Republican Georgia Representative John Linder has sponsored a Bill for what he calls The FairTax, which is a plan very similar to what you describe.

Rep. Linder's plan, filed as H.R. 25, eliminates ALL exemptions, but still gives lower income taxpayers a break. It's an interesting plan which has been endorsed by several economists and a number of Congresspeople.

More info here.

When I edited Terry's article I was surprised to see no mention of the Fair Tax. His proposal is reminscent of what I was pushing for before I read Neal Boortz' book on the Fair Tax. It managed to at least half convince me that the Fair Tax is a better solution. And it does still have all the benefits of a sales-style tax.

Dave

Dave, I am quite familiar with the Fair Tax and it's something I could support. And I knew it would come up in the comments. However, I intentionally left it out of my discussion because I wanted to present my own thoughts on the subject, and not just parrot someone else's ideas. I've seen far too many articles that are just sales pitches for the Fair Tax, containing no original thoughts from the author.

In addition, there's one thing that bothers me a little about the Fair Tax. I'm not sure I like the idea of a "prebate," with the government sending out checks to every U.S. citizen. How would the government keep track of everyone, prevent double-dipping, and keep non-citizens from getting checks? I can't help thinking it would be rife with abuse. However, I would go along with it as a part of any plan to replace the income tax with a sales tax. Anything's better than our current system.

Since when did the government care about efficiency?

If they wanted easy and effective taxes they'd eliminate the extra costs of tollbooths, workers to man them, pitstops and digging for change, billing via tolltags, and third party operators to skim profits off the top and instead program the gas pumps to charge 2 cents more tax a gallon. Same tax dollars-much less overhead.

The government is a built in ineffeciency that uses the imbalance to redistribute wealth. Toll booths are a perfect example. The operators are given a monopoly over their section of road and then can pay a good wage ($40K/year or so in many areas of the northeast) for totally unskilled and useless workers to man the booths. It adds no valuable good or service to the economy but it gives someone busywork and a decent salary.

That's only one example, but they are very abundant. In this climate of governnment I find it unlikely that arguments of efficiency hold as much weight as you'd like to think.

Its not the IRS, it's we the people. The IRS works for us.

What you get are the amenities that make life easier for you. Your kids get an education. You get a strong military..... You get to boast about being an American and how other places don't have the conveniences and strength that we do.

Get Turbo Tax and it stops being that complex.

Now if you don't like the 401k don't include it in your portfolio. Is it me??? Put your money under a mattress. Viva la libertie!! It's just that simple.

Doug: Who said anything about efficiency? I don't give a flying flip about efficiency -- I just want a tax system that doesn't require any effort or accountability from me. That's the bottom line.

Zedd: Who says we couldn't get all these same amenities with a sales tax instead of an income tax?

@#5:

It's just that simple.

No, my dear, it's emphatically NOT that simple.

If you own a business, no matter how small, if you're self-employed, have a rental property, have deductible medical expenses, income from multiple sources, mutual funds, etc., etc., preparing your tax return is anything but simple, and using Turbo Tax for a complicated return will guarantee that you pay too much.

Have you ever looked at the Tax Code? Even accountants have problems getting it right.

Hell, even the IRS itself does; every year studies are conducted to show how poorly the IRS's own "help" lines fare in giving advice to taxpayers who call in for help. Every year, they fail miserably.

It could be worse. I spent the last several years I lived in the US working primarily as an accountant. At that point there had only been one major overall in the tax code in many years--and it was made in 1986. So, although some of the procedure is byzantine in concept, it's not all that unsettling once you get it down.

Here in Mexico, it's a WAY different story. You could not pay me enough to be an accountant here! Mexico has one of the lowest percentages of taxpayers in the world (the rich don't pay, the poor don't pay, and the constantly shrinking middle class pays a higher percentage of its income than the middle class in the US--which is obviously still not enough to keep the government afloat)--and therefore the Mexican version of the IRS changes the rules and tax tables at what seems like every 15 minutes.

None of the changes affect the basic reality, which I put in parentheses above--so the government milks PEMEX for all it's worth.

Not only can accountants not keep up with all the changes here, but also are paid ridiculously low salaries for trying.

In the US, accountants--if they are any good--make decent incomes. From my perspective, the biggest problem with the IRS is one of injustice: the wealthy are undertaxed, while the poor and middle class are overtaxed.

What you get are the amenities that make life easier for you.

Whether I want them or not...

Your kids get an education.

That's why I pay the highest tax rates in the state and get the worst schools. Schools so bad that I have to pay tens of thousands of additional dollars to send my kids to private school because the government doesn't even let me transfer them to another district. I'm sure getting my money's worth there.

You get a strong military.....

Which does what, exactly, for me? Invades other countries? And that benefits me how?

