What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
124 Comments
- maxmojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Consumption tax on everything but food (At grocers) is the way to go. I'm tired of paying taxes, so that deadbeats can buy their kids $100.00 shoes with well-fare checks.
And while were at it. Let's legalize street drugs (in the U.S.) and here's why.
1. It will reduce murder, robbery, and other violent crimes.
2. There will be no economic benefit to selling at exorbitant prices.
3. People will receive safer drugs (Not rat poison)
4. It will increase the need for inner city poor to become entrepreneurs and educate themselves.
5. It will reduce the load on an already over-burdened jail/prison system, thus reserving them for truly deserving individuals.
6. More productive citizens = more tax dollars = less people taking without giving = better economy for everyone. - DefenderOrights, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@ kissthering
You're right this is Flat tax propaganda. A flat tax doesn't solve anything. Our income is still taxed by the same over-bloated system that is slowly driving the American economy and society from a free one into a communistic government controlled one.
What we NEED is a FAIR tax. Taxes only on the items we BUY except for necessities. That way we are taxed on what we CHOOSE to be taxed on. And EVERYONE is taxed according to their means. No more free ride for the slackers in society. - dknighton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"I guess you've never heard the term "economic justice" it means taxation based on ability to pay, it means you pay tax on a sliding scale based on how much you have benefited from our capitalist system. Flat tax helps ensure the rich accumulate more wealth and anyone with few financial advantages don't, and that goes against capitalist values."
What you call "economic justice" I call the redistribution of wealth, which is a cornerstone of any socialist, government-run society. Don't let your misguided ideals lead you to believe you have some higher moral standard that people who actually understand economics.
The IRS is a bloated, power-hungry, self-important example of the WORST of government. It needs to be eliminated outright. A Fair Tax is the best solution. It taxes goods and services, but only once (used cars, for instance, are tax free). This eliminates the double-dipping practices that our politicians have enjoyed milking for years.
The bottom line is: Let people keep more of their money, eliminate government handouts in the form of social welfare programs, and keep the government small and efficient. Politicians garner power by controlling the ebb and flow of the economy. It's time for US citizens to take back the power that they have stolen from us through the establishment of the "nanny-state". Some people say that ideas like Fair Tax can't possibly foot the bill for everything the government supports. In reality, if you implement a Fair Tax, people get to keep their money and they don't NEED government support. The beauracracy gets smaller along with the tax burden, which is exactly how it should be.
Educate yourselves by checking http://www.fairtax.org. - dr4tom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Finally, someone that understands the true millstone around our neck that the income tax system has become.
- cptshamrock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Last time I checked the goal of a flat tax is economic justice, everyone gets taxed the same percentage
- Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Economic Justice" (as described by kissthering) = Marxism.
www.fairtax.org
Go to link and educate yourself. - dr4tom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is nothing in this article about flat tax! Have you even read the article?
Its all about complexity and the insane system that is somehow supposed to be fair, but instead creates an adversarial relationship between people and the government and places a huge compliance burden on everyone. Fairness doesn't have to be this painful. - rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3National Sales Tax, anyone?
- DiggerTheDog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+53, 5, & 6 make sense only if you feel entitlement, class envy and progressive taxation should rule the day. Redistribution of wealth is a very bad idea and an extremely slippery slope. Progressive taxation is not fair. The only breaks, if any, should be for poverty level incomes. Death Tax is also a bad idea. The money has already been taxed. Why tax it again unless you feel you somehow deserve a piece of what your neighbor earned by working hard and/or taking chances on a business? If redistribution of wealth is such a great idea then I propose that college students who have a GPA of 3.5, or better, to redistribute some of their points to another student who feels entitled to a good GPA. It does not sound like a good idea, does it? Unless you are a flaming red diaper doper baby who feels entitled by situational ethics. The whole concept is very sad and disturbing.
- Firefox2005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Isn't this amazing?
TAXES
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes
Telephone mi nimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS:
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most
prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest
middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. - padewak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3imagine if we gave most of our Federal Taxes to the city or town we lived in ...
- freeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ya. In Germany, the end of the overly complicated income tax system is also proclaimed at least once a year.
For the last 50 years.
So I don't really believe it will ever become easier. Not in Germany, and not in the U.S., either. - longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well, maybe the tax system has to be complicated to be fair
- TuxFan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Beanlover: ""Economic Justice" (as described by kissthering) = Marxism."
Sorry but that is not Marxism. Under true Marxism, money wouldn't exist. Read his manifesto and educate yo self. Having lower income people be taxed less as the system stands allows them to have more money for purchases. Otherwise, our economy would depend on the rich buying stuff instead of everyone. Seems fair to have all Americans able to buy stuff to boost the economy rather than let it decay. It's Capitalism 101. - MrLobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this article is nothing but wishful thinking, income tax system will be around for a long time
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The FairTax, folks, it's the only "fair" way. :) It's up to you how you want the future to look. This sliding scale we've been under helps no one. In fact, it means those who garner wealth and learn how to manipulate the tax laws will do so. This doesn't make them bad people. Hell, if you make 100K a year, especially if you had to work hard for it which most do, you will find a way to keep it. Despite what most people think, most successful people didn't start out that way.
- PoorYorick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On NPR this morning, they were talking about the highest paid jobs. The winner? Tax attorney.
That should make everyone angry. I'm a college educated adult. During college, I was trained by the IRS to help low-income people fill out their taxes. I did my own taxes last year with the help of tax software. It took me more than 30 hours to complete my return.
We need a fair, progressive tax system that supports that gently widens our middle class from both sides. We need a system with which one can comply in minutes, not days. We need a system with teeth that catches the cheats and leaves the innocents alone. And, if we're going to have any hope of sustaining our civilization beyond 2050 or so, we're going to need a system that taxes consumption beyond groceries, shelter, and charitable giving. - Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The US tax system is well on its way to fixing itself, thanks to the AMT:
Since the AMT-triggering amounts are not inflation-adjusted, more and more people can forget the complicated tax code, and just give away 26 to 28% of their earnings. roughly.
The sad thing is, people think the AMT is a bad, complicated thing.
For example, at http://www.fairmark.com/amt/ you can read "this tax is so complicated that it's often difficult to predict when it will apply", when in truth it is possibly the simplest tax rule in the entire code.
It is the rest of the convoluted tax code that makes it hard to figure out whether it applies to someone or not. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2well DefernderOrights that sounds better than the flat tax but many things we purchase aren't so much choice as they are necessity. This would mean that things like food, transportation, educational costs, and clothing would be more expensive as well. I would be more inclined to agree if these necessary item would be exempt from the additional taxation
- quink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13, 5 and 6 make sense. The rest you can forget.
- nihilator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would like to see a National Sales Tax. That would be the fairest system, imho. That way, the rich and poor both get taxed relatively fairly with respect to economic justice.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Screw all these recycled arguments for a Flat Tax. A Flat Tax system is stupid, and only two types of people support it: People so rich they stand to save [b/m]illions of dollars, and morons.
- Kingy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Get rid of of progressive taxation simply because its too complicated?!?
Surely they can't be serious, I could say the same about the legal system:
'Get rid of the whole trial by jury thing its far too complicated and lets just kill all criminals, no matter what the crime is' - it's about justice if it means being complicated then so be it.
And also, IT'S 2006!! Almost 50 years since McCarthy died, why all the McCarthyism? Haven't you people move on? - Glidedon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 The Fair Tax, look it up and learn.
Also repeal the 16th amendment at the same time ! - monticello, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You do understand that rich people didnt get that way by putting all their money in their sock drawer right? Rich people will have all their money in investments, which means it goes towards economic development. Do you want all that money as investments in biotech companies looking for a cure to cancer or do you want it going to mcdonalds? Your argument just doesnt cut it...
------------------------------------------
Wait... you're kidding, right? If the lower and middle class don't have money, the economy folds, genius. - MerlinTW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 markstrube obviously doesn't know what the FairTax is.
Read and learn before you comment.
Support HR25! - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A Consumption Tax is really the only fair AND simple way to tax. The concept is simple
- You pay tax on everything you buy, except food.
- If you earn less, you spend less, so you get taxed less.
- If you earn more, you likely spend more, so you get taxed more.
This eliminates all the ridiculous tax loopholes that allow billionaires to pay virtually nothing while you and I pay 20%. - Jedi_2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Taxes are not "out-of-control" hell I work 20 hour weeks and 30 hours of school work (intern electrical engineer for lockheed martian), and I still had time to complete my tax filings in under two hours. Those who state that it's to complicated thus flawed seriously need to recheck their logic. Destroying the social welfare system might help in the short-term with economic balancing issues but in the long run it will be a burden on america for not keeping it. This is due to a society needing as much money pumped into the economy as possible, see when a person get's welfare they buy things usually with the money, that money then gets put back into the economy stimulating individual sectors. America would not be the place it is today the economic powerhouse that it is without the income tax system that FDR's brain trust came up with in 1932, read up on the american economy before an income tax system that will tell what will happen to the US if we ditch income tax and change systems.
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think americans will ever stop paying tax with a debt over 8 trillion muahahahaha.
Check for yourselves http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ - MrSketch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets"
-Will Rogers - Rageous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Flat tax is bunk, almost as much as the income tax system (which, for all practical purposes, this article gets right). Economists have known this for years, and that's why alternatives have been spearheaded to reform the system. Granted it's Republicans doing it (I work primarily with the National Sales Tax group a.k.a. Fair Tax), but there's been quite a bit of bipartisan support lately.rnrnhttp://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.htmlrnrnCheck that out if you really want to get to the meat of the issues.
- MerlinTW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2fairtax.org
Nuff Said. - taxcode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This has to be possibly one of the most ridicules articles I have ever wasted my time reading.rnrnAbout The Author: Thomas J. Frey is the Senior Futurist at The DaVinci Institute. His specialty is the study of global systems and the emerging impact they will have on the world to comernrnI've heard futurism is a hard program to get into they only take the best and the brightest.
- DrEbola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good riddance thieves.
- psrosen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0First, this article was written by a "Futurist" and not an "Economist". That means it is pure conjecture, in my book. If this article was based on science, the author would have referenced studies by Nobel Prize Winner Douglas North that Complex systems yield stability...and not instability. See http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1993/north-lecture.html generally.
Second, any attempt to simplify the tax code will only increase the complexity. Why? Because a lot of the old laws will be grandfathered. Such as depreciation. And lots of new regulations will be created to figure out what to do in their stead. - Sell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm not going to portray myself as a tax expert like so many here have (maybe they shouldve wrote that articel huh?) But I absolutely HATE HATE HATE being taxed when i make it and then being taxed when i spend it. Doube taxation???
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I very much doubt that the tax system will collapse any time soon. Our government is no longer in the business of governing. It is in the business of building an empire.
- dknighton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"because any new or odd ball tax code you can come up with WILL still HAVE TO produce the same income if not more to the Gov. to continue operations."
You miss the point, you self-righteous idiot. I think most US citizens would agree that our government is one of the most bloated, inefficient mechanism in existence, and that is WHAT FUELS THE CURRENT TAX SYSTEM. So in your opinion, we are to continue being subjected to an unfair system just so the government can take in enough money to run itself? WRONG! Washington needs to get the message that they need to find ways to do more with less. They ask no less of us in tough economic times.
Hell...they can even do LESS with LESS in my opinion. Government is TOO BIG. That is the whole problem behind the tax system. In order to continue all these welfare programs, they have to continue taxing us at ridiculous rates. Eliminate the crap and let me keep more of MY money. As far as I'm concerned, the federal government has the responsibility to provide a basic system of order and raise a standing army ONLY. Leave the rest to the states and their citizens, and let THEM chose the type of government they want. - MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0From lewrockwell.com:
"The FairTax proposal can be passed by a simple majority of both houses of Congress plus the President's signature. But the much-touted repeal of the 16th Amendment, which authorizes the income tax, requires a much more demanding 2/3 vote in each house and then approval by ¾ of state legislatures. The likelihood of ending up with both the 23% federal tax and the current income tax is therefore all the greater.
Second, the proposed national retail sales tax will be set at 23 percent to replace the revenues from the individual and corporate income tax, as well as the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Added to this 23 percent tax will be the states' average sales taxes of more than 6 percent. A 29 percent sales tax will generate pressure to turn the sales tax into a value-added tax (VAT).
This will happen because such a large tax will generate a black market in goods to avoid the added tax. Politicians will find it in their self-interest to transform the FairTax into a tax at various stages of production – a VAT. This same process developed after the income tax was instituted – withholding was created in part to mask the actual level of taxation.
Third, the much-touted end of the Internal Revenue Service is a sham. Some enforcement agency will be needed to handle tax collections. One provision of the national retail sales tax is to issue rebates equal to the sales taxes paid on essential goods and services to ensure that no American pays taxes on necessities. There will have to be a way to distinguish who gets these monthly checks. So a federal agency that tracks individuals will persist. Changing the name of the IRS while maintaining its functions is pointless. Added to this is the very serious concern of so many Americans becoming accustomed to a monthly check from Uncle Sam. A massive constituency will be created which will pressure Congress for increases in the definition of necessities. The FairTax will indirectly become the means of an ever-greater expansion of government.
Further, the Social Security Administration will keep records for the federal government to determine an individual’s Social Security benefits based on…their income. Here’s the way it’s stated at the FairTax website: "…Social Security [will] operate exactly as it does today, …Employers will continue to report wages for each employee…."
And fourth – and most importantly – working on this tax trade diverts scarce political energy from the cause of limiting federal spending and taxation to the cause of rearranging the means of tax collections." - wmtrader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People have been talking about the end of the IRS since I was a kid back in the 70's and it is still here?
- dknighton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Taxes are not "out-of-control" hell I work 20 hour weeks and 30 hours of school work (intern electrical engineer for lockheed martian), and I still had time to complete my tax filings in under two hours. Those who state that it's to complicated thus flawed seriously need to recheck their logic."
Hey junior...when you grow up and have to do any tax form other than the 1040EZ, please feel free to coment. Until then, let the adults argue the finer points.
And while you're at it, take a remedial spelling course at some point during your "30 hours" of school-work. Unless you're not from this planet (in which case you should freaking CARE about the tax system), you are an intern for Lockheed-MARTIN, not "lockheed martian".
Phone home, E.T. - Kingy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The tax system as it is does nothing more than support a mild form of socialism."
dknighton, don't you understand that removing progressive taxation would emphasize the rich/poor welfare gap so much that you're only helping the far left win more support?
Not that I have anything against those far left, but you have to understand extremism (on the right) breeds opposing extremism (on the left). - rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The only problem with a consumption tax or national sales tax is that people have different opinions on what is a "necessity."
Do you assume that "necessities" includes only the 4 basic needs: food, water, shelter, and heat?
What about medicine? Is that a necessity? What about transportation to and from one's place of work? Does that include public transportation or private or both? If a person can't get to work, they can't earn money to buy necessites. What about towns without public transportation systems? In that case do you just tax cars that cost more than a certian ammount or do you tax all cars? What about taxing fuel and electricity? Aren't those necessites in a modern life? What if a person's job requires them to use a computer, do they pay taxes on that?
Even with things like food and shelter, what foods or houses do you not pay taxes on? Should someone with a mansion not pay any taxes just like someone with a 1 bedroom hut?
What about food? Does someone pay a tax on a Mc Donald's hamburger but not that nice jucy prime rib at the restraunt across the street?
You can go on and on and on. So, what's the solution? You guessed it, deductables. People can deduct things they need to live. How do we prevent abuse? Audits! We ask for reciepts of things deducted and compare that with the person's job position and income level. So we just ended up right back where we came from! Nice work!
And all of that doesn't even mention the problem of how lower-income people would still be forced to pay a higher percentage of their income through a sales tax.
So what would be the solution? Probably some sort of compromise between a national flat income tax combined with other existing forms of taxes brought up to a national level. - BritOverseas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't know what you guys are all arguing about. There are several places around the globe that have working tax systems based on a tiered income tax system, the U.K (and many other European countries) is a good example. Everybody gets the same deduction, then up to a certain earnings level it is a%, then the next earnings level is b%, then c%. Sure the people that earn the really big bucks come off a little bit better but at least the U.K stopped the blight of total taxation that was driving away all of our rich people to better tax situations. The U.K is now one of the best economies on the planet, with the third strongest currency and to top all of that off, it takes an average Joe a couple of hours to figure out his tax return. When we do my Wives (an American stay at home Mom) it takes several hours wading through medical bills, receipts, blah blah blah AND something like Turbo-Tax to not screw it up. All that for a guaranteed $0 refund but no audit, she earns no money so she gets no refund BUT she still has to do all of this, ridiculous.
Besides as previous commenter's have said, it is the sheer SIZE of the government/Military that is the problem not so much the tax system. Taxes have been around since days of yore (and I believe a certain war between the US/UK was about so called "unfair" taxes), they are never popular, the best we can do is try to make them as fair as possible which will be hard when the people that have the power to change them tend to be the richest of them all and less taxes for them is what will happen. - bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0no. everything dknighton. I mean farm subs, solar energy rebates, prop tax, education credits, charity deductions, business lunch deductions, medical deductions, everything.
You and I don't care either way, but there's enough people and industry and financial planning that depend on these nuances in the code that tries to make it fair or tries to prime the pump for a sector. The people that need social welfare don't pay much tax. They even get credit.
Taxes is a redistribution of wealth. I know that and I'm fine with it.
So I cancel you out. If it makes you feel better, my $100 went to the poor family, your $100 went to fight Bin Laden. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Taxes are way too complicated. I had no idea about the local school taxes (1% of income) i had to pay, since I've been abroad in the military since I was 17. Years later I get out, and that same month they send me a letter with years of late fees. I believe they purposly didn't send me the letter sooner to inform me about the taxes because they wanted the late fees to build up. It's just messed up. I wasn't in the same state, or even the same country, let alone the same school district, and I lived on gov't property (barracks!). I guess everything is gov't property.
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Got to love economists' and their oh so useful graphs. See here we have graphed costs versus complexity and see that gently sloping line, when we reach the star, then we are fubar!
- JeffS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Boortz, boortz, boortz, boortz... Fairtax.org
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Fairtax?
Fairtax.
http://www.fairtax.org - GreenSlabOfClay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Glad to see people are recognizing how taxes are completely rediculous and growing outrageously out of control.
It's an easy prediction to make that things will change.
The reality is that government will continue to THINK they have a system everyone is accepting, but very few are actually complying with.
The harder they squeeze, the further underground people will go with their money. -
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is