Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP — And It's Driving People Insane

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

71buickfreak

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,790
Reaction score
30
Location
stillwater
Actually, fair tax isn't fair at all, not to the poor, not to the middle class. The rich buy very expensive things, take crazy vacations and own multiple homes, but for the crazy rich, like the news anchors that make 5-10 mil a year and the CEOs that make even more than that, they don't spend anywhere near 5-10 mil a year. Most of it gets invested. You can't tax investing, not on the front side anyway, that will reduce investing, which destroy our economy. The middle and poor classes will pay the lionshare of taxes, just like we do know. Example-

Bob makes 5 mil a year, and spends 2.5 mil a year to live. The other 2.5 is saved and invested. He pays taxes on the 2.5 he spends.

Steve makes 65k a year. In order to support his family, he spends 60k a year. He saves the $5,000. Steve is disproportionally taxed on the 60k. It isn't as much as Bob has paid, but it hurts Steve's family more, they have less to spend, and should pay proportionally less in taxes than Bob.

Jill is poor. She is a single mome with 3 kids. She makes 17k working as a cashier at Wal-Mart. She is on food stamps. Jill spends all of the 17k she earns on rent and clothing for her children. She's taxed on her entire income. Since Fair tax is based on sales tax, Jill gets screwed.

Fair tax doesn't work. If fair tax was put into place, it would further widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The tax code is something like 10,000 pages long, it needs to be revised, but fair tax doesn't work. End double and triple taxation (taxing lottery winnings 3 times for example), close loopholes and be fair. Big business should pay the lion share of tax in the country anyway, not that anyone in Washington has the balls to do it.

I know a lot of you think fair tax is fair, but it isn't. The problem all along is that the rich don't pay their taxes. You can't blame the rich for taking advantage of loopholes, they are there, you might as well take advantage of it, there is a reason they are rich, they have figured out how to take advantage of the system. Fair tax won't change that, but it will increase how much YOU get taxed. I am self-employed and run 2 small businesses. Without taking advantage of the current tax system, I would pay massive amounts of taxes even though I don't make that much money. In my mind, the fair taxes involves being taxed in a progressive rate compared to your income and household size. A family of 5 w/ a household income of 65k should pay less taxes a single person making the same. Both should pay less proportionally (income to tax ratio) compared to a guy making 5 million.
 
C

Clay

Guest
Actually, fair tax isn't fair at all, not to the poor, not to the middle class. The rich buy very expensive things, take crazy vacations and own multiple homes, but for the crazy rich, like the news anchors that make 5-10 mil a year and the CEOs that make even more than that, they don't spend anywhere near 5-10 mil a year. Most of it gets invested. You can't tax investing, not on the front side anyway, that will reduce investing, which destroy our economy. The middle and poor classes will pay the lionshare of taxes, just like we do know. Example-

Bob makes 5 mil a year, and spends 2.5 mil a year to live. The other 2.5 is saved and invested. He pays taxes on the 2.5 he spends.

Steve makes 65k a year. In order to support his family, he spends 60k a year. He saves the $5,000. Steve is disproportionally taxed on the 60k. It isn't as much as Bob has paid, but it hurts Steve's family more, they have less to spend, and should pay proportionally less in taxes than Bob.

Jill is poor. She is a single mome with 3 kids. She makes 17k working as a cashier at Wal-Mart. She is on food stamps. Jill spends all of the 17k she earns on rent and clothing for her children. She's taxed on her entire income. Since Fair tax is based on sales tax, Jill gets screwed.

Fair tax doesn't work. If fair tax was put into place, it would further widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The tax code is something like 10,000 pages long, it needs to be revised, but fair tax doesn't work. End double and triple taxation (taxing lottery winnings 3 times for example), close loopholes and be fair. Big business should pay the lion share of tax in the country anyway, not that anyone in Washington has the balls to do it.

I know a lot of you think fair tax is fair, but it isn't. The problem all along is that the rich don't pay their taxes. You can't blame the rich for taking advantage of loopholes, they are there, you might as well take advantage of it, there is a reason they are rich, they have figured out how to take advantage of the system. Fair tax won't change that, but it will increase how much YOU get taxed. I am self-employed and run 2 small businesses. Without taking advantage of the current tax system, I would pay massive amounts of taxes even though I don't make that much money. In my mind, the fair taxes involves being taxed in a progressive rate compared to your income and household size. A family of 5 w/ a household income of 65k should pay less taxes a single person making the same. Both should pay less proportionally (income to tax ratio) compared to a guy making 5 million.

