Welcome to PatsFans.com

Rants and Rave about Federal Taxes...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Apr 16, 2006.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,678
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +702 / 20 / -30

    just paid my debt to support whatever we call what is going on in the Iraq sand, sick and tired of the outlay we pay every year..about 13% of my total income, which does not increase that much because we are retired...and after reviewing the taxes of GWB and Cheney, makes me want to puke. Time and time again, I read about multinational companies who pay little or nothing because of the engineered tax breaks of this administration, and who are making millions off of this little skirmish in the sand.

    My son in law, who I do not like, has 4 kids and 2 apartment bldgs. he keeps 3 apartments empty(so he can write off the loss and expense), and writes the whole thing off and this year got an $8,000 return on an income of $52,000...the gov't gives him extra money for having potent sperm..people can yell and complain about a lot of stuff, but this tax crap makes me nutz.

    I have favored Steve Forbes plan in the past, and if I ever have the opportunity it is probably the only thing I feel soo passionate about that I could stand on a streetcorner with a sign about. The whole thing is so out of whack it makes me absolutely crazy, so much so I try not to think about it. I often read in the liberal blogs about the demise of the middle class because of the tax system, and though I try hard not to believe it, a lot of times it seems true.

    Gotta go work out, to get rid of this rage I feel towards the IRS and this whold corrupt governmental system that is spending more money than I can imagine, all the while coddling and giving tax breaks to our biggest companies who are profiting from their gov't ventures.
     
  2. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I was present at a presentation by Steven Forbes last fall as he talked about his tax plan. Alot of it does make sense.
     
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    More details, please. I'm trying to find a balance between flat and consumption tax plans.
     
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,678
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +702 / 20 / -30

    It is very simple, would eliminate the bloat that is the IRS and all of the agencies involved, done by filling out a post card.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/forbes_flat_tax.html

    Start by scrapping the tax code. Don't fiddle with it. Junk it. Throw it out. Bury it. Replace it with a pro-growth, pro-family tax cut that lowers tax rates to 17% across the board and expands exemptions for individuals and children so that a family of four would pay no taxes on the first $36,000 of income.

    Not one cent to the IRS on the first $36,000. Anything over that would be taxed at a flat, fair 17%.

    The flat tax would be simple. You could fill it out on a postcard. It would be honest. It would eliminate the principal source of political corruption in Washington. It would be fair. Millions of people would be off the federal income tax rolls.

    There would be no tax on Social Security. No tax on pensions. No tax on personal savings. It would zero out capital gains taxes. It would set off a boom by letting people keep more of what they earn and by lowering barriers to risk taking.
     
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,167
    Likes Received:
    250
    Ratings:
    +967 / 2 / -9

    Without Taxes,
    How would we pay welfare
    How would we supply "free condoms"
    How would we support Illegal Aliens
    How would we provide "free houses" for Somalians
    How would we provide money for "Al Gore's spotted owls"
    How would we buy "Basketballs" for Pedophiles & Murderers in Folsom Prison.
    How would we buy new Brass Doorknobs every month for Housing Projects
    How would we Pay Cops to chase "Carjackers"
    How would we Support Israel
    How would we pay for Cynthia McKinney's ID Card
    How would we pay for Uncle Teddy's pension.
    How would we send Illegal Aliens to College
    How would we get money to "Beat Up Jesus"
    How would we save the f-cking Whales?
    :bricks:
     
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,846
    Likes Received:
    273
    Ratings:
    +695 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    Yep, it sucks. They're put so much in there it's too damn complicated. We should just have a graduated sales tax.

    0% on necessitites.
    20%, or so, on usual items, TVs, etc.
    40%, or so, on luxury items.

    But all our income goes home to us.

    And get rid of Social Security too. I can help my parents, I don't want to help yours :)
     
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,732
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +475 / 18 / -17

    Why should the rich have to pay so much more when they get essentially the same services as everyone else? The flat tax is just as unfair as the progressive income tax.
     
  8. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    24,112
    Likes Received:
    818
    Ratings:
    +2,387 / 22 / -15

    Disable Jersey

    I would support that plan over the complex IRS code we have today.
    However, I feel that a consumption tax is fairer.
    Start with a refund to anyone grossing under $36,000 or whatever.
    Then tax consumption. Rich folks like the Kennedys and Kerrys would pay for their SUVs, private club memberships, 2nd, 3rd and 4th homes and sailing craft. Plus the taxes on their expensive private jet flights. What could be fairer?
     