You get to boast about being an American and how other places don't have the conveniences and strength that we do.

Except that many of them do, and they do it without failing schools and a massive military.

Government at every level has proven that it is not a competent steward of our money. It's time to take it back.

Dave

#7

I believe I was responding to the article and the 401k business.

Once more, what are you on about....

Regardless, have you tried Turbo Tax??? I have had a small business, income from several sources and off course mutual funds, and unfortunately early withdrawals, various penalties, etc. It asks you all of the pertinent questions. If your books are in order, it's really easy. You can do your taxes in an hour and a half MAX.

Play with it really. You can fill it out without completely. Whats good is that you actually see your refund (+/-) and taxes paid as you progress. If you make a mistake you get to go back. You can stop at any point and come back to it later. There is a link to explain everything but most things are self explanatory even to the economics novice.

Clavos

I meant to say, you can fill it out completely without paying for it. You only pay when you are ready to file.

Just try it.

the wealthy are undertaxed, while the poor and middle class are overtaxed.

Undertaxed in the sense of the top 5% paying 40% of the total tax and the top 20% paying 66% of the total tax, leaving 80% of the population paying only 34% of the taxes. Except, of course, that the poor, up to pretty close to the median incom, pay no taxes at all.

Dave

Terry

With a sales tax you don't have a say. There is no decision making involved for the individual. Would it not be even easier for a leader to start a war for the benefit of his compadres.... wait bad example. Would it not be easier for legislators to be more reckless with funds, knowing that all they have to do is increase the sales tax buy a point or two to add more funds to the coffers so that they can blow it on fluff projects for their districts?

With income tax, as cumbersome as it is, you make the decision as to how much you are going to pay by your activities during the year. Are you going to be in a certain bracket? It doesn't sound like it but that is really a choice. How are you going to make your money? If you don't want to go through the hassle that small businesses have to go through, you make that decision (I don't think that the major deterrent from starting a small business is the tax code btw). What type of investment plan do you want to participate in and are you going to incur penalties? These are all choices.

However if I am a zillionaire and I choose to shop in Byzantium, am a US citizen, live in Lilliput but make those zillions in the USA (buying supplies outside of the country for the business), do I pay taxes under a sales tax?

Just wanting to get a better understanding of your position and its practicality.

Dave--Individually, the rich are undertaxed with respect to the income of the middle class and the poor.

That's why it's called Individual Taxation.

Zedd,

You can do your taxes in an hour and a half MAX.

Thanks, but it takes me that long just to put everything together to send to the tax accountant.

And I have tested "do-it-yourself" tax software against the accountant a couple of times. The accountant won; that's why he's able to charge those fees he does.

Clavos

That must have been years ago. I'm telling you dude, you are missing out and lossing money.

No, it wasn't Zedd, but thanks for your suggestion.

Dave....you should know better than to try and debate taxation and individual income with a Red.

Clavos / Dave,

I agree with Terry about the problems with the Fair Tax.

Also we would be relying on retailers to adequately reduce prices and maintain profit levels at the same mark as before the increase in sales tax. That is naive.

A scenario where a fledgling business is now faced with the increased sales tax, while its expenditures have decreased because of suppliers reducing prices, he will not be as likely to decrease his prices at the same rate. He would choose to make a profit, causing the consumer to pay more. People in less dense communities will be victims of gauging because of a less competitive market.

The period of adjustment for prices would be a mess. How long would it take? The consumer would pay for the increase in Tax with prices at the same levels. What will happen is additional legislation to regulate price adjustments for specific industries. This off course will invite all sorts of corruption including the bribing of officials.

If we were Vulcan and reason superseded all else (yes I'm a nerd), then this proposal would work, however, we are human and we know full well that we will find a way to corrupt even to our own detriment.

Also, include the problem that I stated in post #13 to quote myself (I know cheesy...but): However if I am a zillionaire and I choose to shop in Byzantium, am a US citizen, live in Lilliput but make those zillions in the USA (buying supplies outside of the country for the business), do I pay taxes under a sales tax?

It seems like a mess.

Turbo Tax it I say!!!

Zedd,

You obviously didn't read the link I posted in comment #1.

ALL the potential problems you bring up are addressed by the authors of the bill and those working with them on that site.

There's also a book, The Fair Tax Book, sold on Amazon.

Clavos

No they haven't been answered. That is the same site that I had read before.

They basically rely on things balancing themselves.

The issue of the wealthy making purchases outside of the country was not addressed in anything that I read.

If I missed it please provide the exact page where that topic is dealt with.

I'm not criticising. I'm very solution's oriented. If it will work great. I just don't see its practicality or viability .

The only fair tax is a flat tax.

How is it fair to tax a person a larger percent of their income, just because they are successful?

