campaign money. The IRS hates it because the IRS ceases to exist. Taxman hates it because he will be out of a job because the public won't need a "taxman." It's simple, it will bring businesses stampeding back and new businesses to open up in the U.S. It does NOT increase taxes to the individual as some like to tell you. Remember, it removes income taxes, FICA, Medicare taxes, Capital Gains tax and other taxes except state taxes. There will merely be a consumption tax on what individuals spend over the poverty level, therefore "poor" people will still pay no tax. Workers will recive their entire earnings without any withholding and nobody will be required to fill out any tax forms. April 15th will no longer be a significant date.
Don't fall for the false arguments against the Fair Tax. Read the sequel which answers all the objections to it too.

We already have deficits, Jeff wants to make them bigger.

It would have to be done in conjunction with massive spending cuts, whioh is what I said up-thread.

Why should someone earning capital gains not pay the same rate as someone earning their income by working????

Risk/reward. Lowering the risks associated with investment capital spurs investment which spurs the economy.

#37 Sounds good to me...watch the libbies scream

Jest,

I prefer 2 income brackets with what amounts to a flat-tax, except that the higher bracket would have a higher rate.

Eliminate almost all deductions sans a couple that are targetted at helping the poor. It would be far much simpler to implement and transition to AND it would STILL take away considerable power from government. We could considerably shrink the IRS - processing a tax form would become far more quick and simple.

"#37 Sounds good to me...watch the libbies scream"

The greatest benefit of all...Drug dealers, prostitutes, blackmarketeers etc. CANNOT AVOID paying taxes! You buy something, the tax is included. "Libbies" hate it immensely because it diminishes the size and power of government. Geitner, Rangle and all the other tax cheats will be stymied.

"We could considerably shrink the IRS - processing a tax form would become far more quick and simple."

Fuck "shrink!" Get rid of the IRS completely!
Fuck Quick and simple" tax form! Get rid of tax forms altogether.

The politicians would STILL be tinkering with the tax codes to offer deals and tax exemptions for campaign contributions. Trust me...the Fair Tax is far better than any flat tax with all the same players being able to tinker with it. The drug dealers, prostitutes and all the others would STILL be able to avoid paying taxes. Nothing would really change with a flat tax except the deductions and the tax brackets.

Jest,

You do raise a good point: If deductions are taken out they can just as easily be written back in later on.

"If deductions are taken out they can just as easily be written back in later on."

You got that right. If you haven't studied the Fair Tax, get the book and read it. It's really beautiful in its simplicity. THEN get the follow on which answers the objections and falsehoods that float around. I get a tingle up my leg when I think of all the reduced power for politicians, no "Cap and Trade," unemployed tax advisors, corporate tax attorneys seeking new fields, billionaires hiding money overseas to being taxed on everything they spend, criminals dealing solely in cash finally paying taxes, etc etc.

Jest,

The problem with the Fair Tax is similar to the problem you pointed out with what I am suggesting:

Unless the 16th Amendment is repealed, Congress can re-institute the income tax any time they want and we'd end up with BOTH.

"The greatest benefit of all...Drug dealers, prostitutes, blackmarketeers etc. CANNOT AVOID paying taxes! You buy something, the tax is included. "Libbies" hate it immensely because it diminishes the size and power of government. Geitner, Rangle and all the other tax cheats will be stymied."

In addition to that they could no longer demagogue that "the rich don't pay their fair share"

"Unless the 16th Amendment is repealed, Congress can re-institute the income tax any time they want and we'd end up with BOTH."

Ah HA!
The Fair Tax calls for repealing the 16th Amendment...Read the book. Too many people flame the Fair Tax without ever reading the book or just cherry picking various parts of it without digesting the whole thing.

I gotta go, but spread the word. If we could get the Tea Parties or some similar movement to support candidates for the Fair Tax it might have an effect. I'd like to see it in my lifetime. Keep the faith...

"Too many people flame the Fair Tax without ever reading the book or just cherry picking various parts of it without digesting the whole thing."

Whereas those of us who have read the whole thing don't need to cherry-pick at all.

In addition to that they could no longer demagogue that "the rich don't pay their fair share"

#46 | Posted by homerj

Most of "the rich" will retire to someplace with low sales taxes (as would Boortz I imagine). We've already paid income tax on most of the the money we've saved throughout our lives. We're not going to pay those taxes again while we spend it.

"Get rid of the IRS completely!"

Ahhh...one of the fallacies of the so-called Fair Tax: the pretense the nasty IRS will go away, and be replaced by...nothing!

In reality, the IRS is currently only concerned with two things: income, and deductions. All other transactions (haircut, restaurant meal, etc) are ignored. With the Fair Tax, they collect on EVERYTHING, so the replacement for the IRS -- the FTRS -- would have to be empowered to investigate ALL transactions, not just the current income/deductions transactions. It would also incentivize the black market like never before.

But I guess anyone believing the IRS will magically go away and not be replaced by some other type of revenue agents will believe anything.

Just what the housing and mortgage industries need to torpedo any hope of recovery. Think there are foreclosures now? How many more upside down mortgagees would walk away and look for a place to rent if the mortgage interest tax deduction disappears?

I had one mortgage from 1971 to 1977.
Never had once since.

I am tired of bailing you morons out.

Just fucking die.

The mortgage interest deduction is a welfare-for-the-rich program that benefits everyone except those too poor to own a home.

To put it another way it's yet another regressive tax scheme.

Most countries don't generally allow mortgage interest deductions, by the way. According to Wikipedia the only countries that do are USA, Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Sarkozy tried it in France but it was ruled unconstitutional.

"The mortgage interest deduction is a welfare-for-the-rich"

The rich have no mortgages.

The mortgage interest deduction is a welfare-for-the-rich program that benefits everyone except those too poor to own a home

Because we all know "home-ownership" is a realm of the bourgeouis rich.

Most countries don't generally allow mortgage interest deductions, by the way

Well there's an argument for doing something.

We wouldn't want to deviate from the norm of "most countries", would we?

The mortgage interest deduction is a welfare-for-the-rich program that benefits everyone except those too poor to own a home.
54 | Posted by snoofy

Have you considered that if I'm going to pay the School and local taxes base on my properties that I might be due a deduction?

"Have you considered that if I'm going to pay the School and local taxes base on my properties that I might be due a deduction?"

That's NOT the mortgage deduction, Einstein.

The rich have no mortgages.
Pithy observation. I should have said "welfare for the non-poor."

Most countries don't generally allow mortgage interest deductions, by the way
Well there's an argument for doing something.
We wouldn't want to deviate from the norm of "most countries", would we?
The USA is in company with Sweden, Netherlands, and Switzerland. You're cool with that, Pinche?
Pinche can't see socialism and "spreading the wealth around" when it's blatantly staring him in the face.

Have you considered that if I'm going to pay the School and local taxes base on my properties that I might be due a deduction?
Quite the opposite. As a property owner you should want to pay taxes for things that increase the value of your property, things like well-funded schools.

