We all have a different view of what is fair. I believe everyone should pay the same rate on income, but at the same time recognize it makes life more difficult for some than others. I would like to compile a few ideas I have had, and others that I have heard.
My idea starts by requiring employers to pay employees the payroll tax they pay for their match of Social Security and Medicare. I start here to make workers realize that the 7.45% match is part of their employment. Now, the employee will be required not only to pay the 6.2% SS and 1.45% medicare, but almost double. The new rate will be 13.87% and called a "Social Tax."
A quick breakdown. Currently, when we forget about the temporary reduction to 4.2% for SS, employees make 92.55% after SS and medicare. $92.55/$100. Requiring employers to pay the 7.45% increases the employees pay to $107.45. Now if we tax this at 13.87%, we get the same $92.55 ($107.45 x (1-0.1387)).
Now, this new social tax can be increased or decreased by congress. Everyone currently paying SS and medicare pays it. No exceptions. It can be raised a maximum of 0.1% per quarter or lowered a maximum of 0.5% per quarter.
I would do other things with other taxes, but this is where I would start, with income taxes requiring a 60% or 3/3rds in both houses to change their rates, and presidents signature of course.
Why the change to a social tax and changing it's rate? So everyone feels the pain. No more talk of raising "other people's taxes." Everyone gets hit equally by percentage, and I believe it will make voters more responsible for who they elect.
This again?
6-6-6 tbh.
The devil would be pretty obvious at that point and not simply in the details.
Which video games am I allowed to plagiarize?
Well the throttle on the rate of change is dumb. Making the government less responsive to change is dumb and its obviously going to have to have exceptions in case of war and disasters off the top of my head. You have already created your first asinine addition that leads to a loop hole.
Your thing on a flat tax is neither novel nor sensible. Taxing people that are getting need based social services is at best inefficient. I prefer to call it stupid.
Your little notion on putting additional voting requirements just goes to demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea about how Congress actually votes on things or where that process derives from.
Your thing about making sure that people know that the tax is for their employment makes me want to remind you that you are a putz for the exact same reason as before you dirty ing shill.
Do you think your pain will be equally felt by two different families one making 40k and the other 1m?
The Fair Tax actually provides for a refund/rebate/deduction (call it what you want) of an amount equal to the tax that would be paid on necessary items.
As long as people receiving "need based social services" stayed away from the flat screen televisions, they'd pay no tax. Zero.
I'll let WC respond to the rest of your drivel. I just wanted to point out that, under the Fair Tax, poor people would not pay a tax so long as they stuck to the necessities.
Class war!
People like WC would learn a lot if they lived with the 1% crowd for just a day. He has no clue.
Last edited by DMX7; 10-14-2011 at 08:35 PM.
What would be learned?
I like the Fair tax too, but congress would never give up that much power. The only thing I disagree with in it, is the "prebate."
How about something that is in the realm of possibility?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-14-2011 at 08:45 PM.
You capitalize it. Its already dogma in your mind. Just wow.
And what do you think that I meant by inefficiency?
How about the Dominoes 777, and we can have as many toppings as we want on our medium pizzas?
Income tax rates still apply also. I am not doing away with that. I am only changing the "accounting" of the 6.2% Social security, and the 1.45% Medicare insurances, and matching employer payroll tax deductions. I am then allowing for minor changes in the rates, and holding congress accountable for changes to all workers. therefore the workers will be inclined to think before they vote for someone who wants to raise more revenues in taxation.
Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear... Definitely not a bull!
If he says something meaningful, I might respond to him.
Rather than the prebate, I would prefer simply not to have any necessities taxed. Now I think this already happens under the proposed fair tax, and the prebate is designed to replace the standard deduction, exemptions, and earned income credit. I simply believe we have been too generous in the tax system, and we need to stop coddling the poor.
I was wondering that too. I have personally known three people rather well in my life, who are in that 1%. They are people just like us. Is it being suggested they are from some other planet, or monsters, or evil somehow?
"necessities" is a fairly broad term...
I don't have anything against the poor but, I think people should not live beyond their means. People on public assistance have no business filling their houses with flat screens and game systems. They should be concentrating on feeding, clothing, and housing their family.
Yes it is, and we would all define them differently. I think we can agree the following would be a necessity:
Bread, milk, eggs, toilet paper, tooth paste, etc.
I think we would agree these would not be necessities:
Soda pop, beer, wine, liquor, boat, sports car, candy, etc.
Where would we draw the lines? Is a car a necessity, How about stereos, computers, televisions, bluray players? We now get into areas that we will likely disagree on. Maybe basic comfort items can have a lower tax rate.
When it comes to food, but keep in mind that I am old school... I would tax ready to make foods like TV dinners, cans of soup, etc. but not the basic ingredients to make them from scratch. I was discussing such an idea with a coworker, and he is for taxing clothing, but not the cloth for one to make their own clothes. I don't think I would go that far, but the idea has as much merit for some as my idea if taxing premade foods.
We are in agreement. Besides, we have the richest poor in the world. I was amazed hen I lived in Germany that my neighbors had less than our population considered to be in poverty by our standard. My next door neighbor worked at the Mercedes factory in Sindelfingen, and had little to show for such a job. Only the basic necessities, and an old beat up car.
That's all immaterial. Determining what the criteria would for defining necessities would still take less than the tens of thousands of pages of tax code we're now expected to decipher.
But, I don't think the Fair Tax bothers with identifying necessities beyond the exercise of determining what is spent, on average, for "necessities." How they arrive at that figure could be subject to a very complicated algorithm that could still fit in a 50 page spiral notebook.
My understanding is the government will calculate the amount of tax a household (based on household size) would spend in purchasing necessities and provide a refund/rebate or allow a deduction for that amount.
at thinking it too complex an issue to settle equitably. Have y'all seen the current tax code?
That's the problem right there.
I would take it one step further.
You wouldn't be required to apply for your refund. You could just let the government keep it. Or, you could designate a recipient for your refund.
In either case, filing an annual tax return would only be to claim the refund of your "necessities tax." That's it.
The IRS Tax form would be reduced to check boxes.
1) Send me my refund.
OR
2) Send my refund to: _____________
Even though I dislike the prebate idea, I agree it is a better solution than what we have now.My understanding is the government will calculate the amount of tax a household (based on household size) would spend in purchasing necessities and provide a refund/rebate or allow a deduction for that amount.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
