# Interesting article on taxes



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, I know it seems hard to believe but this article on the tax situation in America is interesting and worth reading to the end:

http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/12 ... e12879.asp


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Great article! The rich get richer and poor get poorer! Democracy or tyranny! I'm not real sure who we are watching out for! I am also very leary about sales tax increases which are regressive vs. income tax increases which are progressive. Try to explain that one to most people and they seem to think that sales tax gives them the best break but if they only knew!! The poorer you are the more you pay!!


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm going to pull out some quotes that are interesting:

"Now, there are also a significant number of wealthy people who either don't want to pay taxes, want to pay a lot less, and who are promoting an agenda that is entirely self-interested. And I don't have any problem with self-interest. I think that self-interest is a very motivating force. But that's why you have social controls on self-interest. The model of the cancer cell is growth for growth's sake, no matter what. And you don't want growth for growth's sake, you want growth for society's sake."

"President Bush wanted a $1.8 trillion tax cut. Congress would only give him $1.3. How do you fit $1.8 trillion into a $1.3 trillion bag? You do it by a stealth tax increase on the middle class and the upper middle class. By integrating into the regular income tax a parallel universe of taxes called the Alternative Minimum tax. Which appears as only a single line on your tax return. You'd have to look on your tax form to see whether it's line 42 or 43, but if a figure appears in that line, it means that part of your Bush tax cuts is being taken away so that the richest people in America can get 100 percent of their Bush tax cuts. If you are married, have two or more children and make $75,000-$100,000 you are almost certainly losing part of your Bush tax cuts. Overall that group will lose 42 percent of their tax cuts to the stealth tax."

"But we will not get better tax policy until people have a better understanding of it. Despite all of the rhetoric by both political parties about family friendly tax policy, the fact is that you are 30 times more likely to lose part of your Bush tax cut if you are married and have children than if you are single. Now, I am not arguing here that single people should pay more in taxes or that married people with children should pay less. What I'm arguing is that the rhetoric of the politicians and the reality of the tax code bear no resemblance to one another. "

and finally (sorry, it was hard to stop cutting and pasting once I got going):

"You know this faux libertarianism? "I did it all by myself." No you didn't, the public educated you, the taxpayers built roads and highways and a court system and a structure of laws and then you, through your initiative, did very well for yourself within that context. But you didn't do it all by yourself."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass wrote:


> "You know this faux libertarianism? "I did it all by myself." No you didn't, the public educated you, the taxpayers built roads and highways and a court system and a structure of laws and then you, through your initiative, did very well for yourself within that context. But you didn't do it all by yourself."


Well as a conservative let me surprise you by saying that is a good point. Let me surprise you some more. I don't mind paying my taxes for education, roads, and the other infrastructure we all take for granted every day. I don't even mind paying taxes for welfare. I do object to paying taxes so that the lazy can be on welfare all their life. I would cut those and pay more for the poor people who really are disabled. I also don't like paying taxes to some woman who has had five abortions and thinks abortion is a form of birth control. If she wants to go to he!! she can go by herself, but society shouldn't demand that I go with her. If she pays for her own, she is on her own. Pay for it with taxes and you make me part of it.

However Bush's tax cut works my wife and I came out $2600 dollars ahead.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I do object to paying taxes so that the lazy can be on welfare all their life. I would cut those and pay more for the poor people who really are disabled. I also don't like paying taxes to some woman who has had five abortions and thinks abortion is a form of birth control. If she wants to go to he!! she can go by herself, but society shouldn't demand that I go with her. If she pays for her own, she is on her own. Pay for it with taxes and you make me part of it.


I would like to look up the stats on what you are talking about above, ie, how many people are on welfare all their life and how many women a)have abortions, and b) have more than one. ... and while we are at it, how much out of pocket money does a woman have to pay to get an abortion?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't care how much it is out of my pocket it is the principle of the thing. I do not want to be a part of it. If she pays for it herself I am not a part of it. I don't care what it cost her. She is responsible for herself in this situation not I. Now at first that may sound callous, but not nearly as callous as her expecting me to be part of her killing her child. I would pay more taxes than the cost of the abortion, ten times, to let the child live and pay welfare for him or her. There are currently good people waiting and waiting to adopt a child.

