OpinionThe tax system needs to be simplified
      – BorgClown, 2009-06-10 at 01:30:21   (28 comments)

On 2009-06-10 at 01:40:18, BorgClown wrote...
My country has a long-standing proposal for a complete overhaul of taxation law. Basically you get a flat income tax, a flat consumption tax, and nothing else. Each of these taxes is speculated to be not greater than 20%, and they rely on nothing being exempt of taxes, not even food, charity, school or medicine, When I first heard it I went "WTF, 40 fucking percent of my money going to taxes? Then again, I pay lots of taxes: There's a new car tax, and an annual tax for cars <10yo, a land, tobacco, gasoline, flying, etc. taxes, the list goes on and on. It doesn't look like a bad idea after all, no tax evasion, and a flat tax rate for everyone. Guess who's opposing the bill? The wealthy, of course. They know lots of loopholes for evading taxes, for example: Carlos Slim payed about 300 USD on his 2008 declaration. Three fucken hundred bucks, I pay almost 500 USD each month, FFS.
On 2009-06-10 at 11:37:09, Thelevellers wrote...
I agree it needs to be simplified, if only to cut down on evasion. I'm not yet convinced by the idea of flat rate taxes though...
On 2009-06-10 at 17:36:25, DigitalBoss wrote...
Support the FairTax: http://www.fairtax.org
On 2009-06-10 at 17:47:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
I actually agreed with this one. The FairTax would completely untax the poor of Federal taxes, it would give the average citizen back his privacy because the government would not need to know where anyone worked, or how much money they made. It would replace the corporate income tax, so corporations would have no tax to pass on the their customers. The FairTax would cause approximately 11 trillion US dollars to come back to this country because it would not be taxed, making the US the largest tax haven on the planet. You would have to hide in the closet to keep from getting a job. And the sweet part of it is that foreigners that are visiting, illegal aliens, and drug dealers would all contribute to your retirement plan (SS).
On 2009-06-11 at 01:51:15, BorgClown wrote...
I like the idea of a flat consumption tax and no income tax. What I don't like is opening the door to practices like making income in an income-free country, then transferring it other countries to do your shopping. You'll get massive tax evasion from wealthy groups, while the middle class transforms into the sure-income from the government. Middle class will progressively become poorer, and the abyss between middle and high class will widen.
On 2009-06-11 at 01:51:39, BorgClown wrote...
*income-tax free country
On 2009-06-11 at 21:24:56, DigitalBoss wrote...
With the FairTax, you will no longer have to fill-out, or turn-in an income tax return. Make April 15th just another spring day.
On 2009-06-12 at 01:10:34, Baslisks wrote...
@BorgClown: Ohh, good point so you would have tariffs on the same levels I assume but then that would fuck over every importer. Damn.... lets think about this some more.
On 2009-06-12 at 01:11:49, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: uhhh, ok..... I wasn't aware that april 15th even came up in the conversation. Thank you for that broad observation.
On 2009-06-15 at 15:32:54, DigitalBoss wrote...
Everything you buy now has an embedded tax because corporations have to pay income tax, they pass it on in the price of goods and services. With the FairTax, the corporate federal income tax goes away along with the personal federal income tax. So in effect, prices will go down about 21% and then go up 22%. Prices will stay about the same with the FairTax.
On 2009-06-15 at 17:09:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
The FairTax is a bill in congress now: HR25 the FairTax Act
On 2009-06-22 at 11:27:01, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It does seem that at the moment you get taxes at every step of the chain, which means that you end up paying taxes multiple times for the same goods as well as having a reduced income from paying taxes before you're even paid. I guess the problem with having a single source of tax money is that it will appear to be particularly high compared with the current situation, and the transition is likely to be too painful for a government to go along with - it's easier for them to collect more taxes by making it too difficult to add up all your taxed loses on every product, service, income and inheritance individually.
On 2009-06-22 at 17:00:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
Politicians and lobbyists do not like the FairTax because it takes away some of their power. Most of the lobbyists in Washington are there to "game" the tax system. That is why our tax code is 60,000 pages long.
On 2009-06-22 at 17:03:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
Sorry, it is 16,845 pages. My bad.
