US taxes question

Beach girl said:
Rolling, that's more like a Value Added Tax, VAT, rather than a flat tax. Flat tax would mean everyone would pay a certain percentage of their income, no deductions, no adjustments, no nuttin'.

It will never fly here because people cherish those home-owner deductions, etc., that are practically seen as sacred. I agree with you that it would make life a lot simpler and would make decisions like buying a house more straight-forward, instead of depending on tax deductions to cover part of the cost.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's right.

I think about difference is VAT and GST, VAT is already included in price tag but GST have to add at cash register.
 
Give it any name you wish, it is still a FLAT TAX to me. Work it this way X% for the governement---Y% for the state---Z% for the city...then everyone pays the same regardless of the value of the item. Totally no deductions at all. For those who see this as unfair, look at it this way, in the same city you can have a $100,000.00 home and a $550,000.00 home. The tax rate paid on these two home (i.e. that location's %) would be the same for the rich and the poor. The rich, even the super-rich could buy the $100,000.00 home if wished and the poor (as stupid as it sounds) could buy the $550,000.00 home. The net result is the two homes are sold, the taxes paid and who gives a darn who the bought which. Now take this and apply it to clothes, auto, etc. The result is everyone pays the same thing (i.e. the %), get it now? FLAT TAX
 
Last edited:
rolling7 said:
Give it any name you wish, it is still a FLAT TAX to me. Work it this way X% for the governement---Y% for the state---Z% for the city...then everyone pays the same regardless of the value of the item. Totally no deductions at all. For those who see this as unfair, look at it this way, in the same city you can have a $100,000.00 home and a $550,000.00 home. The tax rate paid on these two home (i.e. that location's %) would be the same for the rich and the poor. The rich, even the super-rich could buy the $100,000.00 home if wished and the poor (as stupid as it sounds) could buy the $550,000.00 home. The net result is the two homes are sold, the taxes paid and who gives a darn who the bought which. Now take this and apply it to clothes, auto, etc. The result is everyone pays the same thing (i.e. the %), get it now? FLAT TAX
Click to expand...
So much anger is projected in the forum these days..

Now, my point: There's no billion dollar car.
 
rolling7 said:
Give it any name you wish, it is still a FLAT TAX to me. Work it this way X% for the governement---Y% for the state---Z% for the city...then everyone pays the same regardless of the value of the item. Totally no deductions at all. For those who see this as unfair, look at it this way, in the same city you can have a $100,000.00 home and a $550,000.00 home. The tax rate paid on these two home (i.e. that location's %) would be the same for the rich and the poor. The rich, even the super-rich could buy the $100,000.00 home if wished and the poor (as stupid as it sounds) could buy the $550,000.00 home. The net result is the two homes are sold, the taxes paid and who gives a darn who the bought which. Now take this and apply it to clothes, auto, etc. The result is everyone pays the same thing (i.e. the %), get it now? FLAT TAX
Click to expand...
The difference is, the Fair Tax is a sales tax in place of a Federal income tax.

A flat tax is still a Federal income tax but with everyone paying the same percentage.
 
What good is a flat sales tax if one is a desert rat, highly respected in his career field, and makes serious coinage? Especially if luxury doesn't means much to them.

Last time I checked, land in the middle of nowhere are usually cheap. Plus one can get a trailer-home for less than a new car. And yes, I do know a few people who opted for this lifestyle. They're bankrolling on the surplus by living on bare minimum.

The working class usually don't live this lifestyle at all. They spend to get away from the mundane day-in, day-out. So no, everyone is not equal. Well-off people don't usually spend more.
 
souggy said:
What good is a flat sales tax if one is a desert rat, highly respected in his career field, and makes serious coinage? Especially if luxury doesn't means much to them.

Last time I checked, land in the middle of nowhere are usually cheap. Plus one can get a trailer-home for less than a new car. And yes, I do know a few people who opted for this lifestyle. They're bankrolling on the surplus by living on bare minimum.

The working class usually don't live this lifestyle at all. They spend to get away from the mundane day-in, day-out. So no, everyone is not equal. Well-off people don't usually spend more.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I am saying.
 
souggy said:
Last time I checked, land in the middle of nowhere are usually cheap. Plus one can get a trailer-home for less than a new car. And yes, I do know a few people who opted for this lifestyle. They're bankrolling on the surplus by living on bare minimum.
Click to expand...

One could also call this prudent living. Our house is a box, its mortgage was barely 1.2 times our joint income and were constantly pestered with offers to increase our borrowing to spend it on all sorts of things and we refused everything. As it turns out that was a great decision because I became increasingly disabled and we can still pay for our house.

souggy said:
The working class usually don't live this lifestyle at all. They spend to get away from the mundane day-in, day-out. So no, everyone is not equal. Well-off people don't usually spend more.
Click to expand...

Statistically untrue I'm afraid. Most people spend what they have and try to earn more to spend more. When I worked in private banking (and no, I am not single-handedly responsible for the global collapse, I was a campaigner against extended unsecured lending and self-certificated secured lending) I was stunned that people with these insane incomes also wanted overdrafts which could buy my house. They raked in cash but wanted to have a £50,000 overdraft facility available.

Under the old system for assessing for student support my friend who lived with two high-earning parents in a mansion (well, not quite but seemed so to me!) running 2 luxury cars was awarded full support as the system took into account their mortgage outgoings before assessing for support. I was allocated £162 per year and my family earned 2.5x less but lived within our means. Many systems still work this way, if you earn £100,000 but spend every penny then become unemployed or sick, you are paid full jobseeking benefit straight away because you have no savings. If you have earned £12,000 but somehow managed to put some of that in savings then you don't get anything until you have spent your savings. That's stupid and I think there should be a formula as to how much you could have been expected to save. There are rules against deliberately disposing of your savings in a lump sum in order to make them go away, but if you have simply regularly frittered away all your money month by month you are exempt from those rules. Rules which "affect everyone equally" rarely affect everyone equally!

One reason why I would never touch a political career with a ten foot pole! :laugh2:
 
Back
Top