Pinche can't see socialism and "spreading the wealth around"

Pinche isn't a big enough dumbfuck to consider a tax deduction to be socialism and "spreading the wealth around".

things that increase the value of your property, things like well-funded schools.

Good schools increase the value of one's property.

Not "well funded" schools.

That's NOT the mortgage deduction, Einstein.
#58 | Posted by Danforth

reading, it's fundamental, What is your problem with this?

The mortgage interest deduction is a welfare-for-the-rich program that benefits everyone except those too poor to own a home.
54 | Posted by snoofy

Have you considered that if I'm going to pay the School and local taxes base on my properties that I might be due a deduction?
#57 | Posted by paneocon

"reading, it's fundamental, What is your problem with this?"

My problem is you've confused the mortgage deduction with the real estate tax deduction, which are two different things. And even after I pointed it out, you still didn't know they were different.

Understanding what you're talking about...it's fundamental.

"Lowering the risks associated with investment capital spurs investment which spurs the economy."

If that were true, we wouldn't be where we are now. All that got us was a house of cards.

Good schools increase the value of one's property.
Not "well funded" schools.
LOL, Pinche, LOL.

Pinche isn't a big enough dumbfuck to consider a tax deduction to be socialism and "spreading the wealth around".
Pinche may be far dumber than I imagined. Dollars in, dollars out... no?
I am unsure how to proceed.

The mortgage interest deduction is a welfare-for-the-rich program that benefits everyone except those too poor to own a home.
54 | Posted by snoofy

Have you considered that if I'm going to pay the School and local taxes base on my properties that I might be due a deduction?
#57 | Posted by paneocon

The thrust here is that paying for public schools the children of non-homeowners can attend for free warrants you not having to pay for those schools in the first place?

You're clearly stupid, be off with you.

Its to everyone's benefit to educate the youth.Who the fuck do you think is going to take care of you or handle the services you need when you get old.You want illiterates to do that.And educating illegals and such is well worth the money too,we're trying to make a better world here.

But I guess its more important that we spend more on military rule than the rest of the world combined

My problem is you've confused the mortgage deduction with the real estate tax deduction, which are two different things.
63 | Posted by Danforth

In many parts of the country school/local/property taxes have escalated year after year making responsible home ownership almost impossible.

I don't think most home owners take issue with paying for schools but if the current system puts 70% (apx) of the burden on local home owner's (who may not even have children) I think it's only reasonable that they get some relief.

Of course you socialists think anyone with any wealth should share it with others not so fortunate so I guess I should consider my audience.

"Of course you socialists think anyone with any wealth should share it with others not so fortunate so I guess I should consider my audience."

Dude, you were wrong (again) and got called on it (again). This has nothing to do with "socialism" and all to do do with the fact you haven't got a clue.

"Standard Deduction for Real Estate Taxes"

Which is a completely different thing than the Mortgage Interest deduction. Get it?

"...so the replacement for the IRS -- the FTRS -- would have to be empowered to investigate ALL transactions, not just the current income/deductions transactions. It would also incentivize the black market like never before."
Posted by DANFORTH

The IRS as we know it will be eliminated, Danny me boy, REGARDLESS of what you say. The Fair Tax Revenue Service would replace it to collect the taxes FROM THE BUSINESSES collecting the taxes, not the individual citizens who won't have anything to do with the FTRS. Are you trying to say that the FTRS will audit individuals as the IRS does now. If that's what you're saying, can it be possible that you're full of caca? Of course you are.
As for the black market, the money spent there will eventually be used to puchase things which will be taxed which doesn't happen at all now because those folks don't declare any income or file returns...right?

Incidently...didn't you tell me that you currently have 300+ clients for whom you provide financial and TAX SERVICE??? Could that have anything to do with your objection to the Fair Tax? Might you lose 300+ clients if it comes to pass???....LOLOL

"The Fair Tax Revenue Service would replace it to collect the taxes FROM THE BUSINESSES collecting the taxes, not the individual citizens "

That's malarkey. Are you actually trying to claim the government isn't going to be concerned with the huge black market it just created?

"Are you trying to say that the FTRS will audit individuals as the IRS does now."

If you think they won't be empowered to, you're fooling yourself. They have to be empowered to audit every transaction covered by the Fair Tax.

" If that's what you're saying, can it be possible that you're full of caca? Of course you are."

This is my point about Fair Tax supporters: they're delusional. Jest is pretending the IRS will go away, and no one will investigate, or be empowered to investigate, the black market. D-lusional.

"As for the black market, the money spent there will eventually be used to puchase things which will be taxed which doesn't happen at all now because those folks don't declare any income or file returns...right?"

Wrong. It'll instead create a massive underground economy.

"Incidently...didn't you tell me that you currently have 300+ clients for whom you provide financial and TAX SERVICE??? Could that have anything to do with your objection to the Fair Tax?"

No, my objection is due to the fact it's mostly smoke and mirrors; and as for clients, most would still come to me to sort out a lot of details, at least for a few years. And some folks would come to me to help them fill out the postcard. Besides, most of my income comes from investments these days, despite starting from nothing. Plus, it'd be nice to only have to concentrate on one career for a while. But if anyone has a realistic substitute, I'm all ears. However, I'll pass on one which a) imposes a tax on intra-governmental purchases, b) uses bogus math no municipality is allowed to use, and c) assumes an overnight expansion of the economy by 20%. And that's just for starters.

"No, my objection is due to the fact it's mostly smoke and mirrors;"

I certainly would expect you to object to the Fair Tax because it is against your own self interest. I thought it was ironic that Fred Thompson was originally for the Fair Tax when he began to run for the presidency but backed off when he said the tax advisor on his staff was opposed to it...what in hell did he expect his tax advisor to say? Ol' Fred wouldn't need him any more if the Fair Tax became law.

"Plus, it'd be nice to only have to concentrate on one career for a while."

Yeah, you should probably decide if you want to be a tax advisor, actor, lawyer, political scientist, astronaut, meterologist, blogger, or just go on welfare and play all day on the DR.

interesting.

i'm paying off my home next month anyway.

Besides, most of my income comes from investments these days, despite starting from nothing.

a card carrying proud union member and union shill? high investment income?

doesn't sound like any union member I have ever met in my life.

and I know a lot.

So with fair tax when I go and perform a repair for someone instead of them paying me in cash I can get them to exchange goods. Nope no black market there. Sure it only works so far some will still have to pay in cash but by offering discounts for goods most people will try and barter with me.

Then I will have to watch my back for the FTRS instead of just 1099'ing myself.

Sounds like a lot of work for just some spare cash moonlighting. Oh and how is it anyway fair. Eg. I make exactly what I need to live a year so I pay a tax on every penny I make Joe Blow makes 2x what he needs to live a year he spends 1/2 that extra and saves the rest. He is now paying a much smaller percent than me. Yep regressive taxes rock ... if your rich. Meanwhile it will encourage more savings which will destabilize the economy even more. All growth in our economy is debt so savings turns into decline.

"a card carrying proud union member and union shill?"

Union shill? All I ever do is correct bullshit assumptions. People act as if Unions go in and tell the owner how to run his business, or if they don't and the business goes under, they should have. Management is responsible for 50% of the signatures on the labor contract, and 100% of all the other decisions. Too many want to ignore that fact and blame the only folks who are actually fulfilling their part of the agreement.

"high investment income? doesn't sound like any union member I have ever met in my life."

Well good for you. I guess if you don't know of it, it can't exist.

I've always lived beneath my means, I started saving early, I've been completely faithful over the years, and I've done very, VERY well in the markets. In the ten years I've been a serious investor, I've beaten the market all 10 years.

Besides, are you familiar at all with performing Unions? There are only minimums, not maximums.

"but backed off when he said the tax advisor on his staff was opposed to it."

IOW, someone who actually read and understood it saw what a pile of bullshit it is.

Here's a question no FT advocate has ever been able to answer:

On Tuesday, I buy a computer for $1000. My locale has a 7% sales tax, so I pay $1070. The FT passes on Wednesday. How much does that same computer cost on Thursday?

"you should probably decide if you want to be a tax advisor, actor, lawyer, political scientist, astronaut, meterologist, blogger, or just go on welfare and play all day on the DR."

Lucky for you, you've got none of those options available. If pants-crapping becomes an occupation, though, at least you've got a lot of experience.

"On Tuesday, I buy a computer for $1000. My locale has a 7% sales tax, so I pay $1070. The FT passes on Wednesday. How much does that same computer cost on Thursday?"

Easy...$1070.

Best Buy, or the firm that sold you the computer, has just had the corporate taxes, FICA, and other federal taxes eliminated and replaced with the 23% Fair Tax. Instead of paying all those federal taxes (which would have represented more than 23% of that $1000 sales price) they will just send $230 to the government. They won't be required to withhold income taxes for employees or pay the matching employer's share of FICA and Medicare tax of 7.65%. They will appreciate the vast reduction of all the paper work and record keeping and the employees will receive their entire earnings with NO DEDUCTIONS or WITHHOLDING of taxes.
Granted, some firms may try to raise prices claiming "new" taxes but they'll soon be uncloaked and other businesses will undersell them anyway. No doubt there will be attempts to "cheat the system" but tell me that isn't rampant now. YOU do it with your clients...don't tell me you don't...and we KNOW our senators and representatives are doing it. For the common citizen it will be difficult to file a false report because citizens won't be filing reports.

#78 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Arguing with Danforth reminds me of the old joke "when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it". Danforth is just having fun.

"Arguing with Danforth reminds me of the old joke "when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it". Danforth is just having fun."

Ahh, Danny's OK. He's just confused because he hasn't "found his identity" yet. He wants badly to shame me because I embarrassed him a while back. He IS a lot of fun though and I'm sure he means well. I think he just gets frusteated that he can't convert the conservative posters here to his leftist/"progressive" views. It isn't just with me. You can always tell when he's becoming frustrated when he reverts to comments like the last sentence in post #77.

"Easy...$1070."

Nonsense. As it currently is, the recipient of that money then has to turn around and pay themselves, and their workers, who then all pay FICA taxes. Nowhere does the FT account for recouping the FICA taxes. And you're completely ignoring (as the FT does) any amounts the state would have to make up for eliminating the income tax.

"the 23% Fair Tax."

The FT is 30%; they call it 23%, because the authors use a bogus method of accounting no municipality uses. If something costs $100, and the final price is $130, that's a 30% tax. The equation is 30/100. But the FT includes the cost of the tax, and changes the equation to 30/130. Any municipality would call that a 30% sales tax; the FT pretends it's 23%...because 30% didn't test well.

"They will appreciate the vast reduction of all the paper work and record keeping "

Which the FT assumes is 20% of their time. Twenty percent!!! Anyone here spend 1/5th of their productive time working on taxes??? Anyone?

"No doubt there will be attempts to "cheat the system" but tell me that isn't rampant now."

Not as rampant as when you're tacking a 30% surcharge onto everything.

"YOU do it with your clients...don't tell me you don't."

Bullshit. I insist my clients declare all income, and routinely turn down folks who want me to help them hide income, or folks who's numbers don't come close to adding up.

"For the common citizen it will be difficult to file a false report because citizens won't be filing reports."

Nonsense. They'll simply pay cash for stuff, and the black market will offer the discounts. No one is concerned if I get a haircut, but if there's a 30% surcharge for it, you've just made it much more attractive for the barber & I to make a deal. And since your utopia doesn't include FTRS agents who are empowered to investigate it, the government loses the revenue.

" He wants badly to shame me because I embarrassed him a while back."

Because you were old enough to remember when they flew the Stars & Bars, and I wasn't? I already admitting I was wrong on that...hardly embarrassing. Embarrassing is more Paneocon's area: even when he's shown the answer, he still gets it wrong on the test.

"The FT is 30%; they call it 23%, because the authors use a bogus method of accounting no municipality uses. If something costs $100, and the final price is $130, that's a 30% tax. The equation is 30/100. But the FT includes the cost of the tax, and changes the equation to 30/130. Any municipality would call that a 30% sales tax; the FT pretends it's 23%...because 30% didn't test well."

You should have put quotes around that statement because I've seen it in print in other documents reporting against the Fair Tax and you seem to have copied it verbatim. Allow me to quote from "Fair Tax:The Truth, Answering The Critics," for you.

"Unlike those state sales taxes, the FairTax would be an inclusive sales tax: it would be included in the sales price that you pay when you walk up to the cashier. When you see that nifty digital camera sitting there chained to the display table at your electronics store, the FairTax would be included in the sales price shown on the tag."
(Page 113)
That means the state tax is an EXCLUSIVE sales tax and is NOT included in the sales price. Your receipt for a $100 dollar item will show the purchase price of $1000 (which INCLUDES the 23% FairTax) and a sales tax of 7% and a TOTAL price of $1070.

"And you're completely ignoring (as the FT does) any amounts the state would have to make up for eliminating the income tax."

State icmome taxes and sales taxes are EXCLUSIVE and paid separately from the FairTax, just like they are paid NOW . Get it through your head.

"Nonsense. As it currently is, the recipient of that money then has to turn around and pay themselves, and their workers, who then all pay FICA taxes. Nowhere does the FT account for recouping the FICA taxes."

The FICA is INCLUDED in the 23% FairTax and will NOT be deducted from and earner's pay with the FairTax.. Allow me again...

"Virtually all income taxes are inclusive taxes-that is, they're included in the dollar amount being taxed. If you're in a 15% tax bracket, you are paying 15% out of every 100 dollars you earn in income taxes. Your Social Security and Medicare taxes are also inclusive. For every dollar your employer takes $7.65 and sends it off, along with that "matching contribution," to Washington. Your income taxes and payroll taxes aren't added to TO what you earn, they are taken FROM what you earn."
(Pages 112 and 113)
Employers have already factored all those taxes into the price he's charging. You are already paying the taxes he'll be paying when you buy the item.
That means all those INCLUSIVE taxes will be entirely replaced by the 23% FairTax.

Read the book, Danny...get the real data.

"You should have put quotes around that statement because I've seen it in print in other documents reporting against the Fair Tax and you seem to have copied it verbatim."

I wrote what I posted. No C & P.

"and a TOTAL price of $1070."

You're ignoring state income tax needs, just like the FT.

"State icmome taxes and sales taxes are EXCLUSIVE and paid separately from the FairTax, just like they are paid NOW "

But they'd have to be included in the price of that computer.

" If you're in a 15% tax bracket, you are paying 15% out of every 100 dollars you earn in income taxes."

Whoever made that statement is confusing marginal rates with effective rates.

"Employers have already factored all those taxes into the price he's charging. "

No, they haven't. They didn't factor the 7.65% YOU pay in FICA taxes in the price of the computer.

"Read the book, Danny...get the real data."

I did...it has more holes than a swiss cheese factory.

Scrap the whole damn tax system... replace it with a sales tax.

Every item you purchase, you see how much you are getting fucked by the govt. Every time someone proposes a new federal giveaway, you see your taxes go up.

It is the ultimate pay-as-you-go. And it would encourage voters to elect people who will spend less. Makes it hard to buy a person's vote if they see the cost coming out of their pocket every time they go to the store.

"No one is concerned if I get a haircut, but if there's a 30% surcharge for it, you've just made it much more attractive for the barber & I to make a deal. And since your utopia doesn't include FTRS agents who are empowered to investigate it, the government loses the revenue."

The "surtax" would be 23% if you're talking about the FairTax. If FTRS investgates it will be because the barber isn't paying the tax which has nothing to do with the customers. The customer just pays whatever the barber charges and is done with the deal. However, the barber will still be paying 23% on whatever he buys with the money you gave him.

"You're ignoring state income tax needs, just like the FT."

Negative...you'd STILL ahve to file a STATE tax return and pay the STATE income tax separately...just like you would pay the STATE sales tax separately at the time of purchase. Remember, Danny, the STATE taxes are EXCLUSIVE!

"But they'd have to be included in the price of that computer."

You're confused between the PRICE and the COST of the computer. The STATE sales taxes are EXCLUSIVE from the price but are part of the cost to the purchaser. The FairTax is INCLUSIVE and is included in the $1000 sales PRICE. The $70 is NOT PART OF THE FAIRTAX. If you are in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, or Oregon, the price would be $1000 and the cost would be $1000 because THERE IS NO SALES TAX in those states!

"I did...it has more holes than a swiss cheese factory."

If you DID read it (which I don't believe) your reading comprehension is very suspect. It debunks very clearly the math you're quoting. The person who wrote that 30% garbage used Oregon as his example and Oregon doesn't even have that state sales tax. You may have read the first FaitTax book, but I doubt seriously if you've read this one.
Are you sure you do tax returns for other people?

"replace it with a sales tax."

Right, 1Libertarian...that's what the FairTax is.

"The "surtax" would be 23% if you're talking about the FairTax. "

No it wouldn't; you're willfully ignoring the state and local taxes that would have to be included in that amount. And you still haven't addressed your silly suggestion the FTRS agents wouldn't be bothered with that transaction.

"If FTRS investgates it will be because the barber isn't paying the tax which has nothing to do with the customers."

Huh? Say the barber came to my house. What's going to be investigated?

"However, the barber will still be paying 23% on whatever he buys with the money you gave him."

But the FT assumes the 30%+ will be paid on the haircut as well. And if the barber goes to a local grower and buys food...well, there's another 30%+ transaction the FTRS agents will have to be empowered to investigate.

And why haven't you touched the intra-governmental taxes this imposes? No answer to that?

"Negative...you'd STILL ahve to file a STATE tax return and pay the STATE income tax separatel"

Huh? The first question most state tax forms ask is Federal AGI.

"It debunks very clearly the math you're quoting."

Riiiiiight. They impose a 30% sales tax, but you're willing to pretend it's really a 23% tax.

And ultimately, with the FT, sales tax, and state income tax needs, the final surcharge will be more like 35%-40%.

"Are you sure you do tax returns for other people? "

Yes, and I recognize a 30% sales tax rate when I see one. Is your Alzheimers kicking up again?

yes. And as for tax evasion, most states already have a sales tax, and already have agents to ensure that businesses collect. All that would change is that the sales tax would increase, and the state would pass the portion of the sales tax that is federal on to the feds.

Why should the states and the feds both have agents to ensure that a business is collecting sales taxes?

"You're confused between the PRICE and the COST of the computer."

You still haven't addressed where the employee's 7.65%, which is no longer being withheld at source, is paid.

"No, they haven't. They didn't factor the 7.65% YOU pay in FICA taxes in the price of the computer."

Yes, they did...as part of the 23% FairTax. Get the FUCKIN' BOOK, Danny...read the chapter titled "Criticism: What is the rate anyway:23 percent or 30 percent? Beginning on page 110, it covers all the things you brought up here. Be honest with YOURSELF and read the other side of the issue. I'm sure you've read everything against the FairTax so be balanced and read the "pro" books.

"most states already have a sales tax, and already have agents to ensure that businesses collect."

Sure, but 6% or 7& isn't anywhere near as much of an incentive to cheat as 37%.

"Criticism: What is the rate anyway:23 percent or 30 percent?"

Riiiiiiight. Because they impose a 30% surcharge, but use math no municipality uses.

Why the hell don't cities with a 10% sales tax just call it a 9% inclusive tax? See how easy that was to bring down the stated tax rate?

The problem here is you're using the author's use of bogus math to try to prove it's not bogus math.

Right, 1Libertarian...that's what the FairTax is.

#89 | Posted by jestgettinalong

No... it is a HIDDEN / Embedded tax. That allows them to squeeze in a little extra here and a little extra there...

MAKE IT SALES TAX... put it on each and every receipt. Let EVERYONE see on every purchase how much they are paying to the state, and how much they are paying to the feds.

Then maybe people will start complaining more when they realize how much of the cost of goods is govt overhead.

"I'm sure you've read everything against the FairTax so be balanced and read the "pro" books."

I have. The conceits are frightening:

1. Intra-government purchases, which currently aren't taxed, would be subject to the FT.

2. The FT authors assume a 20% expansion of economy activity overnight.

3. The FT operates on the premise that one out of every five productive minutes of our lives is spent on tax issues.

4. The FT exempts poorer workers from paying FICA-type taxes, which would exacerbate the SS & Medicare underfunding. And the wealthiest would pay a lower marginal rate than they currently do. Guess who gets stuck with the rest of the bill?

"You still haven't addressed where the employee's 7.65%, which is no longer being withheld at source, is paid."

