Re: The Presidential Candidates on Taxes


"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7JydnWBWdfmQWVTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George Z. Bush wrote:
John Galt wrote:
"mg" <mgkelson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187605797.958742.255930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 18, 10:05 pm, chatnoir <wolfbat3...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.ctj.org/

. . .
National Sales Tax

A proposal that anti-tax radicals call a "Fair Tax" is basically a
national sales tax that replaces all other federal taxes. It's
misleadingly described as a federal sales tax of 23 percent, and
former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee claimed at a May 15 debate that
the transition to this tax would be revenue-neutral. CTJ studied the
idea of a national sales tax in 2004 and found that in order to
maintain current revenue levels, this sales tax would have to be
around 50 percent. It is also very regressive. Low-income households
would pay more for everything they buy, while the wealthy would hit
the jackpot with tax-free capital gains, dividends and interest. We
are fairly confident that this proposal will go nowhere when people
realize that a house that costs, say, $200,000 would cost $300,000
under this plan.

Republican candidates Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Mike
Huckabee, and even John McCain have expressed support for the "Fair
Tax" proposal. Former Senator Mike Gravel seems to be the only
Democratic candidate in favor of this notion, and has claimed that a
national sales tax would even solve global warming.
. . .

The Republicans claim the rate would be 23%. The CTJ finds that the
tax rate would actually have to be between 45 and 53 percent.
http://www.ctj.org/html/tjd78.htm
http://www.itepnet.org/sale0904.pdf

Everyone knows politicians are liars and for some perverted reason
I've never understood we Americans seem to take pride in that fact.
Even so, the lying has now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Republicans are raising it to an art form.
I don't see it. You can go on the Fair Tax website and look at the math
and
see how they got to the 23%. I've been studying this issues since ***
Armey
proposed it in the mid 90's, and the math has *always* shown a taxation
rate
in the low 20's (although its quite possible that this has risen to the
high
20's, considering the increase in the size of government over the last
few
years.

You want me to believe that the folks who absolutely assured us that they
knew precisely where those Weapons of Mass Destruction were located four
years ago (which we still haven't found) are telling us the truth about
the Flat Tax (or anything else for that matter) and I have a problem with
that. I have a huge problem with that. How can anyone believe that
people who function as supporters or surrogates of a government which has
operated on the basis of the public has no need to know much of anything
is being honest and straighforward about anything they say?

AFAIAC, the Flat Tax is a boondoggle designed by rich people to help them
retain and increase their wealth at the expense of everybody else. You
don't have to be a fiscal genius to figure out that the poor and middle
classes will be taxed for goods and services they've received tax-free in
the past while, at the same time, rich folks who have been paying taxes
not levied on the lesser folks will be relieved of that responsibility.
Those rich folks claim that those taxes have been a burden to them but
they won't acknowledge that, if it is, it's only because they can bear it
far more than their less fortunate taxpayer brethren can without it
interfering notably in their life styles.

As for the argument that the existing structure has held our economy and
our nation down, record making and record breaking incomes have been
created for our economically ambitious and capable people in spite of it.
It hasn't, for example, held down those obscene profits the US oil
industry has recently posted in spite of the ever-rising cost of crude
oil.

The whole argument about the richer upper classes being able to grow the
economy better with that type of tax structure is belied by the actual
experience during the Reagan years, when trickle-down economics was
proven to be an illusory goal rather than a realistic contribution to the
nation's economy.
The linked document does not demonstrate very good mathematics, and does
not
seem to be intended to. I can certainly see how the tax is actually 30%,
but
the original sales tax proposals, left SS and Medicare taxes in place.
Back
those out, and you're right back into the low 20;s.

However, it's important to stick to the important point here. The
current
system of taxation is anti-growth. It costs too much to comply with, and
that money is better spent on employees, R&D, or pretty much anything
other
than accountants. Plus, since businesses don't know from year to year
what
the goverment with come up with, planning is impacted. Not good.

If you want to have a progressive scale of tax brackets, that's fine,
but
make the tax system flat within those brackets.

I know that I'm probably displaying my ignorance, but I thought that
under a Flat Tax, everybody pays the same rate of taxes. Maybe I don't
understand what a tax bracket is as opposed to a tax rate, John. Could
you clarify that for me, please? I'd appreciate it.

George Z.


Ever wonder why in any of these schemes that certain financial
transactions are exempt from taxation? On the flat tax, somehow "unearned
income" is exempt and can be used by the wealthy to accumulate more wealth
unhandicapped by the pesky tax man. On the national sales tax, somehow
purchase of equities is exempt. I pay sales tax on the purchase of just
about everything except the purchase of shares in a company. How does
anyone buy into that as "fair?"

That's why you should support MY version of the fair tax. It's a tax that is
a combination of a percentage of one's income AND assets with no deductions,
no exemptions and no exceptions. And EVERYBODY pays taxes and you pay it
monthly by writing a check to your beloved government. Example, if you have
an income of $10,000.00 a year and assets valued at $5,000.00 and the tax
rate was 5% you would pay 5% of $15,000.00 at the rate of $62.50 a month.
Your financial status would be audited once every 10 years and if you are
caught having cheated on your assets or income amounts, you get a retro
penalty, a fine and an attachment on your property until you have made up
your account.


--
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

JC





.

Loading