Just what is a "fair" amount or percentage to pay for federal income taxes? There is always discussions on "the rich don't pay their fair share" or "the poor get back money and didn't even pay in" opinions, but what is fair?

It seems to me that most people think "fair" is what the "other guy" should be paying.

The other debate seems to center around corporate tax schedules... usually along the lines of "they are making too much money, we should tax them more and/or take their profits" or "if you tax them too much they will reduce growth and spending, thereby lowering employment and raises".

What say ye?

i'm not opposed to being taxed as much as i am seeing that money squandered:rant:

Taxation is such a complex issue that any generalization anyone makes is likely to be wrong in a fair number of cases. Even though I'm a libertarian, I am not opposed to progressive taxes. But I have a tendency to disapprove of income taxes as a rule. I like the idea of FairTax, but I'm not sure how well it would work.

Taxation is such a complex issue that any generalization anyone makes is likely to be wrong in a fair number of cases. Even though I'm a libertarian, I am not opposed to progressive taxes. But I have a tendency to disapprove of income taxes as a rule. I like the idea of FairTax, but I'm not sure how well it would work.
the FairTax looks great on paper, but so did Operation Iraqi Freedom..it ignores the basic human impulse to look for the best deal possible.

The idea of a flat tax has been floated many times over the years. Could be as simple as filling out the back of a postcard or a few spaces on an online form. Individuals pay X% of their annual income, corporations pay Y%. Don't know if that's the same idea behind the FairTax mentioned above. Establish the same at state level in those states that levy an income tax. Save a billion trees each year.

Don't know if that's the same idea behind the FairTax mentioned above.You must have ignored the zillion posts by gmsisko1 about it. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairtax

A consumption tax (flat tax, "fair" tax) would hit poor people disproportionately harder than it would wealthy people, since consumption goods take a larger proportion of their income then they do the wealthy.

You must have ignored the zillion posts by gmsisko1 about it. :)

It took some effort, but ... yes.

After reading that brief, it seems that a flat tax makes more sense.

i'm not opposed to being taxed as much as i am seeing that money squandered:rant:

Taxation is such a complex issue that any generalization anyone makes is likely to be wrong in a fair number of cases. Even though I'm a libertarian, I am not opposed to progressive taxes. But I have a tendency to disapprove of income taxes as a rule. I like the idea of FairTax, but I'm not sure how well it would work.

I agree with both of these.

The current income tax system is broken and there needs to be some bipartisan effort put into this problem. Of course as long as both sides of the aisle enjoy their "pork" and "earmarks", and we as a populace do not demand they work toward a balanced budget, they will keep on taxing and spending till we are so far in the hole that our decendants will look like salmon swimming upstream.

As far as individual taxes, I feel a combination of a progressive tax and a consumption tax is the best way to go. We already gather massive amounts of tax revenue from excise taxes... it is only logical that this is carried over to all consumer goods.

There is also a segment of the population than works for "cash" and pay little to no federal income taxes. The consumption tax would at least make them shoulder some of their tax burden.

As far as the consumption tax specifics, I would see no taxes on "necessity" items such as food, with a small tax on soft goods, and a larger tax on other items. I also have no problems with an even higher rate for "luxury" buys. I also think the taxes on savings earnings is counter-productive. The nation as a whole needs to learn to save more, and a penalty on doing that is really stupid.


Any thoughts?

The current income tax system is broken and there needs to be some bipartisan effort put into this problem. Of course as long as both sides of the aisle enjoy their "pork" and "earmarks", and we as a populace do not demand they work toward a balanced budget, they will keep on taxing and spending till we are so far in the hole that our decendants will look like salmon swimming upstream.

As far as individual taxes, I feel a combination of a progressive tax and a consumption tax is the best way to go. We already gather massive amounts of tax revenue from excise taxes... it is only logical that this is carried over to all consumer goods.

There is also a segment of the population than works for "cash" and pay little to no federal income taxes. The consumption tax would at least make them shoulder some of their tax burden.

As far as the consumption tax specifics, I would see no taxes on "necessity" items such as food, with a small tax on soft goods, and a larger tax on other items. I also have no problems with an even higher rate for "luxury" buys. I also think the taxes on savings earnings is counter-productive. The nation as a whole needs to learn to save more, and a penalty on doing that is really stupid.


Any thoughts?
an excise tax on consumption in an economy dependent on consumption would be a disaster.

it destroyed the domestic luxury boat industry and resulted in negative revenue the last time it was tried, i really wouldn't want to be anywhere in manufacturing if it was tried on a wider scale.

an excise tax on consumption in an economy dependent on consumption would be a disaster.

it destroyed the domestic luxury boat industry and resulted in negative revenue the last time it was tried, i really wouldn't want to be anywhere in manufacturing if it was tried on a wider scale.

It would have to be across the board, not just limited to luxury items. You already pay it on some items, such as gasoline.

i really wouldn't want to be anywhere in manufacturing if it was tried on a wider scale.
I don't need an excise tax to want nothing to do with manufacturing.

The current income tax system is broken and there needs to be some bipartisan effort put into this problem. Of course as long as both sides of the aisle enjoy their "pork" and "earmarks", and we as a populace do not demand they work toward a balanced budget, they will keep on taxing and spending till we are so far in the hole that our decendants will look like salmon swimming upstream.

As far as individual taxes, I feel a combination of a progressive tax and a consumption tax is the best way to go. We already gather massive amounts of tax revenue from excise taxes... it is only logical that this is carried over to all consumer goods.

