Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
I come from a state where there is No State Income Tax.
All state taxes for individuals are collected when we make our daily purchases.
Our tax is called a state sales tax -- no paper work required.
I, for one, have longed for a sales tax on the National Level -- a National Sales Tax (or as Huckabee
would call it - The Fair Tax)
There is so much opposition to this -- you hear the talking heads saying that Huckabee
can't be taken seriously. But, talk like this will continue to keep us under the IRS's thumb (or foot)
forever.
I think we as a nation need to stand up and demand a change in the way taxes or collected in this country!
Or do you guys live for keeping the IRS happy every April 15 - Year After Year After Year After.......?
We don't necessarily have to put the IRS totally out of business. Let's just get them off the
backs of the average Joe -- Perhaps we can keep them around for the policing of the
Corporations and other business entities in America.
I only bring this up now because Super Tuesday is next week and Huckabee is the only
viable candidate, espousing a National Sales Tax -- This may be our only chance to bring
about positive tax change in America because I have never known anyone to run on this
issue in the past but I have been wanting to see this issue come to the fore for years now.
If Huckabee continues to be thought of as 'not being taken seriously' then no candidate in
future elections is going touch this issue with a ten-foot pole.
As far as I can tell, it's never been brought up in the past and it won't be brought up in the
future ever again unless we as a people stand up and give a voice to support of Huckabee.
Vote Huckabee for tax change on Tuesday or whenever it comes your time to have your
voice heard!
I welcome any comments or debates on this issue before next Tuesday.
Thanks for listening,
MP
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
Welcome back MP, I for one have missed having you around here, not to mention the chess-board as well. Taxes are like religion there are so many complicated issues and you could debate for centuries about what is fair or not fair. I have a professional do mine so the actual filling is effortless. After my Taxes are paid, I still have plenty of money left over so I cannot complain. (others might take up this discussion with more distain than I), but I am not unhappy with the way things are right now. After-all the government does need their money so that they can go around the world butting into everyones business while we still have poverty over here.
Please stick around, and let me know when or if you wish to play chess some time...
Apsll.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 264
|
MP,
Huckabee supports the Fair Tax. There is actually a book written about it by Neil Boortz (sp) I think. I also think that it is introduced in Congress each year by someone as their pet project.
Generally I like Huckabee, but disagree with the Fair Tax. The fundamental problem (among others) I have with it is that you pay the tax whether you have the money or not. I am more in favor of paying taxes based on profits and income. You have to earn a dollar before you have to pay % of that dollar. I would like to see a flater income tax structure, with less "deductions" and other manupulative factors. I also think there should be a significant threshold before your interest and other investment income are taxed. Why should some old lady pay taxes on $1000 in interest from her savings account? Simplification would lead to less IRS. We can all dream. Good luck.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/27/2006
Posts: 36
|
Memorableproducts,
I agree 100% "Keep it Simple/Stupid".
Of course this would elimate thousands jobs in both the goverment and retail sectors.
The question is could the US economy handle losing thousands of more jobs at this time?
I am not up to date on the jobs that are leaving overseas and Mexico every year, but I am sure that this will continue to increase. This is another subject.
Thanks,
ward1
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/7/2004
Posts: 393
|
MP, Don't mean to pile on but a sales tax only would probably require it be around 30% in order to fund our gov't. That would be a crushing blow to our lower wage earners.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 11/1/2005
Posts: 240
|
I think Arkansas has supplied us with too many choices for president, when Huckabee first came out he seemed to be one to look at, then I saw the state he comes from. The Clintons HAVE SHOWN WE CAN DO BETTER. there has to other choices out there. Mitt with his experience could be good for the markets, I'm leaning his way for now. The IRS would be tough to break down, the Accountants lobby would have to be disarmed. I don't like taxes any more than the next guy but, much of it is for job creation, and I have family in their work force :)s
When I first started in investing, someone said, pay your taxes, if you feel they are too high make more profits?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
it's not bad to pay taxes... they don't take it all . they can tax proffits but losses are deductions. Granted .. the whole thing could be simplified a bit, and less loophole for the wealthy.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
Thanks Apsll. Missed you too. Can't really say that I'm back though. I think I will leave the trading talk alone for a while longer. But, yeah, let's play chess.
Same Time, Same Place, Same 15 min No Show Rule?
Apsll, like ward1, I believe in the K.I.S.S. principle.
