Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 108
Like Tree12Likes
  1. Thread Author  Thread Author    #1  
    NoYankees44's Avatar

    Posts
    1,030 Posts
    ROM
    Viper

    Default 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What



    Highlights:
    In 2010
    Top 40% of tax earners pay 106.2% of income tax
    Middle quintile(40%-60%) pay 2.9%
    Bottom 40% pay -9.1%
    Bottom 40 percent took in an average of $18,950 in what the CBO called “government transfers”

    Chart of How Quintiles are Divided by Income
    Galaxy S3(unlocked on whatever I feel like flashing) ---- Asus Tf300(unlocked on CROMI)
    Htc Rezound(s-off on ViperRez) -- Addicted to crack and retired
  2. #2  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,691 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,730 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What


    According to their methodology, they're doing a very strange transformation of the numbers in order to "normalize" average household income. For example, a household of 1 making $80,000 is represented as $80,000 for 1, while a household of 5 with the same income is represented as $35,777. They did this in order to rank households by "standard of living", which is throwing the distribution off in a major way. With real numbers, this chart is probably much more skewed to the right, as most households had their "income" downsized.



    Tax rates at a 25 year low for all but the top 1%, who are sitting very near (30%) their 25 year low (25%).
    And for some reason addressed, the Lowest 40% paid 58.3% of social security and medicare, while the top 40% paid 23.1% combined (obviously leaving 16.7% for the middle class).

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  3. Thread Author  Thread Author    #3  
    NoYankees44's Avatar

    Posts
    1,030 Posts
    ROM
    Viper

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    Tax rates at a 25 year low for all but the top 1%, who are sitting very near (30%) their 25 year low (25%).
    And for some reason addressed, the Lowest 40% paid 58.3% of social security and medicare, while the top 40% paid 23.1% combined (obviously leaving 16.7% for the middle class).
    You lost me here... What?
    Galaxy S3(unlocked on whatever I feel like flashing) ---- Asus Tf300(unlocked on CROMI)
    Htc Rezound(s-off on ViperRez) -- Addicted to crack and retired
  4. #4  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    If that's what the 1% or 10% pay, how does one explain this: or the same thing Mitt Romey said about the percent of tax he pays to his income?
  5. #5  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,691 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,730 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NoYankees44 View Post
    You lost me here... What?
    Was reading the source report and calling out weird things, things that contravene the media narrative about income and taxation.

    For example, low income families are paying much more into social security and Medicare (on average) both in dollars and as a % of income.

    Another is that our taxes have generally falling and have been consistently, however politicians and the media seem to imply that taxes are the highest level we have ever seen.
    Its just interesting the degree that the data disagrees with the propaganda.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  6. #6  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NoYankees44 View Post


    Highlights:
    In 2010
    Top 40% of tax earners pay 106.2% of income tax
    Middle quintile(40%-60%) pay 2.9%
    Bottom 40% pay -9.1%
    Bottom 40 percent took in an average of $18,950 in what the CBO called “government transfers”

    Chart of How Quintiles are Divided by Income
    problem with articles like these is that it is a clear way to try to get people all pissed off. It intentally lacks break down of lining up wealth and income with the taxes.

    When they control almost all the wealth and income and mix with massive wealth gap I feel zero sympathy and think well duh that is how it should be.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
    Thanked by:
  7. #7  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,691 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,730 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    If that's what the 1% or 10% pay, how does one explain this: or the same thing Mitt Romey said about the percent of tax he pays to his income?
    That's solely the distinction between % of income and total dollars and the weighted average rate differing income types are taxed.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  8. Thread Author  Thread Author    #8  
    NoYankees44's Avatar

    Posts
    1,030 Posts
    ROM
    Viper

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    If that's what the 1% or 10% pay, how does one explain this: or the same thing Mitt Romey said about the percent of tax he pays to his income?
    I have never understood this. Why is his effect rate less? Seems like i remember reading somewhere that there was a maximum amount due, but i could be completely wrong.
    Galaxy S3(unlocked on whatever I feel like flashing) ---- Asus Tf300(unlocked on CROMI)
    Htc Rezound(s-off on ViperRez) -- Addicted to crack and retired
  9. #9  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    If that's what the 1% or 10% pay, how does one explain this: or the same thing Mitt Romey said about the percent of tax he pays to his income?

    His secretary makes between 200-500K per year, she is hardly the middle class. In fact she is in the top 1% that everyone wants to yank more out of.
  10. #10  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Let's just instate the Fair Tax and be done with these confusing statistics about an even more confusing tax system.
    Darth Spock likes this.
  11. #11  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,691 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,730 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    Let's just instate the Fair Tax and be done with these confusing statistics about an even more confusing tax system.
    Needs more debate on what "fair" actually is and whether or not the Fair Tax performs that better or not. I definitely agree with many of the points of it, but it has a glaring issue of being relatively regressive, which is worse than current. However the benefit of getting rid of the IRS might be worth it alone.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  12. #12  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    ...but it has a glaring issue of being relatively regressive, which is worse than current. However the benefit of getting rid of the IRS might be worth it alone.
    The only people I've seen trying to argue that it's regressive are those that ignore the prebate. Not sure if you followed along or remember when I discussed the plan more in depth in another tax thread, but the prebate is the money paid out to everyone equal to the amount the household would pay in taxes if living at the poverty level. If you live at the poverty level, you effectively pay no tax, those above pay more, and those below in effect get a surplus. It's an integral part of the plan and to ignore it is either ignorance or being misleading. I know you're not typically either of those, so I'm curious your reasoning.

    And you're right about the IRS, but that would then throw Obamacare in limbo (again), as the IRS is pretty important to that plan as well.
  13. #13  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveISU View Post
    His secretary makes between 200-500K per year, she is hardly the middle class. In fact she is in the top 1% that everyone wants to yank more out of.
    why have I read true middle class is made up of people. making 200k a year

    Q10, HTC One, Nexus 7, Moto X
  14. #14  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    The only people I've seen trying to argue that it's regressive are those that ignore the prebate. Not sure if you followed along or remember when I discussed the plan more in depth in another tax thread, but the prebate is the money paid out to everyone equal to the amount the household would pay in taxes if living at the poverty level. If you live at the poverty level, you effectively pay no tax, those above pay more, and those below in effect get a surplus. It's an integral part of the plan and to ignore it is either ignorance or being misleading. I know you're not typically either of those, so I'm curious your reasoning.

    And you're right about the IRS, but that would then throw Obamacare in limbo (again), as the IRS is pretty important to that plan as well.
    all I know is I paid $15,000 in taxes this year and counting and it's ******* horse ****

    Q10, HTC One, Nexus 7, Moto X
  15. #15  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,691 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,730 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    The only people I've seen trying to argue that it's regressive are those that ignore the prebate. Not sure if you followed along or remember when I discussed the plan more in depth in another tax thread, but the prebate is the money paid out to everyone equal to the amount the household would pay in taxes if living at the poverty level. If you live at the poverty level, you effectively pay no tax, those above pay more, and those below in effect get a surplus. It's an integral part of the plan and to ignore it is either ignorance or being misleading. I know you're not typically either of those, so I'm curious your reasoning.

    And you're right about the IRS, but that would then throw Obamacare in limbo (again), as the IRS is pretty important to that plan as well.
    I followed the concept and I agree with you to a point, but the difference is reconciliation between income and expenditures based taxation and the relative throughput of different population classes or segments. What I mean is that the relative opportunity for "pain" from taxation is shifted to the lower classes despite the rebate.

    So I'm in favor of shifting the burden downstream to create more equality across strata, but my understanding is that this goes too far the other direction, such as is observed in medicare today. The ideal situation for me would be that the relative spending power of various groups, above poverty, be impacted in similar ways, considering the expected household net "profits" assumed at various income and standard of living stages. That likely is a mix of a slightly progressive, yet massively simplified tax code, however I haven't seen a "perfect plan" yet.

    I'm not sold that this is more or less fair objectively, as in my opinion it merely changes who is getting the short end, prior to observation of the already gigantic benefits that are already enjoyed by those that stand to gain the most from this. Still working this all out and have been kicking these ideas in my head for a few months, and algorithmic optimization seems to require a weighted aggregate pattern for normalization of impact to margin.

    Long story short, I don't know if you are right or wrong, but none of the literature or videos I've seen thus far have addressed this aspect at all, let alone to satisfaction. The political economic CBA is solid prior to actual impact on mass consumer behavior and sustainability concerns. The current system has many and more problems of its own, but for Fair tax, this is a big gap, for me anyways.... at least so far.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  16. #16  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    I majored in drafting, not accounting, so you're gonna have to dumb that down a bit for me.