Redistribution of income is something that politicians use to get re-elected, and it is not right. If I have 100 dollars and someone else has 10 dollars, how is it right for a third party to take 20 dollars from me and give it to the other person, against my will, in the name of equality?

That is nothing but robery.

It would be one thing if our country had nobility that made their money on the back of the peasents, but we don't. Nearly everybody here is descended from an immigrants that came here with nothing.

People who are wealthy in America are wealthy because they or one of their ancesters worked hard, or did something to gain wealth for themselves and their descendents.

Jon

Successful at what??

There are those who sacrifice income to build this country through doing social work. They invest into the success of this country. Do you think that Paris Hilton gets to pay the same amount of Tax as they? What about your grand mother who has contributed to raising this nation. Should she pay the same as Linsey Lohan?

Zedd,

There are approximately 22% of hidden taxes and compliance fees built into everything you buy now. These would be eliminated; they're not just letting things "balance themselves".

The issue of the wealthy making purchases outside of the country was not addressed in anything that I read.

With some exceptions, things bought outside the country are already taxed.

If I sell you an Italian or other foreign-made yacht, you have to pay a tax (import duty) to bring it back to the US.

The website says the Fairtax would be applied to goods imported into the country, as well as those made here, but goods exported to other countries would not be taxed, making them very competitive overseas. I can't provide a page number (they don't have them), but it's in the FAQs.

Clavos

I mean, if you are a US citizen and your business is in the US goober.

Also you get taxed if you declare the items. Don't forget I was also born outside of this country and have traveled extensively. If I leave with an empty suitcase and come back with it full of Prada and Fendi, I will not be taxed for those items unless I declare them. If a round trip ticket to London is $1000 or so. I could purchase $100,000 worth of items (sans taxes) and save $22k in taxes.

Actually I would choose not to live in the US while I am a citizen and have a business in the US and shop for most of my things in the other country, I get away without paying much tax.

That would most certainly happen.

You can do your taxes in an hour and a half MAX.

Zedd clearly doesn't own a business. My taxes take at least three full days using TurboTax, usually spaced out a couple of hours a day for two weeks.

I tried Clavos' route of taking the records to an accountant, but the time I spent explaining everything to him made me realize that it would be faster to just do it myself, despite the pain.

I honestly resent the paperwork far more than paying the money.

Dave

"My taxes take at least three full days using TurboTax, usually spaced out a couple of hours a day for two weeks."
- Dave Nalle

I heard Vox Populi was able to get his done in an hour-and-a-half.

Nah, I claim him as a dependent and get a nice fat deduction for him.

Dave

Remember that your refund was your money to start with, and not only does the IRS make YOU jump through hoops to get it back, they pay no interest or penalties to you. It amounts to a free loan.

Subtract the cost of the software from your refund, then subtract how much time you spent on your return multiplied by how much your time is worth, and your compliance cost is clear.

The FairTax ends all this nonsense. No need to document your income or spending, and it does what all the exemptions, credits and deductions in the world can't ever do; give you your entire income to you first. There will be nothing taken out to recover. On top of that, it pays your household taxes for you up to your poverty line.

The FairTax bill in Congress just picked up its 54th co-sponsor. Now we can do something besides complain.

On the FairTax site (www.fairtax.org) there is a section called "What can I do?"

Check it out.

Chad
FairTax Volunteer
Raleigh, NC

Dave

I was referring to a small business with uncomplicated, ORGANIZED book keeping.

As for the complexity of owning a business, as you know, it is the price one pays to be king. A few days of answering questions that you have correct answers for may be annoying but hardly slave labor as the author suggests.

#29 When you do the work of filing you are working for yourself. The IRS is ours not theirs (whomever THEY may be).

Also don't forget, the government cant be sewed unless it decides to be sewed....

Zedd,

I mean, if you are a US citizen and your business is in the US goober.

I AM a US citizen AND my business IS in the USA; other than that, I don't even know what you're referring to.

If I leave with an empty suitcase and come back with it full of Prada and Fendi, I will not be taxed for those items unless I declare them. If a round trip ticket to London is $1000 or so. I could purchase $100,000 worth of items (sans taxes) and save $22k in taxes.

If you don't declare them, you're breaking the law.

To put a stop to that, Customs simply has to check all returning baggage (which they already have the authority to do), enforcing the law.

The IRS is ours not theirs (whomever THEY may be).

If you're ever audited, you'll see the error in that statement...

Clavos

I am referring to how an income tax would be avoided. I was defining the person who would bypass the customs and benefit from purchasing outside of the country. I wasn't talking about you silly.

Off course they would be breaking the law but that doesn't stop people from speeding and running red lights. The wealthy would most certainly take advantage of their ability to live and shop abroad and duck paying taxes on a large portion of their purchases. It would work Clavos.