In the past, it has been no problem for me to file an individual tax return. My tax preparation is very straight foward -- rarely do I need to concern myself with itemizing. The standard deduction has been good enough for me as it gets larger and larger with each passing year. So, this is something that I'm able to do myself.
But, last year things started getting more complicated when I decided to start trading through my corporation and paying myself a salary. Now I've got to worry about 2 sets of returns and I don't have a clue yet about filing corporate tax returns. But if I pass it off to a professional then I won't learn anything if I'm not doing the taxes myself. So, bottom line for me is more paper work to concern myself about -- not that a professional would not make my life easier, but I just personally have a need to learn these things for myself.
On the other hand, no paper work at all is even more appealing!
Later,
MP
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
Golfman, Ward, LapHill, JimStacey, Scott --
The fair tax, I feel, can be adjusted to suit everyone. Perhaps the IRS can also be in charge of seeing that the lower income wage earners get some sort of rebate for the sales taxes they would have to pay for goods and services purchased.
Furthermore, I don't think the taxes would be as high as 30% -- last I heard it was 23%. But, if we keep the IRS in the equation to oversee all Business Entities taxes then perhaps a further percentage reduction can be proposed down from 23% to maybe 15% or less.
Realize that (as I understand it), our Founding Fathers explicitly stated in our constitution that there was to be no taxes render on income but on goods and services only -- At least that's what I heard. And, these were very smart men who supposively created a near perfect document (with the exception of a few amendments that needed passing).
So, this means that our tax system is unconstitutional to begin with. So, the fact that a huge industry has been built around the income tax just means that it was done on an unconstitutional foundation to begin with. So sure, a lot of jobs will be displaced but these jobs were unconstitutionally established in the first place.
On the other hand, just think -- we've got at least 30 million illegal aliens in this country right now -- many of whom are working for cash only thereby not paying taxes to our government. Furthermore, what aboutn all of the illegal activities in this country that never have to pay taxes?
All of this additional revenue via sales tax payments for goods and services will be so huge that the government should have surpluses out the wazoo -- even better than when Clinton was in office.
By the way, like Huckabee, Clinton came from Arkansas too. Could this possibly mean that any candidate coming from Arkansas may show promise of being very positive for this country's tax implications?
Remember, Clinton not only balanced the budget with a surplus to boot but the also cut taxes. And, now maybe Huckabee can one-up things over Clinton by advocating a National Sales Tax.
And, as far as some congressmen or senators introducing National Sales Tax legislation as a pet project each year -- these efforts will always fall on deaf ears because the tax lobbyist are too powerful. Only a Presidential Candidate will be
able to carry a mandate to push this legislation through both houses of congress.
Later,
MP
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 319
|
There has been a great deal of talk recently by the Democrats saying they will not continue the Bush tax cuts when they expire in a few years because these tax cuts help the wealthy. Do they really??? Below is a quick comparison of taxes paid by various groups of people in 1999 vs 2008. If a married couple earning $60,000 must go back to the 1999 tax level, their taxes will rise from the current $9,000 level to $16,800. Does $60,000/yr for a married couple constitute being "wealthy"?? Give me a break.
Here's a chart with a link to check it all out:
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400 Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000 Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250 Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800 Married making 60K – tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 2/2/2008
Posts: 2
|
The only sure "things" in life are death and taxes.
Governments throughout the ages have had an insaitiable appetite for "capital"
This has to be confiscated from the masses in one form or another. My ancestors on one side had to contend with cossacks. Hmmm, might have been in part, a catalyst to migrate to the US.
Any type of tax simplification would put a myriad of accountants out of work (as well as eliminating loopholes) . Won't happen. Accelerated depreciation is needed to spur capital investment. Requires "complexity".
As for simplification, for the masses, tax preparation, ie W-2 and little more, is reasonably simple. Yet we have H& R Block and Jackson Hewett, etc. And the fee income from rapid refunds should reflection the stupidity of the masses. The concept of the time value of money is apparently elusive, or........................we have millions that live hand to mouth. Next tier higher has little more than $5,000 liquid (and the equity in their homes and perhaps a modest 401-K).
As for constitutionality, a platitude. With the exception of the Civl War, there were no income taxes imposed until 1913. Coincidently the same year as the establishment of of the Federal Reserve system.
Witholding was implemented in 1943 as a temporary wartime measure. Temporary now stands at 65 years.
For masses, the over-payment of taxes, and in turn the annual refund season, is often there only form of "savings".