    But when you mentioned shifting the pain to the lower class, I'm just not seeing it based on my understanding of the plan.
  17. #17  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    The only people I've seen trying to argue that it's regressive are those that ignore the prebate. Not sure if you followed along or remember when I discussed the plan more in depth in another tax thread, but the prebate is the money paid out to everyone equal to the amount the household would pay in taxes if living at the poverty level. If you live at the poverty level, you effectively pay no tax, those above pay more, and those below in effect get a surplus. It's an integral part of the plan and to ignore it is either ignorance or being misleading. I know you're not typically either of those, so I'm curious your reasoning.

    And you're right about the IRS, but that would then throw Obamacare in limbo (again), as the IRS is pretty important to that plan as well.
    It is still regressive since it had a limit at a amount fairly low. Fair tax is still regressive and the only people who really come out on top is the rich. Middle class is hurt so is everyone else.

    We need tax reform mostly in killing loop holes. But fair tax is not it.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  18. #18  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Timelessblur View Post
    It is still regressive since it had a limit at a amount fairly low. Fair tax is still regressive and the only people who really come out on top is the rich. Middle class is hurt so is everyone else.

    We need tax reform mostly in killing loop holes. But fair tax is not it.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    I think you and a lot of people underestimate just how low the poverty level is and should be. Poverty is making just enough to get by, no more. So no cell phones, no cable, internet, a cheap car, basic food and clothing, etc. So yes, the prebates would likely be lower than what you want. Without going over it all again (as there's a lot), I'll direct you to Taxes - What's the best system? where I talked about the Fair Tax extensively. It's obvious you don't understand the plan, or have been mislead by opponents, as the arguement of it being regressive and hurting the middle and lower classes has been disproven time and time again in the various debates and the book outlining the plan. But I'll explain that part here quickly.

    People living at or near the poverty level don't spend much on extras relative to the rich. So the tax they pay is going to be pretty close to the amount of the prebate, meaning very little or net zero in taxes. Another key point is the Fair Tax only taxes *NEW* items and services. Since people at this level tend to buy a lot of second hand items, the amount of taxes paid is reduced further.

    As people move up in income, and thus lifestyle, they opt more for higher end items and name brands, most items are bought new, and they have more extra luxuries. Thus they pay a lot more taxes.

    To the person at or below poverty level, they've paid next to no taxes or even had a net refund when factoring the prebate. To the super rich, the prebate is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the taxes they've paid. They probably wouldn't even notice if it was gone (and I'm speaking hypothetically, as the plan treats everyone the same). So to say it's a regressive tax system is blatently false. The tax burden on a person increases as their lifestyle increases.
  19. Thread Author  Thread Author    #19  
    NoYankees44's Avatar

    Posts
    1,030 Posts
    ROM
    Viper

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Lets be honest with ourselves, any reform that does not make the rich pay significantly more than they do now is going to be framed as "regressive". It is class warfare at its finest.
    Galaxy S3(unlocked on whatever I feel like flashing) ---- Asus Tf300(unlocked on CROMI)
    Htc Rezound(s-off on ViperRez) -- Addicted to crack and retired
  20. #20  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,691 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,730 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NoYankees44 View Post
    Lets be honest with ourselves, any reform that does not make the rich pay significantly more than they do now is going to be framed as "regressive". It is class warfare at its finest.
    That's definitely not what I mean by it. I think everyone is paying too much for what it buys and I don't think the current system comes close to being able to appear... or actually be.... fair. Objectively regressive means that the lower levels shoulder more of the burden than they ought to. I'm also thinking about relative impact to spending power as a consideration.

    I have no clue why timeless thinks its regressive, but progressive and regressive are not the only two options. Either there is a third option, "fair", or its a spectrum and we can make it more fair by swinging away from either extreme.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  21. #21  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    I think you and a lot of people underestimate just how low the poverty level is and should be. Poverty is making just enough to get by, no more. So no cell phones, no cable, internet, a cheap car, basic food and clothing, etc. So yes, the prebates would likely be lower than what you want. Without going over it all again (as there's a lot), I'll direct you to Taxes - What's the best system? where I talked about the Fair Tax extensively. It's obvious you don't understand the plan, or have been mislead by opponents, as the arguement of it being regressive and hurting the middle and lower classes has been disproven time and time again in the various debates and the book outlining the plan. But I'll explain that part here quickly.