As frustrating and angering as an audit must be, it is still established to uphold the integrity of the system which sustains your country. Its like a parent going through ones bedroom. While it is unnerving for the child, it doesn't mean that they cease to be that child's parent. The IRS is still yours.

Intended to say, it WOULDN'T work.

Zedd,

Your "running a red light" analogy doesn't work.

It's child's play for Customs to inspect all baggage as passengers arrive in the US, much easier than catching your red light runner.

Unless rich people begin to smuggle their goods in on go-fast boats in the Florida Keys or swallowing the product, both of which are drug smuggler techniques, they'll can and will be caught. Remember Columba Bush, wife of Florida Governor Jeb Bush being caught with undeclared luxury goods upon her return from Europe a couple of years ago?

But, in any case, let's say you're right and let's carry it to the extreme: assume ALL rich people begin to buy their goods overseas; it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the wholesale tax fraud going on now because we're taxing income instead of consumption.

I spent years in the IRS, altho I'll admit it was as an agent, not an auditor; but Clavos (#7) is dead on: most IRS employees are NOT given any kind of training in tax preparation or tax law; you're expected to pick it up yourself, or at least that's the way the system was when I was there, back in the stone age about 20 years ago.

And Dave is singing the same old plutocratic song about how the poor ultrarich are picked on for their hard work & ingenuity over everybody else. Dave, it might have been that way a couple of hundred years ago, but these days the very wealthy - like the Bush clan, Kennedys, Heinzes, & most other ultrarich plutocrats - inherited theirs, which their ancestors made on the backs of the US working class - i.e. the peasants. You can blather on about entrepreneurship all you want, but the reality is there IS an entrenched US nobility of about .1% of the population, and they continue to soak & rob the rest of us just as they always have. Only now they have their corporations to hide behind instead of titles. Check out an old Gonzo article about the incestuous connections between the boards/CEOs of the big corporations & the political rulers here in the US & abroad. It's an eye opener, scarey, & enough to make anyone with any brains want to pick up a torch & pitchfork, storm the damned castles, & put all the oligarchs into Maoist re-education camps. In any event, your take on the poor targeted rich is bullshit & your sympathies misplaced.

I have to agree with Nancy.

Those rich people who are currently avoiding paying taxes are not rich because of pulling themselves up the economic ladder by their bootstraps--with, interestingly enough, the few exceptions who are the richest folks in the world. They all got rich on monopolies.

The others that Nancy references are every bit as rancid an oligarchy as that of Venezuela or Paraguay.

The only way for a lower income person to avoid paying taxes is to operate a bunch of fly-by-night single owner businesses that take turns losing money. The IRS cannot force you to be any good at making money, after all.

I was going to add, but forgot, that people that Dave probably has in mind, like Oprah or Bill Gates, are extreme anomalies among the ultra rich. Consider their spending habits (as far as is known): they don't spend like 'normal' ultrarich plutocrats, the Bushes & such entrenched groups; they spend very large amounts on charities - something Inherited Money almost NEVER does. Spending by the Bush family is about the most selfish - & typical of their economic class - that there is, almost entirely focussed on hedonistic stuff. As far as charity goes, they all seem to have the attitude that their very presence is enough, so they don't need to give money. But they're very good at spending Other Peoples' Money & making it look like THEY themselves are the generous ones.

I ought to know: I spent a considerable amount of time examining the finances of quite a few very rich persons, & talking to them. It gave me a distaste, disgust, & disdain for the very rich I've never gotten over & probably never will.

Clavos

I travel overseas. Checking all baggage for goods bought outside of the US would be a nightmare and you know that. Also, it is nearly impossible to determine how old a purse is or a pair of pants is. That's just silly. Also, you didn't comment on those who will chose to reside outside of the country while receiving income from the US (inheritance or business).

The top 6.37% earns roughly one third of all income. Crafty purchasing by the wealthy would have a significant impact.

There is nothing fair about the Fair Tax or any sales tax based system.

The top 6.37% earns roughly one third of all income. Crafty purchasing by the wealthy would have a significant impact.

They would still be purchasing their consumables, food, housing, etc. (the majority of anyone's budget) in the US.

The top 6.37% earns roughly one third of all income.

And spends far less of it than the bottom. The impact, if any, is minimal.

There is nothing fair about the Fair Tax or any sales tax based system.

Written from a complete lack of understanding of how it would work, and, I suspect, a lack of understanding of economics.

There is nothing fair about an income tax system in which only the middle class pays, either.

Clavos

They are responsible for 15% of expenditures. Still significant.

Not a good plan.

Moving on....