Yes, we're all tired of not just the BS paperwork, but more importantly writing out a check four times a year. You have to look at it as the price for success or cost of doing business the refrain from pondering how it's spent.
All in all, little or nothing is going to conceptually change. Hence no point to the thread
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Do you guys really expect there to be tax reform???
Realize until you know what the game is, nothing will
ever be done.
Un-like most I have always done my own taxes.
(I like to know my enemy)
----------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately Apsll represents what's typical:
"I have a professional do mine so the actual filling is effortless."
Most don't even know what the TAX Code is.
The first step toward tax reform would be to launch
all elected officials (no incumbents) I don't really
care if you reelect democrats or republicans.
This would be the first message to them that you
get it. You would have their attention.
------------------------------------------------------
To all those that believe the government is "wonderful".
I would also have a law that one night a week at a local
community college. For 3 hours. the TAX Code is read
to you. If by the end of the month your brain isn't
scrambled. You will probably start demanding
some action.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 9/25/2007
Posts: 1,506
|
QUOTE (memorableproducts)
Remember, Clinton not only balanced the budget with a surplus to boot but the also cut taxes. And, now maybe Huckabee can one-up things over Clinton by advocating a National Sales Tax.
I'm sorry M/P ....
But this is simply not true ...
Not only did Clinton not lower taxes ... the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was the largest tax increase in the history of mankind ... and the ONLY time in the history of the US where the DEAD were taxed ...
In so far as Clinton's "surplus" is concerned ...
I've seen all of that "fuzzy math" ....
Show me the year ... that the National Debt actually decreased ...
After all ... if there REALLY was a surplus ... that number should have gone down ... right ??
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
QUOTE (efficiency)
Any type of tax simplification would put a myriad of accountants out of work (as well as eliminating loopholes) . Won't happen. Accelerated depreciation is needed to spur capital investment. Requires "complexity".
As for simplification, for the masses, tax preparation, ie W-2 and little more, is reasonably simple. Yet we have H& R Block and Jackson Hewett, etc. And the fee income from rapid refunds should reflection the stupidity of the masses. The concept of the time value of money is apparently elusive, or........................we have millions that live hand to mouth. Next tier higher has little more than $5,000 liquid (and the equity in their homes and perhaps a modest 401-K).
All in all, little or nothing is going to conceptually change. Hence no point to the thread
Really? So you don't suppose that allowing all business entities to continue to be taxed by the IRS would enable this 'myriad of accountants', for the most part, to
keep their jobs?
Seems to me that the main accounting professionals that would be effected by a National Sales Tax on the masses are the accounting professionals that work for establishments like H&R Block, Jackson Hewlett or the Turbo Tax people.
Moreover the majority of the masses don't use C.P.A's anyway ( although increasingly more of them or using Turbo tax or doing their own taxes).
So I really don't see how the majority of accountants would be out of work in the scenario I have proposed -- Continued Income Tax For Business Entities and a
National Sales Tax for the rest of us.
Accountants working for corporate america for instance would still have their jobs because they will still be needed to keep the books straight or find the loopholes in order to help their company continue tax avoidance against the IRS.
But, in a way you are right about one thing in that nothing is going to change for as long as people such as yourself believe that fighting for change is a hopeless cause.
Change begins with discussions such as these where perhaps a new idea that has never come to light before now shows possiblities.
The founding fathers knew what they were doing and we need to get back to their basics. If you don't believe me then let me just refer you to Diceman's post on this
thread about how ridiculously complex the tax code has gotten and continues to get.
mp
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
QUOTE (realitycheck)
I'm sorry M/P ....
But this is simply not true ...
Not only did Clinton not lower taxes ... the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was the largest tax increase in the history of mankind ... and the ONLY time in the history of the US where the DEAD were taxed ...
In so far as Clinton's "surplus" is concerned ...
I've seen all of that "fuzzy math" ....
Show me the year ... that the National Debt actually decreased ...
After all ... if there REALLY was a surplus ... that number should have gone down ... right ??
Ok Reality but what happens in the Clinton years following that 1993 tax increase?
And was this all Clinton's fault or should congress take much of the blame?
Seems to me that the easiest way to find out if any tax cuts occurred in the years following 1993
would be to go back in time and review the annual standard deductions for the 1040 forms of 1994 - 1998. If the standard deduction increased a little more each year then you were experiencing a
tax cut every year after 1993.