I'm no math wiz but what you have written here only shows just how fair that type of tax system would be. With the exception of Jill, I do not believe anyone using federal aid should not be taxed on purchases made with it IMO.
Bob makes 5 mil./year and only spends 2.5 mil. He is living well within his means and he has either worked hard to be in a position of that high income or he was born into it. If the flat tax were 25%, Bob paid $625,000 in taxes.
Steve makes $65k and spends $60k of that to get by. Steve is living above his means in one way or another. Steve spends $60k a year and pays the same 25% flat tax. Steve paid $15k in taxes. Maybe steve should sell the boat or get a second job to support his lifestyle.

So your saying Bob should be penalized because he lives on half his income and pays 2/3 of a million a year in taxes?
If I made $60k I could live on half that if I chose to. Fact is, I do live on just a little more than half that but I make more that $60k. I could afford a bigger house and a boat but I choose to keep more of my money.
And I paid a higher % rate in taxes last year than Mitt Romney.
 

inactive

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
903
Location
I.T.
Actually, the question of fairness is that Steve pays a larger percentage of his income in taxes, thus taking home a smaller percentage of his income to support his family. Here is the percentage of income each takes home after taxes, given the scenarios above:

4,375,000 / 5,000,000 = 87.5% taken home
45,000 / 60,000 = 75% taken home

It's not a flat tax. It's a regressive scale in that the poor must spend a greater percentage of their income on basic living expenses, thus requiring them to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If you have a basic living expense credit, like the Far Tax books describe, then the situations may change.
 
Last edited:
C

Clay

Guest
Actually, the question of fairness is that Steve pays a larger percentage of his income in taxes, thus taking home a smaller percentage of his income to support his family. Here is the percentage of income each takes home after taxes, given the scenarios above:

4,375,000 / 5,000,000 = 87.5% taken home
45,000 / 60,000 = 75% taken home

It's not a flat tax. It's a progressive scale in that the poor must spend a greater percentage of their income on basic living expenses, thus requiring them to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If you have a basic living expense credit, like the Far Tax books describe, then the situations may change.
The fact that Steve spends almost 100% of what he earns rather than invest some of it is his fault. He could live on 50% of his earned income if he wants but he chooses not to. I spend (live on) about $40k a year (basics, mortgage, utilities, insurance, food) but I earn over twice that. I have a modest (1800') new home on 9 acres with a shop. I have 3 vehicles and a camper and 2 dogs. I am living well within my means and have plenty to show for it. I could afford a larger home if I wanted but I choose not to. So I would be taxed on $40k with a flat tax system rather than on the amount I earned. Thats fair enough to me.
 

inactive

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
903
Location
I.T.
The fact that Steve spends almost 100% of what he earns rather than invest some of it is his fault. He could live on 50% of his earned income if he wants but he chooses not to. I spend (live on) about $40k a year (basics, mortgage, utilities, insurance, food) but I earn over twice that. I have a modest (1800') new home on 9 acres with a shop. I have 3 vehicles and a camper and 2 dogs. I am living well within my means and have plenty to show for it. I could afford a larger home if I wanted but I choose not to. So I would be taxed on $40k with a flat tax system rather than on the amount I earned. Thats fair enough to me.

So we'll compare you at $80,000 to someone who makes $40,000. And let's assume a rate of 25%

Income of 80,000, spends 40,000. Tax is 10,000. You take home 70,000 after taxes. 70,000 / 80,000 = 87.5% taken home
Income of 40,000, spends 40,000. Tax is 10,000. They take home 30,000 after taxes. 30,000 / 40,000 = 75% taken home

Let's take someone who makes $10 an hour, or $20,000 per year (round numbers):
Income of 20,000, spends 20,000. Tax is 5,000. They take home 15,000 after taxes. 15,000 / 20,000 = 75% taken home



I am not gonna show my hand and say I am for or against a consumption tax. But the fact remains a consumption tax is by nature regressive. (I typed progressive earlier. The proper term is regressive). The nice thing about math is that it's consistent. A person who must spend what they make to subsist will never pay less than a 25% tax rate. People who can afford to spend more but don't are afforded a tax break. This is totally the definition of a regressive tax rate system. Though in all honestly, we have that today when comparing the middle class to the wealthy.
 
C

Clay

Guest
Well the simple truth really is, if a flat tax of 25% were our current system, every dollar you earned would eventually get taxed. I never saw someone earn a dollar that never got spent. At some point at least.
If I make $80k and I choose to live like a miser and bank 60k while only spending 20k to live on because I buy my cloths at garage sales and I rent a garage apt. for 200$ a month. I will only pay taxes on the 20k for now. When I die with a huge account that goes to my chosen beneficiaries, they may spend the entire lot on BS...thus paying the 25% tax I chose not to pay.
My point is, it still gets paid eventually but the consumer has the control over when.
 