I know you're sure it's not a good plan, and I shouldn't try to confuse your made-up mind with facts, but here's why rich people shopping abroad won't even happen, much less ruin the plan:

It is unlikely that "shopping across the border" in Canada or Mexico will result in any cost savings to the consumer. Remember, the FairTax is revenue neutral and therefore price neutral. This means the relative cost of retail goods and services after the FairTax remains very close to the same levels found in the marketplace today. With regard to interstate competition, since all states have the same federal sales tax rate, the federal sales tax is not an incentive to cross state lines to avoid the tax.

So, go ahead, don't open your mind or even read the material, because, as you say, it's:

Not a good plan.

I knew better than to do this...

So, does the government sew with a Surger?

Quotes from the festival of unsupported generalizations from Nancy and Moonraven (not necessarily in that order):

Those rich people who are currently avoiding paying taxes are not rich because of pulling themselves up the economic ladder by their bootstraps--with, interestingly enough, the few exceptions who are the richest folks in the world. They all got rich on monopolies.

Let's see some data on this. Most rich people got rich by running businesses similar to other businesses but doing it more efficiently and beating out their competition. They weren't the only people in their field, they were just the best at it. And they're hardly avoiding paying taxes. Corporate taxes have been up year to year for the last 3 years, and everyone pays income tax. There is no class of rich people who are completely avoiding taxes. That's a situation that existed in the 70s but has long since been done away with.

What's more, we've seen a dramatic rise in the number of people in the small business and entrepreneurial class moving from the middle income groups into what you'd probably call rich. These are people whose means of earning an income are diverse, and who certainly don't have monopolies on major resources, patents or business models.

The only way for a lower income person to avoid paying taxes is to operate a bunch of fly-by-night single owner businesses that take turns losing money. The IRS cannot force you to be any good at making money, after all.

Untrue. The IRS has a policy of automatically auditing any individual who declares a business loss for more than 3 years in a row, on the established principle that most startup businesses either fail completely or begin to turn a profit within that period. You might be able to juggle multiple separate businesses to fox the IRS for a while, but you're certainly not going to get rich while also avoiding taxes by doing that.

I was going to add, but forgot, that people that Dave probably has in mind, like Oprah or Bill Gates, are extreme anomalies among the ultra rich. Consider their spending habits (as far as is known): they don't spend like 'normal' ultrarich plutocrats, the Bushes & such entrenched groups; they spend very large amounts on charities - something Inherited Money almost NEVER does.

I don't think the evidence supports this claim at all. From my personal observations the people in the wealthy class are generous or not based on their personalities, not on where their wealth comes from.

Spending by the Bush family is about the most selfish - & typical of their economic class - that there is, almost entirely focussed on hedonistic stuff.

Really? Out of gross earnings of about $700,000 in 2004 President and Mrs. Bush donated $76,000 to charity - more than 10% of their income, which is not paltry. And the selfish groups that money went to were the Salvation Army fund for Hurricane relief, the American Red Cross Katrina fund, food kitchens in DC and New Orleans and the charities of the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans. Selfish indeed. Perhaps they were eating at those food kitchens.

Of course, that doesn't compare with Dick Cheney, most of whose income in 2005 came from royalties on his wife's book, and 2/3 of which was donated to charity to a tune of over $6 million.

Yep, those are some money-hogging old-money bastards.

How many of you gave even 10% much less 60% of your income to charity or provided the equivalent in volunteer time?

Dave

Dave regular folks give 10%+ in tithes for starters. They personally and physically take care of their children, parents, aunts and grand parents. They personally get involved in their children's schools and after school activities. They personally volunteer in community organizations. If we were to put a monetary value to those activities, we would most certainly be far beyond the paltry 10% that you taut for your mentors. They also do not get a tax deduction for those activities.

You are not among the top 1% and you never will be. Stop kissing up. Think you'll earn the right to scrub some shoes one day?

they were just the best at it

Any really successful person will tell you that luck plays a lot into the equation. As for old money, a lot of those characters were best at robbing and breaking the law, greasing palms and knocking out their competition through highly unscrupulous means.

You ARE a Social Darwinist. A naive one at that.

MCH

That is really funny. I mean it. Not being sarcastic. It was rip-roaring.

You do realise that once you start editing people's posts, you will inevitably make an error within the next few posts following. Its odd how that always happens. Like spelling the word serger like "surger".

Wait! First thought that you were referring to a serger as in the machine, or a person who serges but it looks as if you are referring to a member of the Surger family.(?) since you capitalized the word. Ooops looks like I missed the joke. You are too deep for me. Please explain your joke and your commentary on this Surger guy.

Dave regular folks give 10%+ in tithes for starters.

In our secular society, people who tithe are a small minority.

They personally and physically take care of their children, parents, aunts and grand parents.

That's not charity; that's familial responsibility. By definition, charity is voluntary giving to others, not your own family.

They personally get involved in their children's schools and after school activities.

Parental responsibility.

They personally volunteer in community organizations

Some of that is charity, yes. Much of it is self-interest.

