A Candidate-Free Discussion

[Reverend Rick]

A person making $75k per year with no kids would pay the exact same tax as someone making the same amount with kids, assuming they both spend all of their money in the year. Someone in the middle class will end up paying a lot more tax than they do now, it would seem.

The monthly prebate check is larger for the family with children and offsets the difference. If we gave exceptions for food or anything for that matter, like interest, then that would open the door for lobbyists to create loopholes. No exceptions closes the door for special interests.

 

[doppelganger]

No exceptions closes the door for special interests.

Until they open it . . .

 

[Reverend Rick]

Until they open it . . .

Agreed. The problems with tax laws is, we shift the burden from this group to that group. Welfare is for the rich just as much as for the poor. Corporate welfare would be over under the fair tax.

While I would agree that home interest or food should be exempt, someone else would come along and add to the list. No exemptions period for anyone for any reason is why the tax is fair. The prebate puts everyone above the poverty level and makes exemptions unnecessary.

 

[Scott C.]

The monthly prebate check is larger for the family with children and offsets the difference. If we gave exceptions for food or anything for that matter, like interest, then that would open the door for lobbyists to create loopholes. No exceptions closes the door for special interests.

Interesting. I like the sound of it.

 

[McBell]

The prebate puts everyone above the poverty level and makes exemptions unnecessary.

Would it not be more accurate, and truthful, to say that it would put everybody above the CURRENT poverty level?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Would it not be more accurate, and truthful, to say that it would put everybody above the CURRENT poverty level?

Yes, good point. So the fair tax is not the end all be all of ideas. It is a better system than the current one however and if your a bum under a bridge, any check is better than no check and the poorest folks would get something they don't have at the moment under our current system.

 

[McBell]

Yes, good point. So the fair tax is not the end all be all of ideas. It is a better system than the current one however and if your a bum under a bridge, any check is better than no check and the poorest folks would get something they don't have at the moment under our current system.

A check is not even worth the paper it is printed on if it cannot be cashed...

 

[Kidblop]

I say we just tax incomes (and dividends) above $500,000, corporations, and capital gains. We can supplement some of the lost money with tariffs and a 1% national sales tax and implement a vice tax on marijuana/LSD.

Let's say for every amount above $500,000, 70% must be payed in taxes.

 

[tomspug]

I would love to see income tax and the IRS abolished. Money does you no good until you spend it. With a flat tax, when you spend it, you're realizing the benefit and pay tax at that time. However, I would first need to calculate how it would affect the middle and lower class. Are some purchases exempt from the tax? What happens to the total tax of a middle class family who currently writes off mortgage interest, charitable contributions, children, etc.? It seems these deductions would disappear. A person making $75k per year with no kids would pay the exact same tax as someone making the same amount with kids, assuming they both spend all of their money in the year. Someone in the middle class will end up paying a lot more tax than they do now, it would seem.

You wouldn't have to write off mortgage interest because savings and interest WOULDN'T be taxed in the first place. I imagine you could somehow incorporate write-offs into business expenses, but how?

If you're paying taxes AT THE REGISTER, how can lobbyists do anything about that? You'd have to be able to negotiate at EVERY TRANSACTION. Can someone explain how you can create a loophole out of a FLAT tax that is not processed by the government (i.e. the money doesn't go THROUGH the government, so what can lobbyists do to affect the cash flow?) The only control the government would have would be HOW to spend the tax, not who is taxed. Isn't this the way taxing should be?

 

[Wandered Off]

I say we just tax incomes (and dividends) above $500,000, corporations, and capital gains.

Dividend income is taxed twice. We need to stop taxing dividends so the money is taxed only once as corporate income, IMO.

 

[doppelganger]

If you're paying taxes AT THE REGISTER, how can lobbyists do anything about that?

Easy. Write exemptions for certain purchases so that no tax need be taken or reported for certain transactions. They already do that in many sales tax states that exempt food and other 'necessities' for example.

Other "loopholes" will include clever ways of conducting major transactions outside the country and a whole host of things we haven't even begun to imagine yet.

NEVER underestimate the power of creative lawyering.

Ideas that change the tax structure cannot solve the "loophole" problem with public taxation. That's a political corruption problem.

 

[tomspug]

Well, if that's the case, then we have no choice but to ship ALL the lawyers to China...

Speaking of China, let's change the candidate-free discussion to foreign policy. What should the next president do differently?

 

[doppelganger]

Speaking of China, let's change the candidate-free discussion to foreign policy. What should the next president do differently?

Prudence and honesty would be a nice change.

 

[doppelganger]

Well, if that's the case, then we have no choice but to ship ALL the lawyers to China...

Why are there so many Irish-American lawyers?

 

[tomspug]

Well, here's an example. President Bush went to Russia and came back claiming that he had 'looked into Putin's eyes and seen his soul'. Unfortunately, Bush must have looked into a magic 8-ball by accident, because Putin is currently acting like he wants a new communist regime, without much criticism from the US. In my opinion, this is only one example of a president that was elected because of his SOCIAL agenda and was forced into the position of a foreign policy role due to 9/11.

With that in mind, is it important to elect someone based on foreign policy EXPERIENCE? This is my opinion. We need a president that can look at the US's role on a global scale, because we're moving further and further into globalization.

 

[doppelganger]

With that in mind, is it important to elect someone based on foreign policy EXPERIENCE? This is my opinion. We need a president that can look at the US's role on a global scale, because we're moving further and further into globalization.

Or rather globalization is moving further and further into us.

 

[doppelganger]

Why are there so many Irish-American lawyers?

Because St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of the Old Country.

 

[tomspug]

::falls over::

 

[Kidblop]

Dividend income is taxed twice. We need to stop taxing dividends so the money is taxed only once as corporate income, IMO.

Dividend tax helps the poor; most of the rich don't acquire wealth through salary.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

Well, here's an example. President Bush went to Russia and came back claiming that he had 'looked into Putin's eyes and seen his soul'. Unfortunately, Bush must have looked into a magic 8-ball by accident, because Putin is currently acting like he wants a new communist regime, without much criticism from the US. In my opinion, this is only one example of a president that was elected because of his SOCIAL agenda and was forced into the position of a foreign policy role due to 9/11.

With that in mind, is it important to elect someone based on foreign policy EXPERIENCE? This is my opinion. We need a president that can look at the US's role on a global scale, because we're moving further and further into globalization.

To that point, I don’t think any of the candidates have much foreign policy experience.