Obama to reform the IRS

Last night Biden said, during his acceptance speech, that Obama would "reform the IRS". Is this a hint at fair tax?


It would be a coup for the democrats to reform the IRS in such a way that people are taxed on what they buy.


1. Those with the highest amount of consumption would keep money here even though what they are buying is from china.

2. Financial obligation to one's country would increase right along with wealth, assuming they were not miserly.

We can get MORE tax dollars from taxing consumption AND at the same time cause the wealthy to foot the majority of the tax burden.


I LIKE IT!

reply to post by Quazga


The wealthy already do foot the major portion of the tax burden, how much more would you like them to pay?

Originally posted by A Wolf Among Sheep
reply to post by Quazga

 

The wealthy already do foot the major portion of the tax burden, how much more would you like them to pay?

First off, I am part of "the wealthy". I pay less taxes now than I ever did before I was wealthy. Why? Well first off because I can afford to pay an accountant to find every last one of the loopholes so that I can legally not pay as much.

Because I own a business, I am able to pay soooo much less taxes than the person who is earning everything on a w-2.

Now, what would be fair if you ask this wealthy person? If the system was simplified so that everyone was subject to the same taxes with no ability to find wiggle room just because you can afford to hire an accountant to find loopholes.

Hows that for a qualifier of "how much more" I believe folks like me should pay?

ALSO I don't believe in Income tax. Taxed on items you buy (other than food) sure! That puts the power of the lower tax in the hands of the frugal. Imagine actually incentivizing frugality?



[edit on 28-8-2008 by Quazga]

Mike Huckaby?

Working for BO?

Doubt it!

You know the principals Obama has are decent and Biden too

But the problem is when you simplify the tax code and put it on the wealthy you drive the system to a place where it "defines wealthy"

and that definition will fall upon people who really aren't wealthy.

To BECOME wealthy you need to be able to accumulate enough money for your money to make money and what I am seeing as the definition of wealthy factors in the 12 G a year crowd so a person who achieves that 100 G a year, will find himself, utterly screwed because he will go to loosing half probably on some simple inanne system that has no loopholes like a flat tax

That Joe average dope, can figure out

and what does that actually do...

It relieves a guy making 25 G of paying 400.00 a year

But prevents him when he breacjes a hundred G for example of having anything left but 50 G (as a fictional example) because he is defined as "wealthy" long before being wealthy

so you save the poor an amount of money they cabn, maybe make a carpayment with, which at the time feels great

But you then make that same person years later struggle much, much harder to reach a place where he doesn;t have to work so hard

Realistically, most people making 25 aren't going to become that person...

But plenty do every year and that's where American Economic growth comes from

He will relieve the poor and then damn them to a life of mediocrity

and when I am poor, what i want is not a 400.00 tax break, I want the real opportunity to get out of that situation and stay there

and nothing about shifting more burden to the wealthy changes the wealthy from being wealthy... if they are wealthy already, but it does severely limit those of us who have high hopes of being wealthy from getting there.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
You know the principals Obama has are decent and Biden too

But the problem is when you simplify the tax code and put it on the wealthy you drive the system to a place where it "defines wealthy"

Actually, I believe that is what we have today with "brackets".

I'm not saying "put it on the wealthy" I'm saying, allow the wealthy to share the burden that we are dodging today.

As a wealthy person, I have the ability to dodge most of the taxes the the vast majority don't. Simply by making it an exercise of tax forms builds a barrier to those who don't have the ability or the money to understand the forms and what they all mean.

and that definition will fall upon people who really aren't wealthy.

To BECOME wealthy you need to be able to accumulate enough money for your money to make money and what I am seeing as the definition of wealthy factors in the 12 G a year crowd so a person who achieves that 100 G a year, will find himself, utterly screwed because he will go to loosing half probably on some simple inanne system that has no loopholes like a flat tax

I'm not speaking about a tax that everyone pays regardless. I'm speaking about a consumption tax which you only pay when you make a purchase on something other than food. Surely I can control my spending habits if I wish to reduce my tax burden.

That Joe average dope, can figure out

and what does that actually do...

It relieves a guy making 25 G of paying 400.00 a year

But prevents him when he breacjes a hundred G for example of having anything left but 50 G (as a fictional example) because he is defined as "wealthy" long before being wealthy

Not if he isn't purchasing any more than he did when he made 25k a year. Now, Agreed as my income increases, my spending habits also increase. This in itself is a problem, but I won't get into that here. The main point, is that with a consumption tax, it doesn't matter how much you make, it matters how much you spend.


I think your assumptions were based on a "you pay this much percent of what you make" formula. I want to remove the "based on what you make" formula altogether.

It should be based on what you spend, not what you make.

Try doing some research into how much of the percentage of taxes is actually paid by the wealthy. Hint: Most paid by very few.

reply to post by Quazga


Well... that could work, if it moves to a consumption tax basis and only that.

Preferably consumption should be taxed higher than income, it allows those that control themselves to create wealth

But I have heard alot of Obama's theories on tax, Numbers like 100 G on capital gains and other stuff equally as insane for building wealth

If he actually develops a sane tax system based around consumption, then it won't be so bad...

I just seriously doubt that's what is going to happen

How about the Flat Tax? It is a no brainer, the Flat Tax is what we need.

What Is a Flat Tax?

Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system,[4] a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income, a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the “equal justice under law” principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation’s wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy.

There have been several flat tax proposals over the years, all of them based on the pathbreaking proposal developed by two Hoover Institution economists.[5] While no two plans are identical, they all share common features that fix the major flaws of the current Internal Revenue Code. Simplicity and fairness are also natural consequences of these component features of tax reform.

These major features of a flat tax are:

A Single Flat Rate. All flat tax proposals have a single rate, usually less than 20 percent. The low, flat rate solves the problem of high marginal tax rates by reducing penalties against productive behavior, such as work, risk taking, and entrepreneurship.

www.heritage.org...

reply to post by Quazga

Taxed on items you buy (other than food) sure! That puts the power of the lower tax in the hands of the frugal.

That may be fine in your income bracket, but what about seniors that are retired, worked all of their life to save enough to retire, and PAID income taxes on that income that is now saved? (Remember, tax deferred savings didn't always exist for many of us). Items like food, medical insurance, and medical care are not items we can be frugal about. That usually uses up what we have allocated for each month, out of our savings. Is it FAIR for those that don't have income coming in, to be paying taxes on income that was already taxed? At least people that are still working won't pay taxes on their income, but for those that are retired, we're really stuck with a consumption tax.