As far as the surplus is concerned. Please help me understand what the Government's Budget Surplus has to do with the National Debt? When a Budget Surplus occurs within the government does that not mean that the administration chose not to use these excess funds to pay on the national debt ? But, they instead chose to their funds in the bank, so to speak?
In other words, let's say that you have a personal credit card debt of $30000 and at the end of the year
you were able to save $10000 from your pay checks and put it in a savings account. Your wife keeps nagging you that you need to take all of that money out of savings and pay down on your $30000 debt.
But, you stay firm and you tell her -- No, because we may need this savings for a rainy day so our
Creditors are just going to have to wait al little while longer to get fully paid.
So, even though you have this huge debt still looming, you still have a savings account surplus because
you chose to hang on to it rather that throwing it away to the credit interest hogs.
So, when Bush came along he emptied that Surplus Piggy Bank real fast and he begin to spend
money that we didn't have. Thus, we have a huge Budget Deficit again rather than a Budget Surplus.
mp
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 319
|
Do you guys really think our politicians care a flip about balancing the budget or reducing the national debt? Of course they don't. This is all a game to them. The ONLY thing they care about is getting re-elected so that they can stay in power.
We have had 8 years of "rule" by the Clintons and 12 years by the Bushes. That's 20 years in power by 2 families......and now the Clinton's wants to return for another 8. EIGHT years is enough for any one family and I don't care if you are republican or democrat.
It's time to move forward......... but the voting masses do not seem to have the intellect or enterpirising sprit needed to move our country forward. There are so many issues that have needed reform.....but they are seldom accomplished by government officials or politicans because it is not in THEIR self-interest to do so.
We the people can change the course of our nation if we have the will and energy to do so. So far I don't see that happening. Our country continues to be controlled by politicians and government beaurocrats........not by the people. By abdicating our responsibilities to be actively involved in the process, we will continue to lose our individual freedoms.
This will be my last post. I'm getting tired of all the nonsense.
Good luck to you all,
survivor
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
That was my point survivor.
They must be shown the door.
When Dukacus (don't know the spelling) ran against
Bushes father. He chose Benson as his vice-president.
The media at the time was very confused at how
conservative Benson was.
The simple truth at the time was you don't get elected
as a liberal in his state. To have power democrats had to
be conservative.
The simple truth is. If voters learned to show politicians
the door. If they be republican or democrat you would
have politicians that would have more of your interest in
mind.
The "vote for me he is the enemy" mentality is just a
game they hide behind.
Realize that it doesn't matter who the president is.
If Huckabee were to win. He would simply give
his tax to congress and say they failed to pass it.
You must threaten there power base (by showing them
the door) then you will have their attention.
(the cat will be out of the bag)
(of course I give that the same probability as
$10 a barrel oil, politicians thrive on ignorance)
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 11/1/2005
Posts: 240
|
ANy change in the Clinton adminstration's budget was after the Republicians took over congress.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 9/25/2007
Posts: 1,506
|
M/P ....
I understand what you're saying ... but it is tantamount to company deciding not to pay their bills ... and then claiming that, as a result, their profits are way up .... i.e fuzzy math ...
QUOTE (jimstacy) ANy change in the Clinton adminstration's budget was after the Republicians took over congress.
Not sure what budget, specifically, that you are speaking of Jim ...
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 ... i.e. The Largest Tax Increase In the History of Mankind ... was passed by a Democratically controlled House and Senate and signed into law by Clinton ... in early October of 1993 ... and made RETROACTIVE back to January 1, 1993 ...
The alledged surplus came much later in his administration ...
Spending during the Clinton years increased a pretty good clip ... however ... he was handed a "gift" in the form of the Dot Com Bubble ...
The trading that took place during this bubble generated enormous short term capital gains that single-handed accounted for the alledged "surplus" ...
Please don't take my word for any of this ...
The spreadsheets are downloadable in Excel format from irs dot gov ... and from those you can compare on a year over year basis ... not only gross receipts ... but also how they were derived ... i.e. which form of taxation ...
As far as spending trends ... that information is available from the Congressional Budget Office ...
All that aside ... regardless of whether you belong to the "tax & spend" camp ... or the "borrow & spend" camp ... all roads pretty much lead to the same place ...
As the spending is the most important thing to curtail ... not the source of the funding for it ...
If you have a few minutes ... you may want to Google ... and check out ... the Grandfather Economic Report ...