I don't know how many people are on welfare all their life. Very few I would guess, but I know a couple, and a couple is more than should be. I also have no idea how many women have multiple abortions, but a neighbor girl had five, and the doctor told her after the next one she would more than likely not be able to have children, so she had that one. One like this is more than I wanted to see.

If I know a couple of people who have been on welfare for many years, then nationwide there must be much abuse. In this small community in which I live if I personally know a girl with five abortions, then I would guess that there are more out there.

I trust my life observations more than the news or articles that I read. You may notice I don't copy a lot from articles, but rather normally speak from the heart or of my life experiences.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I trust my life observations more than the news or articles that I read. You may notice I don't copy a lot from articles, but rather normally speak from the heart or of my life experiences.


As do I, but I've also learned to trust the research of some authors if it well-documented and makes sense. This author seems like one of those authors. I mean, its hard to argue against a guy whose life work is to understand the tax laws in place, whatever your political stance.

All I ever hear from republicans and welfare is how many lazy "lifers" are taking advantage of the system. I'm just curious as to how many of these people are out there, relative to other cases deemed "acceptable." I don't know any, you know one. Thats hard to judge, see.

I have a different view on abortion from my experiences in detention centers and shelter cares, but I'm going to let it go at that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

My comment wasn't to call into question the integrity of the author you posted. I was simply letting you know what influences my posts. I have no problem at all with people who bring information to the table. As a matter of fact I appreciate it because I don't have the time to look. We all can use as much information as we can get. To tell the truth I am hoping to find time tonight to read it. I must admit that I posted only to let everyone know how my taxes have turned out.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Just a note: Factcheck.org has some information posted about Social Security


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass

On another thread you said we should be discussing more important things. I agree and disagree , but after you and Bobm voiced your disappointment I put some things on the back burner and read the tax article you posted. Well, I read half and my head begin to hurt.

The media has lied to us so much that I have become very distrustful of them. This article was plausible until I lost confidence in it when he begin talking about Bush's current social security plan. When he gets there he appears to fall into class warfare. He states that Bush wants to change social security because it will benefit the rich by people investing in the stock market. The rich may benefit, but so will the investors, and we really don't know what Bushe's motives are. When he states Bush's motives he lost credibility with me. Not because I don't think Bush can do no wrong, but that no matter who he was talking about there is no real way to read a man's mind. That statement showed he clearly had an agenda. I was disappointed, and stopped at that point. Once he said that there was no need to continue, he lost his credibility with me. Pity, he was making some good points about we are all in this together and the rich are rich because of our social structure, therefore owe us. To some extent I was agreeing with him until he blew it. He made a statement that was impossible for any of us to know.

I was disappointed with that article. If someone can find something unbiased I sure would appreciate seeing it on here. It appears that the whole media has turned into a bunch of spin doctors. Who do we trust? If anyone finds a good article it would be refreshing.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you want to point fingers about our tax system you're missing the point the question is not that its screwed up and unfair ( although its undeniable that the Hated rich pay the lions share of federal taxes) even the dimmest bulbs among us realize the current tax system is not fair and ridiculously complicated. *The real issue we all should be working on is where do we go from here.* I too have studied this issue to the best of my ability for years and the very best plan I have seen is at Fair Tax.org and that is something you should read until you fully understand it( which is no small undertaking). It benefits the poor ( the truly poor pay nothing), the rich, and the rest of us working stiffs and would make our economy grow while making the US a much more competitve nation in the Global scheme of things. 
Unfortunately it gets misrepresented and demagogued just like the Social security issue and the vast majority of the country is too interested in watching Homer Simpson or some other nonsense to take the time to understand these issues. Congress is screwing all of you to preserve their political power or attempt to regain it, and most of you deserve to get screwed because you don't take the time to become informed. 
The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as intimated above is because the rich keep making good decisions and the poor keep making bad ones, and the socalled poor in this country have access to education, the ones that take advantage of it and start making good decisions become rich. All of us are where we are because of the sum total of the decisions we have made, the ignorant become jealous of others successes when they realize this undeniable fact. The very basis of class warfare which certian members of congress have no reason to change because without class warfare they lose their power.
http://www.fairtax.org/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm

I read some. Sounds ok so far. I joined their email list. I'll read more and watch for the email updates. Thanks.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Sales tax... Interesting to note that now, North Dakota is interested in moving towards an increase in the sales tax another move towards a regressive tax system. It is for property tax relief but I'm still not sure how I feel about this one.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Sales tax only STEAL from the poor. I think anyone making 24,000 a year should pay nothing in taxes, 
24-30,000 = 2%
30-36,000 = 3%
36-42,000 = 4%
42-50,000 = 5%
over 75,000 = 10%
No tax credits! Nothing for being married, nothing for dependent children.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Sales tax only STEAL from the poor.


If you bothered to read the plan you would not of made that comment which is the problem with this forum, uninformed opinions.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Whoa...Carefull Bob because there is more than one way to skin a cat!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

In this plan the poor get a check for the value of the sales tax up to poverty level in otherwords the truly poor pay nothing so explain to me how "Sales tax steals from the poor", when they pay nothing. Its frustrating to me that these comments are made without any effort to read the link, or they are too stupid to understand it which I doubt is the case. Our country is full of politically ignorant uniformed people and unfortunately they vote and screw the ones that take the time to become informed about these issues, with their ignorance. This is why I quit posting to this forum ingnorant uninformed opinions run rampant. This forum should be taken off the site.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Question? Can you tell us how the "hated rich" pay the lions share of the taxes?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Question...Can you explain to me how a regressive tax is a more fair tax that a progressive tax?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You have to get into the FAQ's on that site for the finer nuances of the plan. For example they don't exempt groceries. That looks ridiculous at first glance. The fact is as they explain the rich buy more expensive, more convenient foods. So they tax everyone and allow a reimbursement dictated by income. I'm far from finished checking into this, but I would suggest that it is worth your time to investigate further.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm

I don't know if I asked this question before or not. I have been trying to find my answers on the site for fair tax org, but can not.

The only problem with the fair tax that I can imagine is if the country goes into an economic slump and people stop buying. If that happens does the fair tax have a secondary plan for ensuring sufficient funds for government to maintain full function?


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Bobm Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: 
Sales tax only STEAL from the poor.

If you bothered to read the plan you would not of made that comment which is the problem with this forum, *uninformed opinions* 


You see BOB, I am able to think for myself! I don't believe in taxing the poor. Unimformed, I think I am more informed than you are. I have been both rich and poor. I believe in a FLAT TAX, not sales taxes. Excuse me for thinking on my own. uke:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Having read the fair tax website for information, it appears that the system replaces income taxes with something like a national sales tax. Its basis appears to be that the more you consume, the more you pay. However, the site fails to answer some basic questions. First, if the rebate is based on your income, do they give you the rebate at the end of the year and do they base it on previous year's income or your estimate for the future. Second, they talk about tax free municipal bonds. Some of us use tax free muni bonds in our taxable portfolio to avoid taxes on corporate bond returns and buy corporate bonds within our tax sheltered portfolios. Tax free munis are issued by local and state governments to fund things like roads, sewer projects and others and typically pay a lower interest rate. If dividends from bonds are no longer taxed, then there is no tax advantage to muni bonds compared to corporate bonds. Therefore, if your local community wants to issue bonds to pay for sewers, they will have to pay the same interest rates as corporate bonds or not have any buyers. The unintended consequence will be for local and state entities to have to pay more interest on public improvement bonds and therefore have to raise state and local taxes to pay this interest. Third, all sales taxes and GST are regressive from the simple standpoint of % of income. The rich pay the same for a gallon of gas as the poor, but the % of income to pay for that gallon of gas is higher for the poor than the rich, which is why the fair tax proposal needs the rebate. Fourth, not all high income earners are conspicuous consumers. In many cases, the millionaire is not driving the mercedes, but a compact car. That is how they got rich in the first place. Fifth, even the bill submitted to congress has no controls on how often congress can raise the sales tax. As you can see from this year's legislative sessions in North Dakota, the biggest bill in discussion is to raise sales taxes 2% to pay for schools. The fair tax system bill has no feedback control mechanism to stop legislators from raising the fair tax indiscriminately to pay for their own pork. Next, assume fair tax is revenue neutral. If so, it is only revenue neutral in the year it is passed. In succeeding years, inflation or something like it will increase government costs. In order to pay the increasing costs of government, the tax will have to be raised to be revenue neutral. Finally, and most importantly, corporations will not pay any taxes. Even though this is true under the current tax system, how much more money will that give corporations to hire lobbyists?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> The only problem with the fair tax that I can imagine is if the country goes into an economic slump and people stop buying. If that happens does the fair tax have a secondary plan for ensuring sufficient funds for government to maintain full function?


