Featured Fair Tax or Flat Tax?

Yes, I suppose it is if you look at it strictly in terms of everyone paying close to the same percentage. But if you look at it as most people will pay more while the rich will pay less, then not so much.

 

I suppose this would cause many, many transactions to be done in cash with the government ultimately banning cash transactions as it would be a form of a tax dodge. Imagine buying a $30,000 vehicle with cash because you want to save the $600 tax. Internet sales would likely decrease as well.

 

Maybe but let's avoid the Marxist perspective. 15% of a million is far more than 15% of 30,000.

 

Of course this only works if we lose the income tax.

 

Yea isn't funny how the country ran just fine before we imposed the income tax. Of course if we eliminate it then it will be much more difficult to redistribute wealth.

 

Between the flat tax or fair tax I favor the fair tax (consumption tax).

But, as Revmitchell points out we would have to eliminate the 16th amendment, not an easy proposition.

Let's suppose there was a consumption tax. This would be an even bigger tax cut for the wealthy than if the flat tax was put in place. Side effects would be an increase in the barter system and black markets for almost every product and/or service (off the books transactions using cash).

Then there would be the inevitable increases in the percentage of the tax and tweaking of the consumption threshold. Also, a whole new burdensome accounting and tax collection and reporting system would be put onto business owners.

 

Gotta stew on this one a bit, BUT a consumption tax seems - at present - the best of all worlds if we're not gonna follow the constitution, which, IIRC, states that the gov't shall get it's revenue from import taxes & maybe another couple of sources; BUT definitely not from it's citizens!
This, then, seems the best alternative.

My next pet peeve is PROPERTY TAXES - another time, another station.

 

My $0.02 on federal income taxation:

I'm a single person with no dependents. I've been in that category all my life, & nearing 70 YO, I doubt that it'll change any time soon. Since I'm in that category, I'm required to pay the highest percentage of income tax that an individual can pay on his 1040.

I don't like the fact that by law single people must pay the very highest percentage of federal income tax that's imposed on an individual, but that's the law as it has stood for as many years that I've been required to file with the IRS--which in my case has amounted to at least 50 years.

Simply because a person has chosen not to marry and/or have no dependents is outright, blatant financial discrimination. I see no one from any political party who has publicly declared that he/she is willing to undo this IRS-mandated discrimination of an ever-growing percentage of our nation's population.

I've heard all the excuses for keeping this form of IRS discrimination intact. Some say this form of discrimination encourages people to marry, have children. That may be true, but no one has ever given me a legitimate reason why we allow the IRS to become a vicious social engineer in a nation which our Declaration of Independence clearly states that the signers of this revered document claimed to believe that the "Creator" gave mankind the "certain unalienable right" to pursue an individual's concept of "happiness."

None of our nation's foundational documents specify what the government considers to be an individual's happiness. That'd be a violation of our 1st Amendment's guarantee that a person is free to express his opinion on what constitutes a happy marital status.

Probably most people would define being married as a happy status, but that doesn't mean being single for all of a person's life here on earth shouldn't be an option.

Being happy primarily means having a right relationship with our Lord. I see no specific NT verse that commands an individual to be married, but I do read in 1 Corinthians 7:1,26,32,37 where Paul says being unmarried is a good option.

We've allowed the IRS to discriminate against a person being single. Why?

Being single per se isn't a crime punishable by law, but making false or incomplete statements is a federal offense punishable by fines or even imprisonment.

If choosing to be single is neither a violation of the law nor of God's Word , why do we Americans permit the IRS to discriminate against single people?

On to what I consider to be a reasonable replacement to the Marxist progressive income tax. I favor a national consumption tax with certain limitations.

While this kind of tax would seem to be a burden for those whose income is close to what the federal government says is at/above the poverty level, a standard that varies from place-to-place can be mandated becuase the cost of living varies from one part of the US to another.

Other factors such as age and certain physical disabilities (Thankfully the IRS does allow a person over 65 YO & if he's blind to be in a lower tax bracket.) should also be considered.

There may be other factors to consider, but if a person meets these criteria, then a national consumption tax would be much fairer all around.

You'd no longer need an army of tax lawyers/tax preparers. Auditing the IRS, which to me ought to be an annual requirement, would probably be much simpler too because the resultant IRS income tax code would probably be much less complex--thus shorter than it is now.

You wouldn't have to fear April 15 as much because you'd pay the tax every time you purchase something that's on the taxable list. Certain items like prescription medications and/or medical processes ought to be on the non-taxable list & other things that'd be necessary to maintain life & limb ought to be on this non-taxable list as well.

All in all, this kind of national consumption tax seems to be the most equitable to me.

 

Was everybody taxed? No exceptions or exemptions?

Did anybody get a free ride?

 

I assume you're only referring to GI's who hold the rank of, say, below E-5 or E-6.

I've seen E-7's & above with comfortable, off-base houses, & O-3's & above with really fine homes--part of which are subsidized by Separate Quarters & Separate Rations (SQ-SR).

In 1966-67, when I was stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB just outside Tucson AZ, the E-3's & above who weren't "trouble makers" were moved off base to a nice garden-style civilian apartments.

We didn't get any SQ-SR allowances, but they sure were much better than those WW2-vintage open-bay, 1-room-fits-40 wooden barracks in which I'd spent a good 18 mos. at my PCS assignment.

I could even relax in the complex's swimming pool after a long 12-hr. duty day--which was really relaxing after having spent most of those 12-hrs. burning up in the 100-degree desert temps.

My current condo complex, at which I'm assessed a $100/mo. HOA fee, doesn't even have a swimming pool! :tear: