Need arguments for tax debate with friend

[Nathans_Dad]

From your chart the difference is not the income tax rate, it is the fact that SSI phases out after a certain level of income. So you are paying more income tax as your income increases, however you simply stop paying SSI after a certain point (at which point you have paid the maximum SSI tax possible).

Why is that unfair again?

[Bill Verburg]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
From your chart the difference is not the income tax rate, it is the fact that SSI phases out after a certain level of income. So you are paying more income tax as your income increases, however you simply stop paying SSI after a certain point (at which point you have paid the maximum SSI tax possible).

Why is that unfair again?

An income tax is an income tax, it all goes to the same place and is spent by the same people for the same purposes, there is no "lock box", hasn't been since the 60's.

Please answer the question , Where is the equity in taxing the $90,000th of earned income @ 40% and the $150,000th @ 33%

[Rick Lee]

Bill, do you think our tax code has the slightest presumption of fairness? It's nothing but a 100k page book full of special breaks for favored classes. I look at the SSI cap as simply the gov't. stealing a little bit less once you make enough money.

[Moneyguy1]

Truth:

No matter what method of computing tax payments is considered, some group of taxpayers will find it unacceptable.

[Bill Verburg]

?

No matter what method of computing tax payments is considered, some group of taxpayers will find it unacceptable.

Why is it that the US code is unacceptable to those at the bottom

do you think our tax code has the slightest presumption of fairness

All we hear from the party in charge is how fair their ideas are to everyone and that a flat tax woud be even "fairer", are they lying to us again?

Guess it's like Orwells "1984" where every one is equal just some are more so

[Rick Lee]

I haven't heard too many Repubs call for a flat tax and Steve Forbes got nowhere with it in 2000. Both sides benefit greatly from our tax code, as it allows them to dole out favors to their supporters and make others pay for them. It's a win-win for them, but we all lose. And show me one Dem who's been calling for lower or flatter taxes.

[Moneyguy1]

I think you are confusing "1984" with "Animal Farm"!!

[livi]

I hear flat taxes has given some rather poor countries in the Eastern block a real economical push. Big foreign industries moving in, creating a lot of new jobs. Affordable for domestic companies to hire more people. Consumption raising, creating more tax money to the state. And so on.

Sounds like a win-win situation. There is always losers of course. I think it would be great for Sweden. It will never happen of course. But at least we could have a fixed percentage for everyone, not like now where the percentage is higher the more you earn. Not fair at all.

[livi]

Perhaps. But it clearly shows how people would like it to be.

[5axis]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
I'll give the Cato article a read during lunch. In the meantime, wouldn't a national sales tax discourage consumption? Would that actually slow economic growth? Just curious.

I hope you enjoyed that read.

for the rest of you, a cut-n-paste intro



Executive Summary

This study demonstrates how the individual and corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, the estate and gift taxes, and non-trust-fund excise taxes all could be replaced with a national sales tax (NST). The NST would exempt low-income Americans from tax and raise the same amount of revenue currently collected. The ideal NST plan would include the following features:

A 15 percent sales tax on the final purchase of goods and services at the retail level. The NST would be similar to state sales taxes. The rate should decline in future years to 10 to 12 percent as economic growth allows more revenue to be raised at a lower rate and government downsizing continues.
A universal rebate for every household, exempting all consumption up to the poverty level. That would mean that the first $18,588 of consumption each year for a family of four would be tax-free. The rebate could be provided as a refundable credit against the payroll tax.
Reimbursement to states and retailers of the cost of collecting the national sales tax.
Abolition of the Internal Revenue Service. The states should bear the primary responsibility for administering the national sales tax. The IRS would be abolished, and a much smaller, less intrusive federal excise tax bureau would collect trust fund excise taxes such as the gasoline tax. The Social Security Administration would enforce and collect payroll taxes.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Bill Verburg
So we should have a complete anarchy w/ no services, military etc.?

Sounds like you should move to Iraq

Where does the idea come from that the US government and the military contribute anything to America?

In fact they're tax eaters and completely unproductive.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
Now that's brilliant, and I wonder why nobody thought of that so far. And if we can just excuse the rich guys from taxation, then let's just excuse everyone. Let's just lower everybody's taxes. Yeah, that's it!

That's exactly what American's should do. Keep their hard earned treasure and spend it in ways that are best for them.

That's significantly wiser than any government can accomplish.

The squabbling I've read in this thread does one thing though, it illustrates the seething politics of jealousy almost perfectly. That's the whole basis for the "taxing the rich" mentality. There's no altruistic tax advocate on the planet.

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by 5axis
... government downsizing continues.

will this actually happen?

...universal rebate for first $18,588 of consumption each year for a family of four would be tax-free.

why do people far above the poverty line deserve a rebate?

...Reimbursement to states and retailers cost of collecting

If the states get most of the money back why should they get a commission for collection?

...states should bear the primary responsibility for administering the national sales tax.

Federal gov't would never see all the collected monies. Anybody want to guess at the "law of unintended consequence" effect on a consumption based capitalist system?