There is also a segment of the population than works for "cash" and pay little to no federal income taxes. The consumption tax would at least make them shoulder some of their tax burden.

As far as the consumption tax specifics, I would see no taxes on "necessity" items such as food, with a small tax on soft goods, and a larger tax on other items. I also have no problems with an even higher rate for "luxury" buys. I also think the taxes on savings earnings is counter-productive. The nation as a whole needs to learn to save more, and a penalty on doing that is really stupid.


Any thoughts?

The statement 'the tax system is broken' is too general. I don't know what you mean when you say that. you need to be more specific about what is broken and why.

The statement 'the tax system is broken' is too general. I don't know what you mean when you say that. you need to be more specific about what is broken and why.
Did you read the rest of his post?

Did you read the rest of his post?

I actually agree with Waldo on this. The problems he is complaining about seem to be more with spending than with taxing. (pork, earmarks, a balanced budget, etc.)

I have much more of a problem with spending than with the way we are taxed.

I have much more of a problem with spending than with the way we are taxed.
I agree. In fact, if spending wasn't so irresponsible and inefficient, we wouldn't need to be taxed as much.

Did you read the rest of his post?

Do explain how the rest of his post clarifies his position.

I am a proponent of the FairTax as well, but I do not think that there will be a going out of business sign on the IRS anytime soon. I do not believe that consumption taxes will hit anyone particularly hard. Plus the rebates on top of that would significantly lower the burden on lower income.

Again I believe that we need to completely curb spending at the federal level.

Do explain how the rest of his post clarifies his position.
It doesn't explain it entirely, but he said more than just "The tax system is broken."

I think I pay too much in taxes. I make a good living, but pay about $1,500 a month in federal taxes. Part of me doesn't believe in punishing people for making boatloads of cash, but the other part of me wants the rich guys to help me out a little.

It doesn't explain it entirely, but he said more than just "The tax system is broken."

If you weren't a girl i'd give you a spanking for such nonsense.

If you weren't a girl i'd give you a spanking for such nonsense.
IOW, she was right and you were wrong, but you don't want to admit it. Give me a break.

IOW, she was right and you were wrong, but you don't want to admit it. Give me a break.

Why not. Here's your chance to show where OP clarifies his position. Maybe the two of you can work together on it. :cuddle:

Why not. Here's your chance to show where OP clarifies his position. Maybe the two of you can work together on it. :cuddle:
How about the sentence after the one you quoted? "Of course as long as both sides of the aisle enjoy their "pork" and "earmarks", and we as a populace do not demand they work toward a balanced budget, they will keep on taxing and spending till we are so far in the hole that our decendants will look like salmon swimming upstream."

Sounds pretty specific to me. Don't you agree with that?

I'm in favor of a flat tax coupled with a national sales tax.

Example:

No earned money under $40,000 is taxed and all earned money over that amount is taxed at 10%.

No exemptions for corporations or individuals.

You earn $40,000 or less you pay no income tax.

You earn $60,000 you pay $2,000 in income tax.

You earn $140,000, you pay $10,000 in income tax.

The more you earn the more you pay but the percentage of what you pay to what you earn remains the same.


National Sales Tax:

Items considered non-necesities, ie, food, clothing under a certain price, one family auto under a certain price, (say $25,000) are untaxed.

All other items are taxed at 10%.

You buy a $50,000 car you are taxed $2,500. You buy a $10,000 mink coat you are taxed $1,000. You buy a boat for $20,000k you are taxed 2,000. You buy a second family car for $25,000 you are taxed $2,500. No excuses, no exceptions.

How about the sentence after the one you quoted? "Of course as long as both sides of the aisle enjoy their "pork" and "earmarks", and we as a populace do not demand they work toward a balanced budget, they will keep on taxing and spending till we are so far in the hole that our decendants will look like salmon swimming upstream."

Sounds pretty specific to me. Don't you agree with that?

That's a statement about spending, not taxation. Again?

I actually agree with Waldo on this.

Waldo, maybe you should re-examin your position. Any time dharmabum agrees with someone there is a better than even chance they are wrong.:lolhit:

Waldo, maybe you should re-examin your position. Any time dharmabum agrees with someone there is a better than even chance they are wrong.:lolhit:

I know. :@@: Do you think this is one of the signs of the apocalypse?:)

If you weren't a girl i'd give you a spanking for such nonsense.
Hmm, so you like to spank boys? I never knew... :lolhit:

EDIT: Wait a minute... Father Flannery?!

I was going to say something to you, DF but then my better judgement kicked in so I won't.

Hmm, so you like to spank boys? I never knew... :lolhit:

EDIT: Wait a minute... Father Flannery?!

If you were old enough i wouldn't mind in the least :cool: but you're still a minor with much to learn.:banana: I can get in lots of trouble for that. ;)

That's a statement about spending, not taxation. Again?
Spending and taxing are inextricably linked. You can't spend money you don't have, or at least not for long.

Spending and taxing are inextricably linked. You can't spend money you don't have, or at least not for long.

Revenue generation/Taxation can take many forms. If OP doesn't like one i'm fine with that. Tell us what he doesn't like, why and what might be better.

All he/you've given us is he doesn't like how it's spent. Which has nothing to do with the various forms of how it's raised.

I was going to say something to you, DF but then my better judgement kicked in so I won't.
Well thanks a lot... now I want to know what it is. :p