71buickfreak

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,790
Reaction score
30
Location
stillwater
You say you "choose" to live within your means. Bullspit. When I was a product designer for Rockford Fosgate, I made 38k a year. I lived in a 1560 sq ft home that we bought for 75k (cheapest we could find) and paid 600 a month for the mortgage. Renting a smaller home in Stillwater was costing about 750 a month (rent is really high here). Gas was $1.65. I have 3 small children. After taxes, I was taking home 31160 before health insurance. We made the bills each month and put food on the table, but barely. Then gas went to $3, and I could barely afford to drive to work. I was paying 4-5k a year in income taxes.

It is not about the dollar amount, it is about the percentage. My parents used to talk about how the rich shouldn't be penalized for being rich. Yes, they probably have worked hard to get there. They also earn ridiculous amounts of money. They should pay for it. They should not simply be allowed to pay less percentage-wise of their total income than me, period. I work hard. I probably work harder than most of the 1%ers (I am not OWS, its just a term), in fact, I know I work harder than the ones I know personally. If you can live on 40k and make 80, good for you, but I don't believe you. You must not have a wife or children at home. It is damn near impossible to provide for a family on 40k these days, not if you want to actually enjoy life. If I was single, 40k would be a bonanza, but a house, 2 cars and food for 5 people is really tough on 40k.
 
C

Clay

Guest
You say you "choose" to live within your means. Bullspit. When I was a product designer for Rockford Fosgate, I made 38k a year. I lived in a 1560 sq ft home that we bought for 75k (cheapest we could find) and paid 600 a month for the mortgage. Renting a smaller home in Stillwater was costing about 750 a month (rent is really high here). Gas was $1.65. I have 3 small children. After taxes, I was taking home 31160 before health insurance. We made the bills each month and put food on the table, but barely. Then gas went to $3, and I could barely afford to drive to work. I was paying 4-5k a year in income taxes.
You chose that job at that salary, you chose to have 3 kids, you chose to live in a $75k house for 600 a month. Not saying you lived like a king or like a miser but these were your choices and there are others that are less costly and more costly.
It is not about the dollar amount, it is about the percentage. My parents used to talk about how the rich shouldn't be penalized for being rich. Yes, they probably have worked hard to get there. They also earn ridiculous amounts of money. They should pay for it. They should not simply be allowed to pay less percentage-wise of their total income than me, period. I work hard. I probably work harder than most of the 1%ers (I am not OWS, its just a term), in fact, I know I work harder than the ones I know personally. If you can live on 40k and make 80, good for you, but I don't believe you. You must not have a wife or children at home. It is damn near impossible to provide for a family on 40k these days, not if you want to actually enjoy life. If I was single, 40k would be a bonanza, but a house, 2 cars and food for 5 people is really tough on 40k.
I have a wife and 14 yo son. I manage money well and when I say $40k a year to live, thats a guess of the main bills. I am guessing I spend 3000 (thats 36k a year) a month on the necessities. I have a lot of disposable income because I made that my choice. I have no other debt because I chose to do without certain things until I could pay cash for them. Everything I have is paid for but my house. No CC bills or other loans to pay.
We all chose our current situation starting the day you leave highschool and either start to work or continue your education.
Granted its harder to live on $38k than 100k but its your choices that got you where you are.
 

doctorjj

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
7,041
Reaction score
1,178
Location
Pryor
@71buickfreak

The middle class and poor pay the lion's share of taxes?? Bwahahaha!!! I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

You do realize that 47% of people pay no taxes. I'll let you guess which class of people that is. It ain't the richest 47%. Also, 93.3% of taxes paid are by people making $50,000 or more. The top 10% of earner's paid 71% of taxes. So again, just explain to me how the poor and middle class are paying the lion's share. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your class warfare.
 

Lurker66

Sharpshooter
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
9,332
Reaction score
8
Location
Pink
Not that i know any uber rich Romney/gates types but i know a few that qaulify as "rich". They travel alot, eat out alot, have numerous trucks, tractors, sports cars, atvs, have lotsa land ect.

Everything is funneled thru a semi ficticious cattle company. Its legal but its a sham. This is all done to avoid paying taxes and to protect them.

Its their money, they earned it, im not entitled to it.

When I go to the Norman gunshow and buy a gun, its because i earned it, i saved for it, and i paid a tax on it.

I dont get to write off the trip to Norman as a business expense, I dont get to buy a gun because a cow needed protection from a coyote, and since the gun is considered business equipment, they get to write off a perceived depriciation.

I do think we need to fix the tax code so when any money is earned it is taxed, no shelters.

On second thought, nevermind, im talking about stuff im ignorant of and rambling nonsense.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom