![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Wdtabor" wrote in message ... In article , "Peter Gottlieb" writes: The general observation that consumers pay all the taxes paid by their suppliers is of course completely correct. It is somewhat amazing to consider the true amount of tax that we all pay when everything is accounted for. More than merely amazing. The Americans for Tax Reform traced the taxes imbedded in the cost of various goods. One was a Ford Taurus automobile, priced at $23,000. They found the car could have been sold, at the same profit, for $12,700 with the imbedded taxes removed. The buyer of that car, who might be under the illusion all taxation has been successfully pushed off on "the rich" pays and astounding $10,700 plus interest when he purchases that car. Surprise! Of course the big con with taxation and especially indirect taxation is that it affects the middle classes the worst. The poor have no money so they cannot spend much. However when they do spend they tend to go for branded products because of the quality. I was in India and given a choice of spending a days pay on a quality branded soap or and hours pay on a local variation it was the quality version that won out - why because poor people really want value for money and in this case, the branded soap bar lasted 20 times longer that the cheap bar. The middle classes are hit the hardest as for them they are right in the middle of the income bracket so they have a high marginal and overall tax burden. As consumers, they also get hammered and with only a little discretion over what to buy etc they have little choice about the taxes they pay. The best off are and always have been are the rich and the tax system is geared to protect them. When you have more money than you know what to do with it other than engage in conspicuous consumption then buying anything not necessary a normal life become cheap. The $1m boat brings with it a sales tax and a property tax. So what it is still cheap. The marginal rate of income tax for these people and the overall tax burden set against their income and wealth is also low. It may seem like a lot of $s but is still proportionately smaller than the middle classes. Fairer taxes to me means people paying their fair share. You cannot be more than fair to one section of society without being less than fair to the others. Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and put tax on the things that are not essentials to live. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "CB"
writes: Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and put tax on the things that are not essentials to live. THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating the sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover basic expenses. Using a formula very similar to that currently used to determine the poverty line, the tax paid on necessities for a given family size is determined and each month you get a check (or more likely, an electronic deposit) to reimburse you for that tax. The effect is that basic living spending is tax free to everyone, rich or poor alike. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Wdtabor" wrote snip THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating the sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover basic expenses. The FairTax interests me, but I've been wondering why tax food and clothing at all in the first place, instead of sending out rebate checks (or deposits)? Is it because it is hard to classify certain items as "necessary" and a rebate is just easier? -Trent PP-ASEL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Trent Moorehead"
writes: The FairTax interests me, but I've been wondering why tax food and clothing at all in the first place, instead of sending out rebate checks (or deposits)? Is it because it is hard to classify certain items as "necessary" and a rebate is just easier? The FairTax will be collected by the States, which will get a commission for collecting it. There will be no federal taxing authority. The States have their own sales taxes already, and they differ from state to state as to what item are taxable or not. To add a federal list of taxable and non-taxable items would be very complicated to adminster. It is adminstratively simpler, and equally fair, to simply estimate the cost of essentials and allow for them uniformly. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Wdtabor" wrote in message ... In article , "CB" writes: Shift the sales taxes away from the things people need to have to live and put tax on the things that are not essentials to live. THe FairTax addresses this not by exempting certain goods, but by rebating the sales tax paid on spending up to the level determined as needed to cover basic expenses. Using a formula very similar to that currently used to determine the poverty line, the tax paid on necessities for a given family size is determined and each month you get a check (or more likely, an electronic deposit) to reimburse you for that tax. The effect is that basic living spending is tax free to everyone, rich or poor alike. The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but the beauracracy involved would be immense. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"CB" writes:
The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but the beauracracy involved would be immense. How would it compare to the current bureaucracy? -jav |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "CB"
writes: The trouble with all these great ideas is that the cost of administering the taxes can out weight the tax benefit. In theory your idea sounds great, but the beauracracy involved would be immense. ?? What bureaucracy? Other than those which already exist? The tax will be collected by the States using their existing sales tax bureaucracy, and the States will receive a commission to cover their small costs for doing so. The rebates will be sent out by the existing Social Security mechanisms, at the cost of a bit more paper. In return, the IRS will cease to exist. The day the FairTax goes into effect, they turn off the lights at the IRS, and all of their records, other than those needed for collection actions in progress, will be destroyed. That will save us the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS, PLUS the $400 Billion spent by businesses and individuals to comply with the IRS code. The FairTax will reduce the total state and federal tax bureacracy by by at least 90% over all, and the cost of collection will be built into the collection mechanism. Your personal tax compliance effort will be to send in a form once a year telling the SS folks how many people are in your family and what their SS numbers are. Retail businesses will collect the tax as they do with sales taxes now and turn them into the state, just as they do now. They will no longer have to withold taxes from employees, calculate depreciation, or any of the other accounting that is otherwise not needed in operating the business. Their monthly tax return will look something like Retail Sales X Tax Rate = Amount enclosed. That's it. -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wdtabor wrote:
.......That will save us the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS..... In the interest of accuracy, the budget of the IRS is about $10B - $11B - you're off by a factor of 10. I have no comment about any of the rest of it. -- Marc J. Zeitlin http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/ http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2004 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message news ![]() Wdtabor wrote: .......That will save us the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS..... In the interest of accuracy, the budget of the IRS is about $10B - $11B - you're off by a factor of 10. I have no comment about any of the rest of it. Source? Allen |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Allen asked:
Wdtabor wrote: .......That will save us the $100Billion it costs us each year to operate the IRS..... In the interest of accuracy, the budget of the IRS is about $10B - $11B - you're off by a factor of 10. I have no comment about any of the rest of it. Source? http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2002/nrfs02-09.html Seems authoritative enough..... -- Marc J. Zeitlin http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/ http://www.cozybuilders.org/ Copyright (c) 2004 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum differences | Lou Parker | Home Built | 16 | August 25th 04 06:48 PM |
Differences between Garmin 295 and 196? | carlos | Owning | 17 | January 29th 04 08:55 PM |
differences in loc/dme and loc with dme appch at KRUT? | Richard Hertz | Instrument Flight Rules | 19 | January 25th 04 07:49 PM |
Differences in models of Foster500 loran | Ray Andraka | Owning | 1 | September 3rd 03 10:47 PM |
question: differences between epoxy layup and plaster | Morgans | Home Built | 3 | August 6th 03 04:46 AM |