On 2009-06-23 at 03:18:30, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: well... 2/3-3/4ths off? Hmm?
On 2009-06-23 at 14:33:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Baslisks: With the FairTax, the IRS is disbanded, the 16th amendment to the Constitution is repealed, and private citizens have no interaction with the federal government except to claim head of household status and number of dependants which is Constitutionally acceptable. Each head of household, regardless of income, recieves a "prebate". This prebate is to cover the FairTax paid on the first $20,000 or so up to the poverty level. Nobody pays ANY tax at all on the first $20,000 spent. This means that the poor are completely UNTAXED. Why do the Dems not like this? Because they are interested in power. The FairTax takes away some of the power of the politicians, which is just what we need now.
On 2009-06-23 at 14:35:07, DigitalBoss wrote...
April 15th is an IRS thing. With no IRS, April 15th becomes just another Spring day.
On 2009-06-23 at 16:48:05, Baslisks wrote...
You are arguing on the wrong basis, You should be pointing out the things that would most appeal to me. Maybe make it a 50% tax on everything and give us healthcare and an education system I can respect and then I will be happy.
On 2009-06-23 at 19:54:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
Our education system sucks because it is run by the government and the teachers unions. Expect the same if they get involved with your healthcare.
On 2009-06-23 at 23:55:09, Baslisks wrote...
http://mises.org/story/3389 Talks about the fair tax flat taxs and AMT. Conclusion is that it isn't taxes that are the problem but the government spending that is.
On 2009-06-23 at 23:56:09, Baslisks wrote...
unions are not bad things. Not being able to properly pay a teacher is the horrible thing. Though we do need to change our curriculum to better suit new information in learning.
On 2009-06-24 at 02:50:37, BorgClown wrote...
If there was no government involvement in schools, I suppose Intelligent design wouldn't have come to existence. Religious schools wouldn't have the need to disguise their beliefs. OTOH, if there were no private schools, the quality of education would suffer. In the Americas we simply don't have the progressive culture of other countries.
On 2009-06-24 at 11:32:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
I have your progressive right here buddy. I don't think we need progressive here, it is just an excuse for mediocrity. The US would not be th powerhouse that it is if it were not for its Capitalist free markets. In the last 70 years we have seen a slide to a highly regulated marketplace to now what is becoming a government-run market. I feel as though we are doomed to a progressive nightmare of unemployment and inflation.
On 2009-06-24 at 11:41:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
I agree that government spending is a problem, but the US also is #2 in how much it taxes corporations. This drives capital offshore and costs jobs. If we implemented the FairTax, the US would instantly become the largest tax haven on the planet and about 11 Trillion dollars parked offshore for tax reasons would come back here. It would stimulate the economy so much that you would have to hide in the closet to keep from getting a good job.
On 2009-06-24 at 20:08:19, BorgClown wrote...
Progressive is a vague adjective, maybe humanist would be better? You know, understanding that working toward common benefit is beneficial itself, politics free of religious and other superstitious dead weight, strong emphasis on education, etc. I'm sure no nation is ideal, but some have embraced a few progressive values and made them a significant part of their culture. In the Americas, by contrast, individuals care primarily for themselves, and it's common practice to abuse others if that benefits you. Even Canada has its good share of it.
On 2009-06-25 at 12:03:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
I have no problem with humanist values and things like safety nets. I would rather see them implemented with light weight targeted well thought-out regulations and free market solutions than the big-government solutions that the dems always come up with. Like social security; I would rather have that done with private deposit-only accounts mandated by the government when a young person begins to work.
On 2009-06-25 at 16:33:46, Baslisks wrote...
I am in doubt in the current farsightedness of the average young person. I understand with your years of experince you obviously see that early savings is the true solution to later prosperity in life but through my own dealing with young people I have come to a conclusion that a even a mandate sent down from the government would not truly influence a better form of savings. In fact, I think if we forced everyone to save, it would be an infringement on their security, something that you abhor. A distributed system of taxing and pension would enable a more even dispersal of said income. Again, for this to truly work we need an overhaul into our current system.
On 2009-06-27 at 03:21:04, BorgClown wrote...
In the past money could grow in a bank. These days, saving account contracts are so tight you could actually lose value on your savings.