"* IMPORTANT FICA KEYNOTE - The FairTax eliminates FICA Social Security taxes (7.65%) and funds Social Security and Medicare as part of the 23% inclusive sales tax revenues. When comparing your FairTax rates above to your current income tax rates, or any estimated Flat Tax rates, remember to add your 7.65% FICA payroll taxes to your Income Tax expenses before comparing your tax rates. The proposed Flat Tax of 17% will not e affect your current FICA payroll deductions, so the current Flat Tax proposal would really be a 17% + 7.65% FICA = 24.65% initial rate before deductions, clearly higher than FairTax's 23%. Be sure to check your paycheck stubs to see exactly what dollar amount you are paying for FICA social security and medicare through payroll tax deductions. Remember, your employer is also paying 7.65% into FICA on your behalf, money that he/she cannot give you in the form of higher wages. The FairTax eliminates both of these taxes."

It's the size of gov't that is killing us and their spending--and not the discretionary spending. It is the entire gov't spending for running the gov't that needs a 30% cut across the board in every department.

#17 | Posted by MURPHY

Thanks to the moronic priorities of the GOP, who raised the federal budget to that level and left over a trillion a year in deficits.

Idiotic hypocrites.

BTW, MURPHY

Sarah Palin is a liar.

"I may not be able to play much longer."

Before you go away, address the four points in #98

"The FairTax eliminates FICA Social Security taxes (7.65%)"

FICA taxes are 15.3%

As I said, the FT doesn't address the EMPLOYEE'S portion.

"I don't know why you so dense and locked in on that 30% figure "

Because everywhere else, when they tack on 30%, they call it a 30% sales tax. The FT, though, calls it a 23% inclusive tax. But it's really a 30% sales tax that then recalculates the equation after the 30% is tacked on, to pretend it's a 23% tax. And why? People didn't like the idea of a 30% tax, but they'd swallow it if they could pretend it was only 23%.

Simply put, a 23% "inclusive" tax is equivalent to a 30% sales tax.

Anything else is window dressing. Or, as I said at the outset, smoke and mirrors.

"Instead of paying all those federal taxes (which would have represented more than 23% of that $1000 sales price) they will just send $230 to the government."

Therefore:

Before FT: $770
Fair Tax: $230

That's the equivalent of a 29.87% sales tax rate on a $770 product. IOW, if you bought $770 of windows, and your bill, with tax, was $1000, your sales tax rate is 30%, not 23%.

But the FT people want to pretend it's really, really only 23%.

"you'd STILL ahve to file a STATE tax return and pay the STATE income tax separately"

Which means either piggybacking on the FT or keeping the same income tax systems they currently have. If the states did the latter, it would mean taxpayers would have to do more work overall, both systems. What a nightmare.

"Which means either piggybacking on the FT or keeping the same income tax systems they currently have."

You HAVE NOT read the plan. If you had you'd see that the FairTax calls for repealing the 16th Amendment and eliminating federal income tax.

"As I said, the FT doesn't address the EMPLOYEE'S portion."

You HAVE NOT read the plan. If you had you'd see that the FairTax calls for eliminating FICA as it is now.

"That's the equivalent of a 29.87% sales tax rate on a $770 product. IOW, if you bought $770 of windows, and your bill, with tax, was $1000, your sales tax rate is 30%, not 23%."

ONCE MORE...that's not how it works. The FairTax is assessed on the sales price of $1000, NOT on the $770. 23% of 1000 is $230. The merchant sends that to the federal government and keeps 770. If there is a 7% state tax that is added to the price and the purchaser pays an additional $70 ($1070) then the merchant sends $230 to the feds and $70 to the state still keeping $770.
Under the current system, the merchant collects sales price of $1000 and the merchant sends his corporate taxes, matching FICA funds, etc. etc. to the federal government and keeps $770 (est). All those taxes are replaced by the FairTax. READ THE FUCKIN' PLAN, Dan.

HERE...this is a study done by five objective and independent economists. I'm sure you're much smarter than they and that you have done much, much more research in your spare time between large acting roles, but give these guys a short scan or two...OK?

"H.R. 25 and S. 25 would replace the federal
personal income, corporate income, payroll, capital
gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, and
transfer taxes with a single-rate federal retail sales
tax known as the FairTax. The FairTax also would
provide a ‘‘prebate'' to each household based on its
demographic composition. The prebate is set to
ensure that households pay no net taxes on spending
up to the poverty level.
William G. Gale (2005) and the President's Advisory
Panel on Federal Tax Reform (2005) have suggested
that the effective (tax-inclusive) tax rate
needed to implement the FairTax is far higher than
the proposed 23 percent rate. This study, which
builds on Gale's analysis, shows that a 23 percent
rate is eminently feasible and suggests why Gale and
the panel reached the opposite conclusion."

Democrats proposing more ways to raise taxes again... this is news?

I thought Obama wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class...

Oh, that's right. ANOTHER Obama pre-election lie. Did he state ANYTHING truthful to the American people before the Nov. 2008?

"You HAVE NOT read the plan. If you had you'd see that the FairTax calls for repealing the 16th Amendment and eliminating federal income tax."

But it doesn't repeal the individual states income taxes. You said the states would or could continue with their systems if they wanted; certainly the FT wouldn't have the power to eliminate them, and then you're right back where you started, only now with MORE work to do.

"You HAVE NOT read the plan. If you had you'd see that the FairTax calls for eliminating FICA as it is now."

And not replacing it with anything. In your example of the $1070 computer remaining at $1070, the customer isn't paying his payroll taxes with that transaction. Nor it the customer paying his income taxes. He pays those separately, but you want to pretend suddenly they're already in the cost of the computer.

"ONCE MORE...that's not how it works. "

YES IT IS...you've already admitted earlier it's a sales tax, and the whole point was to eliminate the income tax. You don't get to suddenly pretend it's an income tax, just because you can therefore call it "inclusive" and use a bogus, lower number that seems more palatable.

"Under the current system, the merchant collects sales price of $1000 and the merchant sends his corporate taxes, matching FICA funds, etc. etc. to the federal government and keeps $770 (est)"

First, show the math that gets you to $770...since half of the FICA taxes is about $80, you've only got another $150 or so to account for. Second...where's the employee's half of the FICA in that equation? Oh, right...NOWHERE. And the FT literature admits it, only referring to the 7.65%, NOT the 15.3%.

"SO...let's just leave it with "I say 23%, you say $30%.""

No, let's leave it with "it's really a 30% sales tax, but we're going to try to fool you into believing it's only 23% because 30% didn't test well."

"I've posted quotes, links, studies"

All done by the FT folks themselves. And with such ludicrous assumptions as to be laughable. Currently, there's about 85% compliance. The FT assumes 100% compliance, and that's after incentivizing non-compliance like never before.

"you just keep repeating the same stuff you have locked in your brain over and over."

That's because a sales tax is a sales tax, not an "inclusive" tax. It's intellectually dishonest to slap a different name on it --just to get an artificially lower number to advertise -- after you've already admitted it's a sales tax.