Clavos


I know you've heard of the phrase, "Charity begins in the home"

Charity IS self interest. Its an investment into society. You give for the purpose of making your world a better place.

Being engaged in the welfare and proper care of your family is a contribution to society. Not raising brats who are reared by nannies who will trample the globe, selfishly and rudely imposing their putrid ways, is a social responsibility (not unlike the Bush twins', Paris and Nicole, and many of the "to the manor born").

Taking care of your relatives as opposed to making them a responsibility of the state is giving to society. Contributing to their well being makes the world a better place in general.

Participating in your child's after school activities also improves society. One of the main causes of juvenile delinquency is a lack of direction during after school hours. One could give to the Y who will keep kids busy or actually do things with their child themselves.

Being physically engaged in doing good in our society is an unquantifiable contribution. Giving money that you have, that will not interfere on your ability to shelter and feed yourself, nor save and invest and you still live lavishly, is a tax deduction, you receive social accolades, and is an expectation of you by people in your class, is good but no more generous then actually rolling your sleeves. We certainly know which is more taxing both physically and emotionally.

Dave

Of course, that doesn't compare with Dick Cheney, most of whose income in 2005 came from royalties on his wife's book, and 2/3 of which was donated to charity to a tune of over $6 million

Grow up!! Many times you argue just for the sake of it. You know full well that this was a PR strategy. He is the one public figure that is seen as EVIL by a great percentage of the population. He shot his friend and his friend apologized for it. He needed the absolution in the eyes of society and he bought it. Now you will fain ignorance and argue over this point. Don't bother displaying your disingenuous habit.

Clavos

In our secular society, people who tithe are a small minority.

Much greater than the number of charitable wealthy. There is a church in just about every corner (its a saying don't get literal on me too). Churches survive on tithes.

Clavos

Are you saying that you are comfy going on and on for weeks with moonraven coursing at each other about who has provided sources and and who hasn't and tortillas but you have trouble actually having a discussion about real ideas? Why wouldn't you want to do that?

I would have a hard time spending time engaging in a conversation where I am not challenged. The Socratic method requires a back and forth exchange. If you had actually dismissed my skepticism, I would have been grateful and had become the biggest Fair Tax proponent. That is why I continued to pose my questions along with my objections.

Now...
I did read the piece on the border purchases in the site. The problem is that they are looking at an environment where everything has settled and a leveling off has occurred. That time will never occur because of the reasons that I stated before. Retailers will not readily or simultaneously adjust prices nor will employers increase wages if they gain more revenue from not decreasing prices initially. The constant imbalance will produce an chaotic economy prior to the initial refunds. Border purchases will be rampant and again the wealthy will leave our boarders to reside overseas.

Dave regular folks give 10%+ in tithes for starters. They personally and physically take care of their children, parents, aunts and grand parents. They personally get involved in their children's schools and after school activities. They personally volunteer in community organizations. If we were to put a monetary value to those activities, we would most certainly be far beyond the paltry 10% that you taut for your mentors. They also do not get a tax deduction for those activities.

Actually, a great many of the activities you note ARE tax deductible in one way or another, including the expenses for caring for relatives, donations to school and church related charities, and community organizations. Even the clothes you give to the Salvation Army are tax deductible.

My point on Bush's deductions was that he DID give a bit over 10%, an amount equivalent to tithing, and that seems reasonable, even for a guy like him who's moderately wealthy - far less wealthy than many other politicians, btw.

You are not among the top 1% and you never will be. Stop kissing up. Think you'll earn the right to scrub some shoes one day?

Actually, I'm pretty firmly convinced that it's inevitable that I'll be among the top 1% by the time I retire - or reach retirement age anyway. The math is hard to deny. All I'd have to do to be there instantly is accept a standing offer to buy my business. But I'd be like Bush, one of those who's in the top 1%, but not overflowing with obscene excess wealth, and still burdened by plenty of hefty expenses.

As for Cheney, you and Nancy and a few others may think he's 'evil'. Most of us think that's a ridiculously simple minded perspective triggered by his superficial resemblance to Burgess Meredith playing the Penguin on TV.

Dave

Being engaged in the welfare and proper care of your family is a contribution to society.

Way too broad a definition of charity. Raising a family and caring for relatives is our responsibility as humans. Ditto participating in your child's school activities; which in fact, many parents don't do.

Churches survive on tithes.

The largest denomination in the US, Roman Catholicism, doesn't tithe. Interestingly, on a worldwide basis, it is the wealthiest Western church.

Charity (as defined by most people) is voluntary, and above and beyond normal individual responsibility. And, it can (and does) take many forms, not just the giving of money.

That is why I continued to pose my questions along with my objections.