It is probably the best graphical representations that I have ever seen regarding the dismal path ... and eventual end ... to the path that we are all traveling down ...
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 11/1/2005
Posts: 240
|
I'm refering to Newt Gingrich contract with America, he replaced Channey as Minority whip. I'm offering up that any budget surplus was a result of their action, not the Clinton adminastration? from memory of the news at the time. I'm at a point in life, if its not an investment, I use memory, no looking up any thing unless there is a potential profit.? :)s ok I do use spell more than I like.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
I just heard that Super Tuesday tomorrow can very well lock up the Republican nomimation for one of the candidates -- meaning that the rest of the states that vote after tomorrow won't matter in the delegate count.
So, if you feel the way I do about this, please get out tomorrow and show your support for Mike Huckabee.
This is probably our only chance in this life time to turn this thing around
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 11/1/2005
Posts: 240
|
Or Mitt......Give us a break from the Arkansas politices.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 2/5/2006
Posts: 1,148
|
QUOTE (realitycheck) M/P ....
I understand what you're saying ... but it is tantamount to company deciding not to pay their bills ... and then claiming that, as a result, their profits are way up .... i.e fuzzy math ...
QUOTE (jimstacy) ANy change in the Clinton adminstration's budget was after the Republicians took over congress.
Not sure what budget, specifically, that you are speaking of Jim ...
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 ... i.e. The Largest Tax Increase In the History of Mankind ... was passed by a Democratically controlled House and Senate and signed into law by Clinton ... in early October of 1993 ... and made RETROACTIVE back to January 1, 1993 ...
The alledged surplus came much later in his administration ...
Spending during the Clinton years increased a pretty good clip ... however ... he was handed a "gift" in the form of the Dot Com Bubble ...
The trading that took place during this bubble generated enormous short term capital gains that single-handed accounted for the alledged "surplus" ...
Please don't take my word for any of this ...
The spreadsheets are downloadable in Excel format from irs dot gov ... and from those you can compare on a year over year basis ... not only gross receipts ... but also how they were derived ... i.e. which form of taxation ...
As far as spending trends ... that information is available from the Congressional Budget Office ...
All that aside ... regardless of whether you belong to the "tax & spend" camp ... or the "borrow & spend" camp ... all roads pretty much lead to the same place ...
As the spending is the most important thing to curtail ... not the source of the funding for it ...
If you have a few minutes ... you may want to Google ... and check out ... the Grandfather Economic Report ...
It is probably the best graphical representations that I have ever seen regarding the dismal path ... and eventual end ... to the path that we are all traveling down ...
right, the alledged surplus was never anything but a projection. clinton became fiscally responsible after the gop took the congress in 1994. clinton benefited from a great economy, a high tech boom. however, the federal debt rose every year of the clinton regime. had their healthcare passed, it would have exploded the deficit.
not sure who or if i'll even vote. but i do know one thing. hillary clinton will lose.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
There was a funny cartoon in Investors Business Daily
a few weeks ago.
You are looking up from an operating table and Hillary
is there with a surgeons mask and scalpel about to cut you.
She is saying: "Don't worry. My husbands a surgeon".
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 2/5/2006
Posts: 1,148
|
or don't worry i slept at a holiday inn last night(or something like that).
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/9/2005
Posts: 24
|
On the Clinton surplus;
Don't forget to factor in the 'Peace Dividend' from the end of the Cold War.
A significant portion of the rise in the current budget deficit is a result of his (and Congress') underfunding of the DOD.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
For this nation, the fair tax allows 'we the people' to easily have a say in how greedy the government is allowed to get because everything is simplified. There will be no complicated legislation to be added to a ridiculously complex tax code that very few, if any, can claim they understand in its entirety.
We as voters can have referendums that allow us to have a say on the limits to which we will allow the government to tax our goods and services. If the government says, for instance, that they want to charge a 30% fair tax and we the people think this is a bit greedy, we can say no and tell the government to cut their spending instead.
And, my personal pet peeve with the current tax system is the paper work I have to file every year -- this is work in itself.
Don't you think we should at least be paid an hourly wage to do this government's paper work every April 15th -- because right now, we are doing this work for free every year.
If I have to do extensive paper work for somebody then I want to get paid!