"That's because a sales tax is a sales tax, not an "inclusive" tax. It's intellectually dishonest to slap a different name on it --just to get an artificially lower number to advertise -- after you've already admitted it's a sales tax."

Isn't a sales tax based upon the SALES PRICE!? If you agree that it is, why do you insist upon basing it on anything else?

"You don't get to suddenly pretend it's an income tax, just because you can therefore call it "inclusive" and use a bogus, lower number that seems more palatable."

It isn't an INCOME TAX. Income taxes are based upon income, sales taxes are based ypon sales price. What is it that you don't understand? I think you're losing it. You really, really need to read up, lil' buddy.

No point in arguing fair tax. Will never happen. Too slippery politically and too many jobs dependent on current system.

I've seen Danforth argue this many times. He has either read the book or he citing a source that has addressed the FT very well

"That's because a sales tax is a sales tax, not an "inclusive" tax. It's intellectually dishonest to slap a different name on it -"

Why not? Don't you and your little friends call taxes "investments?" I think Clinton started that and you suck it right up...right?.

Let Shrub's tax breaks for the rich expire, stop war, quit manufacturing and maintaining atomic weapons, close foreign military bases and disgorge bailout and CEO control fraud profits. That will close the deficits.

But no, lets go after the little guy, because there's so many of them and they can't fight back.

And Jest...why have you avoided the four questions I asked in post #98? And while your at it:

5. The FT counts income from the additional 30% tax on governmental purchases, but doesn't add the additional 30% cost when calculating expenditures. WTF?

6. The FT adds the 30% on things not normally thought of as taxable transactions: rent, purchase of a house, mortgage interest, doctor bills, utilities, gasoline, legal bills, etc. Currently, sales taxes are based on about 50% of economic activity. The FT assumes 100% of economic activity is taxable...and there will be 100% compliance, NO cheating. Do you actually believe that malarky?

7. The FT imposed the tax on new cars, but not used ones. What does that do to the automobile market?

8. FTers have been convinced they''ll get to "keep their paycheck", and prices will remain "essentially the same" under a system which claims to be "revenue neutral". All three together are mutually exclusive. Any comment?

9. If payroll and income taxes are already embedded in the price of the computer today, and everything else I buy, why do I (and everyone else) currently pay payroll and income taxes separately?

"He has either read the book or he citing a source that has addressed the FT very well."

I guarantee you he hasn't read the book but he has memorized the objections as written by Bartlett and others such as H&R Block, politicians, and others with a vested interest in the CURRENT plan (as Danny does.)

Milton Friedman once keenly observed that it is government spending that falls on the backs of taxpayers. Somehow someway all government spending must be accounted for by taxes, whether they are open, hidden or in the form of inflation. One way or another we've been paying and will continue to pay for the burden of government.

"I guarantee you he hasn't read the book"

Time to recheck your Alzheimers meds, old man. You keep falling back on that every time I bring up an issue you can't address. Your problem is I've read it, I've gone to the websites, I've looked at the numbers and the assumptions, and I can see the smoke and mirrors. You're like a bad magician, pissed because someone else can see how you're trying to pull the rabbit out of your hat.

"he has memorized the objections as written by Bartlett and others"

I don't even know who Bartlett is, and I haven't read a single line about it written by H&R Block. The problems are obvious; it should come as no surprise educated people all see the same bullshit.

"others with a vested interest in the CURRENT plan"

As I said, I can take it or leave it. In 25 years, it's been my largest source of income ONCE.

Now...please address the nine points I've made about the FT, or admit you can't.

#118 | Posted by Danforth

"The answere are all contained in the FairTax Book, "

No, they aren't. That's why I'm asking. Either address the issues, or admit you can't.

Here, I'll make it easy: Start with the 30% they don't tack on to government expenditures. Then find that other 7.65% that the FT admits it's not paying. After that, defend the concept there will be 100% compliance once the black market is incentivized, and explain why more people would comply than do today, defying human nature.

Off to the nephew's baptism. BBL.

"You keep falling back on that every time I bring up an issue you can't address."

Because you keep asking questions that are already answered in the books and in the studies. You keep arguing with ME just because it's ME. Instead, read the material and and refute THAT information. THESE guys answer your questions quite well: Read their study posted previously.

Paul Bachman is the director of research at the
Beacon Hill Institute, Suffolk University, Boston.
Jonathan Haughton is an associate professor of economics
at Suffolk and a senior economist at the
Beacon Hill Institute. Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a professor
of economics at Boston University and a
research associate at the National Bureau of Economic
Research, Cambridge, Mass. Alfonso Sanchez-
Penalver is an economist at the Beacon Hill Institute.
David G. Tuerck is a professor of economics and
chair of the economics department at Suffolk and
executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute.

And here's some reference material for you too:

Check these reference too...educate yourself, READ!

References
Atlig, David, Lawrence Kotlikoff, Kent A. Smetters, and
Jan Walliser. ‘‘Simulating Fundamental Tax Reform in
the United States,'' American Economic Review, 91 no. 3
(June 2004): 574-595.
Bickley, James M. ‘‘AValue-Added Tax ContrastedWith a
National Sales Tax,'' Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress (Sept. 30, 2004). Order Code:
IB92069.
________. ‘‘Flat Tax Proposals and Fundamental Tax
Reform: An Overview,'' Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress, (Sept. 30, 2004). Order Code:
IB95060.
Boortz, Neal and John Linder. The FairTax Plan: Saying
Goodbye to Income Tax and the IRS. New York: Harper-
Collins, 2005.
Burton, David and Dan R. Mastromarco. ‘‘Emancipating
America From the Income Tax: How a National Sales
Tax Would Work,'' Policy Analysis 272, Cato Institute,
Apr. 15, 1997.
Burton, David and Dan R. Mastromarco. Paper prepared
for Americans for Fair Taxation, the Argus Group, Feb.
4, 1998.
Dunbar, Amy and Thomas Pogue. ‘‘Estimating Flat Tax
Incidence and Yield: A Sensitivity Analysis,'' National
Tax Journal, 51 no. 2 (June 1998): 303-324.
Easton, Stephen, with Neils Veldhuis. ‘‘The Size of the
Underground Economy: A Review of the Estimates,''
Simon Fraser University (Jan. 2001).
Edwards, Chris. ‘‘Options for Tax Reform,'' Policy Analysis
536, Cato Institute, Feb. 24, 2005.
Feenberg, Daniel R. and James M. Poterba. ‘‘The Income
and Tax Share of Very High-Income Households,
1960-1995,'' American Economic Review, 90 no. 3 (2000):
264-270.
Feenberg, Daniel R., Andrew W. Mitrusi, and James M.
Poterba. ‘‘Distributional Effects of Adopting a National
Retail Sales Tax,'' National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper Series, 5885 (Jan. 1997).
Variables Used to Inflate Data Points to 2007 Dollars

I actually like this as we don't need to subsidize home ownership - which is why I was not in favor of the new home owner tax credit.