Don't know but a freeze on new spending in congress might be a good start.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Sorry...I believe that the best tax system is one that generates income for running government services from a variety of sources. That allows you flexibility in handling income and expenses when it comes to supporting the government and all the services that people need and desire. Keep it simple stupid is OK but when it comes to flexibility it does not give you much choice. A flat tax will shift the burden of paying taxes onto the back of midddle and lower income people. Flat tax supporters can say what they want but you will not convince me that they are watching out for my interests. I might be a lot of things but I am not a fool.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DJ you're correct a flat tax does that. The "fairtax" doesn't, its not a flat tax, 
EJ4prmc said


> You see BOB, I am able to think for myself! I don't believe in taxing the poor. Unimformed, I think I am more informed than you are. I have been both rich and poor


Thats the problem you "think" your informed when infact you are not and if you bother to read the Fair tax plan you would then be informed and know that the poor pay no tax whatsoever with the fair tax. :eyeroll:

If you guys would read it then we could discuss its fine points
Heres the link to the originator of the idea my congressman John Linder his site explains much of it concisely

http://linder.house.gov/index.cfm?Fusea ... ource_id=1

Our existing tax system started as a "flat tax" :eyeroll: You see where that got us.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Its all in the name, Bob...Any tax with a name like "fair tax" scares the hell out of me. I've seen a lot of things called fair that were far from being fair. I am not see easily convinced as you seem to be about changing our whole tax struture because a bunch of fat cat republicans deem it to be a "fair tax." It is hard to not argue that the tax burden is shifting in America away from the "haves" and I don't like it.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Bobm said:


> DJ you're correct a flat tax does that. The "fairtax" doesn't, its not a flat tax,
> EJ4prmc said
> 
> 
> ...


I read the "UNFAIR" tax articale and I still believe in my system. 17 years ago in collage I did a paper on this subject. I don't remember the exact numbers but my system would work in theroy. I think that the rich SHOULD pay a bit more than someone "struggles" I also think all gas taxes should stay for transportation, legalize marijauna and TAX the piss out of it, thats the reason we came OUT OF PROHIBTION. Tax cigs heavy, $35,000+ cars too.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ok so you both say you read it I'll take you at your word. Now lets talk about specifics, what details exactly don't you like and why?

This is the point of forum to have actual discussions lets try it for a change. And its not a fat cat republican supprted idea by the way, its a bipartisan effort ( it was specifically designed with that in Mind because it would never get off the ground otherwise) and getting massive support from both sides of the aisle once they actaully understand it.

Specifics please? 
Thanks


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I repeat... I do not like a regressive tax. I believe in a progressive tax system to support our federal government. I believe that the more you make the more you have the ability to pay and therefore should pay at a higher tax rate. I will no longer comment on this thread because I have now repeated my position and will not repeat it again.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I repeat... I do not like a regressive tax. I believe in a progressive tax system to support our federal government.


I knew you didn't read it, because its not a regressive tax. Its a good you won't comment any more though, ignorant comments by those who won't study and understand the idea are pointless.


----------