You pose lots of objections, but the only evidence that you present in their support is your own opinion without hard evidence. On the other hand, the proponents provide ample evidence of why their plan will work, which I've linked you to and you just keep coming back with the same unsubstantiated objections.

This is just hilarious!

I believe that the topic had something to do with emancipation from the IRS?

In my last post I told you how to do that, and as I spent my last years in the US as a very successful accountant, I just might know what I am talking about.

Yuo are too busy fighting with each other about stuff that not a single one of you has clue one about--and which, even if you did, would not free you from paying the IRS:

moonraven

We are Americans and we are discussing OUR system of taxation and how the classes contribute to the well being of our society.

You enter every conversation with your own side issue and basically take over, gabbing on about tortillas and who is a liar. I enjoy the fact that you are a strong woman. The fact that you are a proud Native America gives you automatic cool points as well but chill on the need to control every dialogue.

Jump in. You have some knowledge of economics.

Dave

far less wealthy than many other politicians, btw.

Pretty good though considering that he has never had a real job.

Not a jab just an observation.....

Zedd says:

We are Americans and we are discussing OUR system of taxation...

That says it all...

"...well but chill on the need to control every dialogue."

Needing to control every dialogue, something Nalle/Populi's been doing here on BC for over 2 1/2 years...

Pretty good though considering that he has never had a real job.

Not a jab just an observation.....

He did have ONE real job. His job at the Texas Rangers was real and it was done fairly well. He still gets residual income from it, in fact.

But on looking at his income tax forms, what's striking is that for a guy from a rich family, he doesn't get that much income from investments. Without his salary as president he wouldn't even make it into the highest tax bracket.

Dave

I so tired of big government all up in everyone's business. Especially with all these taxes they throw on us.

"Needing to control every dialogue, something Nalle/Populi's been doing here on BC for over 2 1/2 years..."

Come on MCH you have been here the last 2 1/2 years and controling dialogue is all you have done.

AG

Come on MCH you have been here the last 2 1/2 years and controling dialogue is all you have done.

I disagree. He tries to, but nobody pays enough attention to him for him to succeed.

Anthony Grande,
What are you doing back on BC? You swore up and down that were going to enlist in the military after graduation and volunteer for Iraq.

"I disagree. He tries to, but nobody pays enough attention to him for him to succeed."
- Clavvy

But had I deserted like GW Bush, or performed fraud and deceit like Dave Nalle during the Vox Populi scam, it'd be non-sequitur.

But had I deserted like GW Bush, or performed fraud and deceit like Dave Nalle during the Vox Populi scam, it'd be non-sequitur.

I've got to hand it to you. emmy. You're don't mind at all revealing the gaps in your vocabulary.

"I've got to hand it to you. emmy. You're don't mind at all revealing the gaps in your vocabulary."
- Clavvy

Apparently neither do you:
"...You're don't mind..."

I volunteer for a fire/rescue company. Most of the people 'working' here for FREE do NOT keep records of their mileage, etc., and they don't take charitable deductions because they aren't RICH enough for it to make a difference. You have to have a considerable percentage of gross income - & you know it, Nalle - to qualify for even bothering to fill out that part of the 1040 schedule. Finally, if running into burning houses, or hauling mangled bodies out of crushed vehicles is self-interest, I'd like to know how. In the past 3 years we've had 4 members severely (& permanently) injured, and one death in the course of duty. That's some self-interest that would put the safety of others ahead of their own, not to mention the inconvenience of long hours of standbys, training, & endless drills. I know several more who volunteer at local hospitals. Some man the information desk, but more of them push wheelchairs & gurneys, & clean bedpans & wipe up vomit. The only reason some hospitals can still run at all is because of these selfish, self-interested individuals. And again, very few of them make enough money that their time volunteering is deductible. They do it for LOVE, people, NOT tax breaks.

Those of you who think it's all about money owe those who serve without selfishness or self-interest a HUGE apology from the bottom of your hearts - IF you have one.

And in this, I'll echo MCH: so, how many of YOU out there who are dissing volunteers, are volunteers yourselves? I'd be willing to bet quite a bit the answer is: not a damned one of you.

Nancy,

I was the one who first used the term self interest, and not in reference to volunteering.

I was responding to Zedd, who was classifying looking after your family, and parents taking part in their kids school activities as "charity". I disagreed, saying that's not charity, it's what responsible people do, and it's in their self interest, primarily.

And just FYI: after being my paraplegic wife's primary caregiver and working my job to earn income, I don't have much time left, but I still spend time at the Miami VAMC (VA Medical Center).

ence. You have to have a considerable percentage of gross income - & you know it, Nalle - to qualify for even bothering to fill out that part of the 1040 schedule.

I certainly do. Every year my donations hover right on the borderline of qualifying, because most of my charity is in the form of man hours, not dollars donated, because what I seem to be good at is fundraising for charities, which makes me aware of the importance of that deduction. It may not be the primary consideration, but when I point the deductibility out to contributors it's often what pushes them off the fence, or makes the difference between a $300 donation and a $1000 donation. This is especially true when seeking donations from small businesses or entrepreneurs who need all the deductions they can get.

They do it for LOVE, people, NOT tax breaks.

Certainly true of those who volunteer, but there are plenty of others who want to help out, but have more money than time, and giving them a tax break isn't such a bad thing, is it? After all, where would volunteers be without the money to buy the equipment to do their jobs?

Dave

I'm glad to hear it Clavos. Dave, damned few volunteers rack up their expenses for the deductions. Maybe it's the particular fields I happen to know volunteers in (mainly first responders, hospitals, & animal shelters); but I'll bet very few in any sphere bother to keep track for tax purposes - except those who donate enough money (which means they tend to be the wealthy) to make it an end to itself. As for the "generosity" of the Bushes & Cheney, their annual income as reported is NOT all the money they have, and the amount(s) given are relative to total worth as a gnat is to an elephant. I reprise an old anecdote, in which a British newspaper gushed on & on about how generous the Queen was in giving a certain - by ordinary peoples' standards - very large amount to charity...until someone pointed out that to be approximately as "generous" as the Queen, given her total worth, an ordinary laborer would have to give approximately one farthing.

but I'll bet very few in any sphere bother to keep track for tax purposes

Whether it's worth doing or not depends entirely on how much you volunteer and/or domnate and what your income is. A lot of the people who do volunteer work with me are going to be using Schedule B anyway and declaring a bunch of deductions for donations and expenses anyway, so it makes sense for them to keep track of everything. It's small reward for the work they do.

Dave

Not a problem to me, since it's a legal deduction. I'm just pointing out that the financial motive is NOT what most volunteers work for, as far as the folks I know go.

Nancy #71,

Be that as it may, Nancy, it's not fair to denigrate anyone's giving.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was started with a substantial donation (in absolute, not relative terms) by the Gates, and later augmented by another substantial donation from Warren Buffet. Neither party, I assume, gave to the point of jeopardizing their financial security, nor probably even to the point of feeling any loss, but what does it matter? It's still a hell of a lot of money that will, if properly administered, do a lot of good in the world.

I think you let your hate for the rich override your good sense in this instance.

For the record, Americans as a group and as a nation are widely recognized around the world as being very generous people; and that reputation is well deserved.

"It may not be the primary consideration, but when I point the deductibility out to contributors it's often what pushes them off the fence, or makes the difference between a $300 donation and a $1000 donation."
- Dave Nalle

"I've seen figures similar to the ones Dave quotes."
- Vox Populi

I think I pointed out earlier in this thread that Gates & Winfrey are anomalies. Or maybe it was another one; I lose track. You're right in that donations even from negative motives may end up doing good that the giver never cared about, which makes it as valuable in the end as those made wholeheartedly with the best of motives. However, I'm strictly addressing the issue of "how generous" persons like the Bushes or Cheney are, considering their ultimate worth, which is to say, not very, all things considered.

Again, you have to look at least a little at background. The founder of Standard Oil, Rockefeller, gave away hundreds of millions of dollars in an age when one dollar went a helluva lot farther than it does today. But before admiring him for it, it must also be pointed out & remembered how many tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of people he used as virtual slave labor in all but legality to make his vast fortune off their backs. Then tried to buy his way into good public opinion & heaven (in his own mind) when he realized his family just might be on target for annihilation at the hands of an enraged & resentful proletariat if he didn't do something drastic & immediate. Ditto JP Morgan, & the rest of the fiscal pirates of that day, just like the more modern day thieves & Quislings of the Bush, Cheney, and other mega-rich clans. That they gave/give doesn't negate the efficacy of their largesse, but it certainly does change it from largesse to attempted bribery & put a whole 'nother perspective on it.

Dave

He did have ONE real job. His job at the Texas Rangers was real and it was done fairly well. He still gets residual income from it, in fact.

Don't forget I live in the DFW. Actually I lived in Arlington at that time when the Rangers were building the stadium. Ummmm believe me he didn't have a job. People even then knew him to be getting a job because of his father and he was loathed in these parts.

Clavos

Thank you for the interesting dialogue. I did learn more about the Fair Tax. While I am more confident than ever that it is not a good idea. I did enjoy the discussion. It was edifying.

#76 Cheers Nancy!!

it certainly does change it from largesse to attempted bribery & put a whole 'nother perspective on it.

Nancy, it's pretty damned arrogant to assume you know peoples motivations when your 'knowledge' mainly comes from your preexisting prejudices against them because of who they are.

Dave

Perhaps owning the Texas Rangers helped ease his conscience about DESERTING the real military...?