#1 | Posted by taxman at 2010-06-11 11:55 AM | Reply

Why not? We have to subsidize others people's welps

I know the day will eventually come when politicians do away with this deduction. That's why I paid off my mortgage back in 1995.

"Because you keep asking questions that are already answered in the books and in the studies."

Yeah, right. When my question is: why do you claim it's 23%, when it's really 30%? Their answer is: we call it 23%.

That's not an answer. We use a different methodology than anyone else gets to use, to make the number look smaller than it really is, so there! ISN'T an answer.

"Instead, read the material and and refute THAT information. '

I have, and I have. You, however, haven't even ADDRESSED the issues I presented, much less refuted them. Don't tell me the answers are there; they aren't, and the FT admits as much. You still haven't addressed a single point of the nine I posted; instead, you barf links sponsored by the proponents which don't answer them either.

"Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a professor
of economics at Boston University"

And his conclusion was the 30% rate was unrealistic.

"THESE guys answer your questions quite well"

Not one of them has answered any of my nine points. Your turn to try.

"The FT adds the 30% on things not normally thought of as taxable transactions: rent, purchase of a house, mortgage interest, doctor bills, utilities, gasoline, legal bills, etc."

So here goes, Jest: the test of reality. Since rent will now be subject to the FT, if rent is normally $1000, what will it be under the FT? $1230, or $1300?

And since EVERY transaction (100%) is now part of the taxable base, how many transactions will the FTRS be empowered to investigate? Oh, that's right.....ALL of them. So much for the IRS "going away".

"So here goes, Jest: the test of reality. Since rent will now be subject to the FT, if rent is normally $1000, what will it be under the FT? $1230, or $1300?"

$1000...The lessor will just send in $230 for the Fair Tax instead of paying income taxes and other taxes to the feds. Anybody in the rental business knows he has to factor those federal taxes into what he charges for rent in order to make a profit. (I know you don't pay FICA on rents)
I can't seem to get it across to you that the Fair Tax REPLACES the other federal taxes, that's REPLACES them, Danny, not adds to them. SO...if I collect my $1000 rent, set aside $230 (estimated) for federal taxes and keep $770, I'll just set aside $230 for the Fair Tax under that system and keep $770. How simple can it be?
We have beat this to death. You post the same shit over and over and totally ignore where ALL the data states a 23% tax rate and the fact that the IRS would go away. You keep ADDING the 23% to what taxes already exist within that $1000 instead of realizing the old taxes will go away too and be REPLACED. Pick up the book, "FairTax:The Truth, Answering The Critics." You won't do it though. You also keep ignoring the fact that the individual citizen will no longer be required to file taxes ever again and that the FairTax calls for repealing the 16th Amendment and the income tax. Consequently, I'm gonna find another subject and you can just go on being uninformed regarding the FairTax.

If the property owner owns multiple properties and clears say $100,000 after expenses. During that that year he would pay $23,000 at a little less than $2,000 per month. As it stands now he only pays about $15,000. And the tax base would be much broader, because the dirt bag in unit twelve is actually paying taxes now, whether he wants to or not.

"The lessor will just send in $230 for the Fair Tax instead of paying income taxes and other taxes to the feds. "

Huh? SS & Medicare taxes aren't paid on rent. So now they will be?!? And the rent won't rise to cover the lower amount the landlord gets to keep?

DELUSIONAL!

"As it stands now he only pays about $15,000"

No, he doesn't. You're ignoring the standard deduction or itemized deductions, the personal exemption, and the concept of graduated taxes.

No, he doesn't. You're ignoring the standard deduction or itemized deductions, the personal exemption, and the concept of graduated taxes.

#135 | Posted by Danforth

You know as well as I do, that in order to even discuss the current tax code you have to ignore a ton of information. I was only addressing the capital gains tax compared to the Fair Tax. The guy may have 800 dependents, and yes I was ignoring that too.

Why should someone earning capital gains not pay the same rate as someone earning their income by working????

#27 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2010-06-11 03:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Because a millionaire told them that is the best way. It is dividends and capital gains that built America, not work, so it is only natural that they get preferential tax treatment [sarcasm].

One needs to look no further than who is pushing that tax plan to see why they do so, because it will shift the burden off them and onto the working public.

Conversely the working public would rather see all wages exempt from tax and a 50% rate on dividends and capital gains. However they don't have a radio show to pimp it.

This idea that FT would do away with the IRS is bogus. If anyhting and audit under the FT plan would be more intrusive as there will be need to be a way to ensure everyone who purchases something pays taxes. Moreover, I do tax work on the state level here and I can say without out a doubt that most of my state/local corporate and small business work comes from sales and use tax issues. To think businesses won't try to get out of compliance and that there will be a 100% compliance rate is utopic at best.

Tax,

Agree completely. For anyone to believe that the IRS is going away solely because the income tax is going away is naive. There is a whole host of other taxes that the IRS currently administers other than the income tax.

The "fair" tax is a tool being pimped to push an ever increasing tax burden onto the middle class by the wealthy.

A 30% tax rate on purchases would decimate our consumer driven economy. Imagine a $20,000 car being $26,000 overnight. Unreal.

No to mention the fact that many states would not repeal their income taxes, so all the mechanisms such as W-2's and 1099's would still be needed to process that.

because the dirt bag in unit twelve is actually paying taxes now, whether he wants to or not.

#133 | POSTED BY STIRSUMUP AT 2010-06-14 09:14 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yes because magically overnight the underground economy is going to vanish.

LOL!

If anything, look for the underground economy to flourish with a 30% discount.

Because a millionaire told them that is the best way. It is dividends and capital gains that built America, not work, so it is only natural that they get preferential tax treatment [sarcasm].

I understand what you are saying but our tax code gets more complicated as you move up the income ladder. Our govt will made adjustments to direct activity where they want it. There are so many loopholes and complicated methods to minimize tax exposure that we end up with tax rates lower on dividens and capital gains than on income.

I agree in theory that to tax labor more than dividends and capital gains doesn't make sense but when you consider all of the things that don't make sense in our tax code, this is but one of the many.

.if I collect my $1000 rent, set aside $230 (estimated) for federal taxes and keep $770, I'll just set aside $230 for the Fair Tax under that system and keep $770. How simple can it be?

#132 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG AT 2010-06-14 09:00 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Except that when you collect your $1,000 under the current system, you get a dedcution for depreciation, mortgage interest, maintenance charges, etc. that might lower your taxable income to say $500. Then set aside $100 to cover that.

Now comes along the fair tax and the tax bill on $1000 is $230.

So who is gonna pay the extra $130?

The "fair" tax is a tool being pimped to push an ever increasing tax burden onto the middle class by the wealthy.

I don't think the FT is being pushed by the wealthy as though they think it has a chance of ever becoming reality.

They know it won't. 95% of tax payers have earned income and a W-2 is processed and filed with a tax return along with 1099s etc for interest earned and mortage interest/property taxes paid. pretty clean and hard to evade for them. We don't have to worry about every purchase and sale of all items/services with 95% of taxpayers. It would be a nightmare to change to a system where every transaction is .

For the top 5%, it gets very complicated but it is only the top 5%.....not everyone.

The FT is being "pimped" as a tool for the wealthy to keep people stupid..........not because they really intend our govt to change to it.

I think the Upper Class is actually pulling for a National Sales Tax over any form of Income Tax. I think it is the Upper Middle and the Lower Upper who thinks a FT will save them money.

Our basic tax system will not change. It is a useful tool of both left and right. When it was established, all three major candidates had been supporters of it.

Add to this the stealth portion of the tax, embedding it in the payroll structure so most don't even bother looking at their tax liability, but, instead, jump for joy when they get the "refund" news.

The whole concept of purposefully overtaxing just so our great gummit benefactors can hand the masses a "refund" is pure genius.

Imagine a family BBQ, you've got all the food ready, the whole family is there, the beers cold... Then a bus load of gummit folks drive up, eat all they want and leave. As the dust settles, there's your dumb ass saying "well, at least they left some coleslaw and natty light".

The stealth tax will never go away.

It would be a nightmare to change to a system where every transaction is .

Yes it would.

For the top 5%, it gets very complicated but it is only the top 5%.....not everyone.

All taxpayers can have an equally challenging or complicated tax return depending on what they choose to do.

A small business owner can have a very complicated return and pay the lowest income tax possible if their small business loses money.

Then throw in other complications such as adoption credits, earned income credit, energy credits, home buyer credits, hsa's, ira's, etc.

I have prepared tax returns for someone with over $1,000,000 in agi that took 15 minutes to prepare and ones for someone with $25000 of agi that took 2 hours to prepare.

I have prepared tax returns for someone with over $1,000,000 in agi that took 15 minutes to prepare and ones for someone with $25000 of agi that took 2 hours to prepare.

just curious.......how much did you bill each of them? you billed the $1 million person less right?

"I was only addressing the capital gains tax compared to the Fair Tax"

Rent has nothing to do with the capital gains tax.

You don't have a clue, do you?

"Now comes along the fair tax and the tax bill on $1000 is $230."

No, it's not, and the FT admits that. The tax bill on $1000 is $300.

You'd call that 30%, wouldn't you? I would to.

But the FT folks call it 23%. Why? Because they don't do the calculation until AFTER the tax is collected. Instead of the equation being 30/100 = 30% (which everyone else does), they ADD THE TAX into the equation: 30/130 = 23%.

IOW, they administer it like a sales tax, they assess it like a sales tax, they collect it like a sales tax, but when we want to know what % the sales tax will be, they suddenly want to calculate it the way no jurisdiction imposing a sales tax is allowed.

" was only addressing the capital gains tax compared to the Fair Tax. "

But you were comparing the $15,000 to the $23,000. The $23K number is correct; the $15K number is way off. Your comparison is worthless.

"you billed the $1 million person less right?"

I always do. The only difference is the $1M person won't get any discount. If someone comes in with a 4-figure income, I'll usually cut my rate in half.

"95% of tax payers have earned income and a W-2 is processed and filed with a tax return along with 1099s etc for interest earned and mortage interest/property taxes paid. pretty clean and hard to evade for them. "

And part of the HCR bill is that, beginning in 2011 (iirc), taxpayers will be required to issue 1099s to EVERYONE they pay $600 or more, including landlords, dentists, legal bills, etc.

And part of the HCR bill is that, beginning in 2011 (iirc), taxpayers will be required to issue 1099s to EVERYONE they pay $600 or more, including landlords, dentists, legal bills, etc.

which is fucked up IMO. How does this advance the effort in getting uninsured people covered, make coverage more accessable, and deal with the unethical practices of insurance companies?

IMO, this is ammunition to get the current HCR bill repealed.

"which is fucked up IMO. How does this advance the effort in getting uninsured people covered, make coverage more accessable, and deal with the unethical practices of insurance companies?"

A few reasons:

First, DC has a list of "revenue enhancers"...a menu of them, if you will. Whenever they need to offset new expenditures, they find one of those and tack it on.

Second (and the main reason) is the most recent IRS study showed that income not taxed at source (self-employment, rent, payments to doctors, etc) is the main way folks avoid taxation, either by underreporting or overdeducting.

They've been waiting to pull this trigger until they needed it. And now they need it, in spades.

Second (and the main reason) is the most recent IRS study showed that income not taxed at source (self-employment, rent, payments to doctors, etc) is the main way folks avoid taxation, either by underreporting or overdeducting.

so if I pay my lawn service guy $700 a year to mow my grass, I have to generate a 1099 and send it to him and file it on my taxes?

lemme guess who wins in this deal?

I am not deducting this so no win for me.

My lawn service guy already reports this income so no win for him.

However, my accountant has to verify the amount, generate the form, and mail it to him. This is an additional service and will need to be paid for.

Am I understanding this right?

"so if I pay my lawn service guy $700 a year to mow my grass, I have to generate a 1099 and send it to him and file it on my taxes?"

Not "file it on your taxes", per se. More like follow the basic 1099 procedures: issue one to the lawn guy, keep a copy, and send a copy to the IRS, all by January 31st.

"lemme guess who wins in this deal?"

Well, in a way, all of us who are already being honest about our income. As it is, we're paying his portions.

"I am not deducting this so no win for me."

True. One of my worries is a lot of money will be generated from fines for NOT filing the 1099s. It'll be ugly, at least until people get used to it.

"My lawn service guy already reports this income so no win for him."

If he already reports, it's no loss either. What the IRS study found out, though, is too many don't report ALL the income. With the new 1099 system, evasion will be more difficult.

"However, my accountant has to verify the amount, generate the form, and mail it to him. This is an additional service and will need to be paid for."

Or you could do it yourself...it's very, very easy. All you need is their name, address & SS#, the same for you, and the amount you paid him. Then you gather all 1099s, and send one copy to the IRS, along with a 1096, which is a summary sheet that just asks how many 1099s you're sending, and the total of all the 1099s you issued. The whole process should take you fifteen minutes, if you dawdle.

One of the possible glitches: you'll be asking A LOT of people for their social security numbers. Identity fraud will doubtless increase. As it is, I even discourage people from having their refunds directly deposited into their bank accounts: I hate the idea of having your bank account number and your SS# on the same form.

"There are so many loopholes and complicated methods to minimize tax exposure that we end up with tax rates lower on dividens and capital gains than on income."

Except even without loopholes or complicated methods, the worker is taxed at a higher rate than folks who go to the mailbox & open up dividend checks for a living.

Two generations ago that was unthinkable. Today, it's SOP.

#157

how many people who supported the HCR knows this is part of the bill?

what a mess.

"how many people who supported the HCR knows this is part of the bill? "

Then again, too many folks have been shirking their responsibilities and sticking you and I with the tax bill. At least this way, most folks will be paying a bit closer to their fair share.