  9. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This again? The last time you commented on this, you were of the opinion that paying the same amount is fair, while paying the same percentage (but a higher amount) is not fair. And since we can't do what's fair, then fairness shouldn't even be considered in constructing a tax system, and your final vote was for the "progressive" tax system, where rich people pay a higher percentage and a far higher amount, and somehow you're OK with that.

    Why you can't see the inconsistancy of that will forever be a mystery to me.
     
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,732
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +475 / 18 / -17

    BlueTalon, if we agree that you cannot argue taxes in terms of "fairness," then we have a starting point. That was the point behind my facetious question. While the flat tax creates simplicity, it doesn't create fairness. Now, which is more important? Simplicity or health care, affordable college, shelters for the homeless, a safety net for our retirees, armor for our soldiers, clean air and water, etc.?
     
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,846
    Likes Received:
    273
    Ratings:
    +695 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    Of course the flat tax is fair. It's probably not feasible but it's certainly fair.
     
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I'm beginning to think that the fairest way to tax (as if there is such a thing) is a very low flat tax combined with a consumption tax to encourage individual savings for debt reduction and retirement as well as college for the kids or yourselves. Also, churches and NPO's must also pay consumption tax as well as local property taxes.

    How's that sound?...I'm a friggin genius.
     
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,846
    Likes Received:
    273
    Ratings:
    +695 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    Churches certainly should not be tax emempt.

    I would just eliminate the income tax and have a graduated consumption tax - 0% on necessities, some % on normal stuff and some higher % on luciry items.

    To encourage savings I would cancel social security so people would realize they actually have to take responsibility for their retirement themselves.
     
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,732
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +475 / 18 / -17

    BelichickFan, why is the flat tax fair?

    Let's take two people:
    - Person one lives in Boston, earns $50,000 year, and frequently uses a number of federal services -- highways, bridges, air travel, clean air and water protection, and SEC protections.
    - Person two earns $1 million year off investments and lives on rural estate. He doesn't travel much, doesn't like to fly, and lives where there's clean air and water, but like person number one he does benefit from SEC protections.

    Why is it fair that person 1 pays $12,500 (25%) in taxes and person 2 pays $250,000? What is your logic for saying that percents are fair? Maybe it just sounds fair.
     
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,846
    Likes Received:
    273
    Ratings:
    +695 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    Although I know you are being facetious, I really meant fair compared to what we have now. Even though the rich would pay a higher amount than the non rich with a flat tax at least the percent they would pay would be equal, as opposed to now when the percent is higher.

    Using the silly analogy, that would be like the poor getting a nice car for free, the middle class getting it for $20K and the rich paying $50K for the same car from the same dealer.
     
  16. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    How about we start by stop giving tax breaks to corporations to move their operations to Mexico or India?

    It seems to me that personal income tax is a very small part of the problem. Until we force compliant measures on large corporations, nothing's going to change.
     
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,732
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +475 / 18 / -17

    Precisely. You can't argue taxes from the standpoint of fairness because we don't really know what fair is. Each person benefits differently. There's no reason to believe the flat tax is fairer. All we can say with certainty is that it benefits the wealthy. And and I agree with your analogy. Most flat tax proposals give the poor person federal services for free, the middle class person the services for $25,000, and the rich person those services for $250,000.

    Sounding fair is not the same as fair.
     
  18. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Then we don't have a starting point. Flat taxes create both simplicity and fairness. And where on earth do you get the idea that a move to a flat tax means a loss of revenue? You can have simplicity AND those things you mentioned.



    In your scenerio, person two doesn't just use SEC protections, he uses clean air and water too (and that's just picking stuff out of your example). And even though he may not personally ride on roads or airlines, I guarantee you his food does. And so does all the other goods he orders in order to maintain his reclusive lifestyle.



    You want to discredit the flat tax by making a weak case that it's somehow not as fair as paying the same amount accross the board, but then you turn around and advocate a progressive tax. So, in your world:

    Fair means paying the same amount.

    A flat tax is unfair bacause rich people pay the same percentage but higher amounts.

    Therefore you advocate a progressive tax, where rich people pay a higher percentage and an exponentially higer amount.



    And after arguing the the flat tax isn't any more fair than a progressive tax, you argue that
    If you don't know what's fair or unfair, how on earth can you make a determination that the flat tax is unfair? Face it, on this topic you are simply insane (incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality). But just because you are disqualified from judging fairness, that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate consideration in the construction of a tax code.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>