    People living at or near the poverty level don't spend much on extras relative to the rich. So the tax they pay is going to be pretty close to the amount of the prebate, meaning very little or net zero in taxes. Another key point is the Fair Tax only taxes *NEW* items and services. Since people at this level tend to buy a lot of second hand items, the amount of taxes paid is reduced further.

    As people move up in income, and thus lifestyle, they opt more for higher end items and name brands, most items are bought new, and they have more extra luxuries. Thus they pay a lot more taxes.

    To the person at or below poverty level, they've paid next to no taxes or even had a net refund when factoring the prebate. To the super rich, the prebate is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the taxes they've paid. They probably wouldn't even notice if it was gone (and I'm speaking hypothetically, as the plan treats everyone the same). So to say it's a regressive tax system is blatently false. The tax burden on a person increases as their lifestyle increases.
    I have read up on it. It is regressive. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been hood winked by the people pushing it.
    Saying "So no cell phones, no cable, internet, a cheap car, basic food and clothing, etc." also speaks volumes about you not understanding todays world.
    In todays world cell phone is a most. I can agree no cable. But a cell phone is a requirement. Now I would say you do not need a cell phone and a landline. But a cell phone, basic broadband is a much like a cheap relabel car. You do not need a smart phone.

    I know about it. Look into it and can tell you the only people coming out on top are the top 10% or so. Everyone else gets screwed.

    That fact that you call a Sales tax ANYTHING but regressive also speaks volumes. Sales tax is massively regressive. Yes you move up in come the more you spend and yes the more tax you pay but it becomes less and less a chunk of your income. More of your income goes to savings.

    So yes the fair tax is anything but a regressive tax. I read fair amount on it.
    You argue millions of private funds spent researching it which I do not buy the millions part. Even so look at the backers of the research. They are not exactly the right people. They are people in it for themselves and yet again the rich come out on top everyone else gets screwed.

    I suggest you look up what a regressive tax is because I question you understanding that key part.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  22. #22  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    I could agree with you on a cheap, non-smart phone, cell plan in lieu of a landline. They are fairly close in price nowdays. The point was, the poverty level is going to be quite low since it is only what you need to cover necessities for a given family size. Now...

    Regressive: A tax rate that decreases as the amount being taxed (i.e. taxed income, or sales tax in this case) increases, and vice versa.

    The Fair Tax has only one tax rate, and it's taxing the items you buy. Not income.

    The poorest people pay next to no tax and could possibly have a net negative tax/tax refund by getting more in the prebate than they pay in taxes. How is that regressive, or hurting the poor? Yes, their amount of disposable income is much less, but that has nothing to do with taxation. You could exempt them from all taxes and they'd still be poor and have little disposable income relative to the rich. By your logic, it's saying that would still be a regressive tax system. Despite being a mis-use of the word, that just doesn't make any sense.

    I've already explained the "why" of my view on it not being regressive, whereas you just basically said it's not true. You've not provided any reasoning to explain your side of the arguement, so the ball is in your court to do so if you want any credibility in the debate.
  23. #23  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    I could agree with you on a cheap, non-smart phone, cell plan in lieu of a landline. They are fairly close in price nowdays. The point was, the poverty level is going to be quite low since it is only what you need to cover necessities for a given family size. Now...

    Regressive: A tax rate that decreases as the amount being taxed (i.e. taxed income, or sales tax in this case) increases, and vice versa.

    The Fair Tax has only one tax rate, and it's taxing the items you buy. Not income.

    The poorest people pay next to no tax and could possibly have a net negative tax/tax refund by getting more in the prebate than they pay in taxes. How is that regressive, or hurting the poor? Yes, their amount of disposable income is much less, but that has nothing to do with taxation. You could exempt them from all taxes and they'd still be poor and have little disposable income relative to the rich. By your logic, it's saying that would still be a regressive tax system. Despite being a mis-use of the word, that just doesn't make any sense.

    I've already explained the "why" of my view on it not being regressive, whereas you just basically said it's not true. You've not provided any reasoning to explain your side of the arguement, so the ball is in your court to do so if you want any credibility in the debate.
    An d to be blunt you are wrong.

    Fair Tax is nothing more than a fancy sales tax.

    Sales tax is a very regressive tax.
    The so call probat does nothing to address the fact that it is a SALES TAX. Big time since their is a cap based on the poverty line.
    All the "Fair Tax" does is shift the burden of funding the government to the poor. Basically the less you make the more of your income goes to funding the government.
    The "probat" is an income. Everyone gets the same extra income.

    It is regressive be cause the more you make the less you pay as a percentage of your income.

    More so the more you make after the probat cap. the more of your income goes to taxes.

    My income is well above what the probat so I would be paying it. Someone who makes double what I make would be paying less of a percentage of their income in taxes.

    Some it up. There is nothing in anything on the Fair tax that says it nothing more than a fancy sales tax.
    Are you trying to argue a sales tax is not regressive?
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  24. #24  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,691 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,730 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Timelessblur View Post
    An d to be blunt you are wrong.

    Fair Tax is nothing more than a fancy sales tax.

    Sales tax is a very regressive tax.
    The so call probat does nothing to address the fact that it is a SALES TAX. Big time since their is a cap based on the poverty line.
    All the "Fair Tax" does is shift the burden of funding the government to the poor. Basically the less you make the more of your income goes to funding the government.
    The "probat" is an income. Everyone gets the same extra income.

    It is regressive be cause the more you make the less you pay as a percentage of your income.

    More so the more you make after the probat cap. the more of your income goes to taxes.

    My income is well above what the probat so I would be paying it. Someone who makes double what I make would be paying less of a percentage of their income in taxes.

    Some it up. There is nothing in anything on the Fair tax that says it nothing more than a fancy sales tax.
    Are you trying to argue a sales tax is not regressive?
    The Fair Tax literature does address this with the ability to escape taxes by buying used goods, however we don't have a model to visualize the impact of that on the consumer goods markets, economy and inflation, nor any analysis about the feasibility of those behaviors being massively adopted by 70-90% of the population. As such, it will grow inherently more regressive, because inflation is the mother of all regressive taxes. It is attempting to be fairer than a straight sales tax, however it provides a direct incentive to either not consume goods or to not consume new goods, and as such most likely inflates the need for process optimization and other job killing measures. A regressive tax does the only thing that a regressive tax can do: widens the gap between the top and the bottom. So the question of the day: are the jobs destroying capabilities of this worse than the alleged job destroying capabilities of a progressive tax?

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  25. #25  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Timelessblur View Post
    Sales tax is a very regressive tax.
    The so call probat does nothing to address the fact that it is a SALES TAX. Big time since their is a cap based on the poverty line.
    But yet the people at the bottom would have zero tax burden. No one is denying it's a sales tax, but no other sales tax has an offset measure like the prebate either.


    All the "Fair Tax" does is shift the burden of funding the government to the poor. Basically the less you make the more of your income goes to funding the government.
    See my first statement. :rolleyes:

    The "probat" is an income. Everyone gets the same extra income.
    Now this is at least a good critical questioning, but the prebate is no more income than is a tax refund under our current system. Whether you get it before or after the fact, it's a refund of the expected taxes spent at the poverty line. The designers believe that no one should have to pay taxes on the basic necessities of life. Whether you make $5k or $5M a year, those basics are the same for everyone. That's why everyone gets the same prebate amount for their family size and location (notice, this excludes income requirements).

    It is regressive be cause the more you make the less you pay as a percentage of your income.
    Perhaps, depending on your spending vs saving. But again, reference my first statement.

    More so the more you make after the probat cap. the more of your income goes to taxes.
    This isn't an income tax, so those arguments are not valid for this system. Plus, everyone can affect their tax burden based on purchases if they choose.

    My income is well above what the probat so I would be paying it. Someone who makes double what I make would be paying less of a percentage of their income in taxes.
    Again, this depends on purchasing habits. If they choose to live a meager life and save that extra income, that's their choice. But also, that higher earner could be in a job where dress code demands better clothing, maybe a new car every few years if traveling, and also wanting better home furnishings.

    Some it up. There is nothing in anything on the Fair tax that says it nothing more than a fancy sales tax.
    Are you trying to argue a sales tax is not regressive?
    When coupled with the prebate that allows the poorest to live tax free and then some and the fact that it's not income being taxed, yes.
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Who would like one?
    By Golfdriver97 in forum Sony Z Ultra Google Play edition
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-15-2014, 10:09 PM
  2. How to sync Pc outlook 2010 with Samsung Galaxy S4 without USB cable
    By Somepeoplearecool in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 09:21 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 05:09 AM
  4. What does Sync do?
    By 7ewis in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 06:42 PM
  5. Portability of Paid-for Apps
    By Labarum in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 04:09 AM

Posting Permissions

B