Also, when a person toils and sweats for every paycheck he should not have to be reminded each time that a good chunk of his income for the hard hard work he does everyday is being confiscated by Uncle Sam -- Wouldn't this tend to make one feel like being less productive on the job? Many would say this is equivalent to working for the government for a good part of every year. But, I disagree with that because if we are working for the government, shouldn't they be paying us instead of us paying them?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
Hi MP, missed you at chess today (you were busy I guess, I can only play Tue-friday after 4pm)
About taxes I agree when you think about some parts of it, then it does not seem fair. Gas taxes to me is a good example, why should the government just be able to say we are going to tax gas more than the usual sales tax and tabaco also. And when your family members die and leave you their assets well we want part of that too.
On the flip side of this coin however it cost money to protect our freedom and manage a large nation without fear of sliping into anarchy...
As I said earlier I pay someone a few hundred dollars a year to handle the burden of the papper-work (and they better know the tax laws, because they are working for me) I shoped around...
I will keep looking for you on the intermediat blitz..
Apsll.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
QUOTE (Apsll)
On the flip side of this coin however it cost money to protect our freedom and manage a large nation without fear of sliping into anarchy...
As I said earlier I pay someone a few hundred dollars a year to handle the burden of the papper-work (and they better know the tax laws, because they are working for me) I shoped around...
I will keep looking for you on the intermediat blitz..
Apsll.
I'd be happier about paying taxes if the local municipality would RUN THE DAMNED PLOUGHS when it snows. Ive never lived in a place where the plows can be seen cruising with light under the plow. In Jersey they send sparks flying... here they just pack the snow really well. They also wait till the snows been falling for a bit. It's Nuts.
I'm with you on the inherritance tax. Though I heard they are making changes there .. that it's only going to be figures over X amount. I know I was happy when I saw it becasue unfortunately i'm less than that amount when I get it. I could be wrong or it may have gotten blocked. But as Isee it that income was already taxed under the previous owner.... especially if it stays with in the family. i could see leaving a million dollars to a neighbor and needing to tax it.. but if it goes from grand father to grand son and is less than some amount .. why ?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
QUOTE (Apsll) Hi MP, missed you at chess today (you were busy I guess, I can only play Tue-friday after 4pm)
About taxes I agree when you think about some parts of it, then it does not seem fair. Gas taxes to me is a good example, why should the government just be able to say we are going to tax gas more than the usual sales tax and tabaco also. And when your family members die and leave you their assets well we want part of that too.
On the flip side of this coin however it cost money to protect our freedom and manage a large nation without fear of sliping into anarchy...
As I said earlier I pay someone a few hundred dollars a year to handle the burden of the papper-work (and they better know the tax laws, because they are working for me) I shoped around...
I will keep looking for you on the intermediat blitz..
Apsll.
Yeah, sorry Aspll, that was my fault.
I thought about our chess game about 10 mins to late today.
I was not getting the kind of dialog or readership on the forum that I had hoped to get on this topic before super Tuesday. So I was busy posting my views on another forum at about the time we were supposed to be playing chess. I got so involved with my thoughts on this matter that I forgot to check in with you.
...getting good responses on the other site though -- at least 50 post or more and and almost 3000 viewings so far!
Concerning your reservations about this issue: The sales tax should enable all other government taxes to be repealed, I would hope i.e. throw out the current gas tax and just rely on the fair tax for any and all purchases.
Also, aren't the inheritance tax rules part of the Irs Tax code? If so, I'm saying get rid of the Irs tax code for us altogether.
Finally, I'm sorry to disagree with your stance on having someonelse do your taxes,
but I totally agree with what Diceman said about this type of complacency maybe being more the norm than the exception -- which is detrimental to any thing getting
changed in this country.
Will try to remember to play chess with you tomorrow....
Later,
mp
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 264
|
QUOTE (memorableproducts)
For this nation, the fair tax allows 'we the people' to easily have a say in how greedy the government is allowed to get because everything is simplified. There will be no complicated legislation to be added to a ridiculously complex tax code that very few, if any, can claim they understand in its entirety.
We as voters can have referendums that allow us to have a say on the limits to which we will allow the government to tax our goods and services. If the government says, for instance, that they want to charge a 30% fair tax and we the people think this is a bit greedy, we can say no and tell the government to cut their spending instead.
Unfortunately, this is exactly why it will never get passed. The foxes who guard the hen house don't want your imput. Good luck.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Showing Congress the door is the only way to get tax
reform.
Why do you think the Tax code is what it is?
Its been used as a tool to buy votes for years.
What do to think "Tax the rich means"???
It means: "Vote for me"
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
Golfman --
I think you must be one of those who views the glass as half-empty.
Diceman --
It's not enough to show congressmen the door as they will just get replaced with individuals from various districts that will end up like their predecessor because
like their predecessor they will learn that they will have to play along to get along.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No gentlemen. What we really need first is a new president who is carrying a mandate from the people for reform on this issue. This president then would need
to then pressure congress to submit to the mandate during his honeymoon period.
In additon, we need everyone to take their turns picking up there pickett signs and joining a prolong protest march on capital hill.
It can be done if there were not so much complacency in this country.
Hey, I got an idea.
You know there are several websites advocating the fair tax and they have 1000's of readers. And I'm sure the readers make donations.
Well those donations could be used to put professional picketers on the payroll to march around the clock on Capital Hill right? This can't be any worse than the high
paid lobbyist in washington that stomp the halls of congress for their own agendas, right?
Well whatever those websites are doing currently, I don't think its working.
I wonder what they really are doing with all of that money they are collecting from
the site visitors. Check out the .org site for fairtax when you get a chance.
mp
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
"they will just get replaced with individuals from various districts that will end up like their predecessor because
like their predecessor they will learn that they will have to play along to get along."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. they cant play along. They to will be shown the
door. The only one they can play along with is you.
(they must be shown you get it)
You can elect who ever you like for president. They
will thumb there nose at you because there is no
cost to them. (as long as they have power who cares)
Realize that I would bet 1 million dollars that this would
solve the problem. However it will never happen
because everyone would need to be smart and on
board (not a chance)
CNN has a show called "Broken Government"
It should be called "Broken Voter"
Until till we realize taking away their power
is the only tool we have. Nothing will change.
There is no cost to them.
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 2/5/2006
Posts: 1,148
|
QUOTE (memorableproducts)
-- a National Sales Tax (or as Huckabee
would call it - The Fair Tax)
FAIR tax?
so some guy could be making $1,000,000/year live frugally and pay the same tax as someone making $50,000/year. and thats fair? lol.
the only real answer is the "flat tax". everyone pays the same, and then the congress would no longer be able to buy votes by tinkering with the tax code. and how bout a balance budget amendment too.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
QUOTE (funnymony)
FAIR tax?
so some guy could be making $1,000,000/year live frugally and pay the same tax as someone making $50,000/year. and thats fair? lol.
the only real answer is the "flat tax". everyone pays the same, and then the congress would no longer be able to buy votes by tinkering with the tax code. and how bout a balance budget amendment too.
Why No, Not True. Because the rich guy has much more buying power, he going to buy much more stuff which means he going to pay much more in taxes under the Fair Tax. Right?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
Besides, the fair tax is still a tax on income of which will probably hurt the poor guy alot because he needs every penny of what he makes -- unless you're going to exclude his group from paying any taxes at all -- is that fair?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/25/2005
Posts: 864
|
QUOTE (memorableproducts)
Besides, the fair tax is still a tax on income of which will probably hurt the poor guy alot because he needs every penny of what he makes -- unless you're going to exclude his group from paying any taxes at all -- is that fair?
Sorry, I meant the flat tax.....
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/7/2004
Posts: 393
|
Maybe the gov't will start reform by reinstuting the luxury tax.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
Memorable products..
you havent met some of the rich people I have. I live in a little Dutch comunity. there is money here like you wouldn't believe. but the people dont show it or spend it. Frugality to the point of insanity. I know an older gentleman.. great guy BUT when his wife died.. all the free food that was sent to him that people make bake and buy ..... he carefully washed the saranwrap coverings ...stuck them to the cabinent doors in the kitchen to dry and folded it for reuse later, saved him self from having to buy it for a while. He is worth multiple millions of dollars. Because people have money dosen't mean they spend it. Infact.. I'd say in 1/2 the cases they don't spend it. Might even be why they have it (don't tell my wife I said that, I like to spend a little here and there )
Ever heard of "Going Dutch", around here if you have a lavish lifestyle the comunity turns their noses up at you. God forbid you drive a cadilac, even though you own 5 rentalhouses and make a small fortune in farming. But the churches in town are all realy nice.. all 30 of them. (it's a tiny town, one hour from the capital)
so basically the buying power thing is IMO not a good argument.
diceman i'm with you on the taking away the power thing.
|
|
|
Guest-1 |