|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 13, 2011 15:47:55 GMT -5
I don't understand how it hurts anyone. You get your entire paycheck, your entire Christmas bonus, your entire 401k. The rich are still buying stuff so they're still paying taxes. And the poor benefit from the Prebate which covers basics goods. Now I'm no economist, but if I'm bringing in $25,000 year, putting aside 1/4 for savings, and someone making ten times that is putting 3/4 in saving, sure he's paying less of a %, but he's still paying a lot more than I am in dollars. Unless the rich are borrowing stuff or buying it all used, they're still spending money. There're no tax cuts, no tax exempt status for churches (They don't get taxed on tithes, but any priest buying stuff's going to be paying). I may be way off on this, but it seems like everyone's paying taxes, but with prebate, the poor aren't getting screwed over. Once again, I'm not an economist; I'm just going on what I've read under the document itself. That depends on your definition of poor. Depending on how you figure the numbers somewhere between people making over $15,000 to $40,000 per year would see their tax burden go up. www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.htmlAlso, Priests and other Clergy are tax exempt for many purchases so long as it is going to be used for the Church business. |
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Oct 13, 2011 15:48:14 GMT -5
the problem is that the poor spend a MUCH higher percentage of their income on consumer goods and services, and thus any kind of blind flat-tax will result in the poor paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. This is why regessive taxes like the flat or fair tax are complete bs... it's just another way to fuck those on the bottom |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 15:51:17 GMT -5
Now I'm no economist, but if I'm bringing in $25,000 year, putting aside 1/4 for savings, and someone making ten times that is putting 3/4 in saving, sure he's paying less of a %, but he's still paying a lot more than I am in dollars. [emphasis mine] That right there is the problem. A greater percentage of what the poor earn goes towards living expenses, they have less they can give before it hurts. The wealthy have a lower percentage of what they earn, so they can give more. To reframe the question, when you tax the poor, you take away money they would use for food. When you tax the rich, you take away money they would use for luxuries. Fairtax and similar plans have decided it is better for the rich to buy a jetski than it is for the poor to eat every day that month. |
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Oct 13, 2011 15:52:11 GMT -5
I was using that 1/4 as an example. I'd love to put that much in savings if I could get my entire paycheck back. As for the percentage, you could make it 90%/10% and the rich are Still paying more. Sure the poorer spend a higher percentage than the rich, but the prebate covers necessities, and in some cases, actually results in a Lower %: www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2011.pdfFor the record, I'm not trying to br Skyfire here. I just think this is a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Oct 13, 2011 16:06:28 GMT -5
And consider the fact that Cain would extend this consumer tax to all consumer goods, including food. Holy Shit, I just did the math and that's a 1000 dollar yearly increase in weekly grocery bills.- Goodbye car, and I don't know- fun, I gotta eat. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 13, 2011 16:11:37 GMT -5
Sure the poorer spend a higher percentage than the rich, but the prebate covers necessities, and in some cases, actually results in a Lower %: Accoring to your link my family would get a monthly prebate of $637 (Couple with 3 kids). I spend a lot more then that on necessities every month. |
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Oct 13, 2011 16:14:45 GMT -5
Sure the poorer spend a higher percentage than the rich, but the prebate covers necessities, and in some cases, actually results in a Lower %: Accoring to your link my family would get a monthly prebate of $637 (Couple with 3 kids). I spend a lot more then that on necessities every month. How much would it drop if you only had 1 or 2 kids...The prebate I mean |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 16:17:58 GMT -5
I was using that 1/4 as an example. I'd love to put that much in savings if I could get my entire paycheck back. As for the percentage, you could make it 90%/10% and the rich are Still paying more. Sure the poorer spend a higher percentage than the rich, but the prebate covers necessities, and in some cases, actually results in a Lower %: www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2011.pdfFor the record, I'm not trying to br Skyfire here. I just think this is a good idea. Oh, so instead it would create a sort of a bell curve, much better  Also, the graph in the pdf is deceitful, it assumes that everybody spends all of their income, this doesn't happen. You've made it slightly better, now you're not taking away food money from the poor family, but instead you're taking away the money spent on health insurance for a middle class family instead of the jetski for the rich. In large part because the poverty line is a shitty thing to use, you can easily be above the poverty line, but not have any money for luxury spending. It takes a while before you have money to spend on things other than food, housing, transportation, clothing, education, and health care. So there will still be many people who have money that would otherwise be spent on one of these get taken away and lowering their quality of life severely, whereas it has a negligible effect on the wealthy. How is a tax fair if it causes severe harm on one family, but another family really doesn't notice it? Not to mention that the prebate seems like making a system more complicated then it has to be. You're still taxing people based on income, why not just create the same brackets with an income tax? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 13, 2011 16:25:18 GMT -5
Accoring to your link my family would get a monthly prebate of $637 (Couple with 3 kids). I spend a lot more then that on necessities every month. How much would it drop if you only had 1 or 2 kids...The prebate I mean It looks like each child adds about 75$ per month. Vypernight link has a chart. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 13, 2011 18:07:52 GMT -5
I was using that 1/4 as an example. With all due respect, when picking Just-an-Example, you should make sure it is a reasonable example before submitting it. Otherwise, you just come off as out-of-touch. In large part because the poverty line is a shitty thing to use, you can easily be above the poverty line, but not have any money for luxury spending. The poverty line is a joke. No wait, strike that. The poverty line is too ridiculous to even qualify as a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Oct 13, 2011 19:07:22 GMT -5
Here's a weird fact: it would appear that the "9/9/9" plan already exists... in a video game. I'm not saying that this is definitively where Cain got the idea, but it's kinda funny either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 21:09:25 GMT -5
In large part because the poverty line is a shitty thing to use, you can easily be above the poverty line, but not have any money for luxury spending. The poverty line is a joke. No wait, strike that. The poverty line is too ridiculous to even qualify as a joke. Not completely true, if you understand it. It's used to measure the increase or decrease of poverty. It is the amount of money the lowest 20% earned when the poverty line was established and adjusted for inflation each year. So, if you have a lower percentage of the population below that line, poverty has decreased, if you have more people above it, then poverty has increased. But, it is not a line where you can say that if you're above it, then you are not poor. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 13, 2011 22:11:22 GMT -5
If you're above the poverty line, you're not poor...you're just slightly less fucked than your neighbor.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Oct 16, 2011 10:45:23 GMT -5
Ol' Smilin' Herman just admitted it:
"Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain admitted Sunday that “some people” would pay more in taxes every year under his “9-9-9” tax reform plan.
“That’s right. Some people will pay more,” Cain told David Gregory of NBC’s Meet the Press. “But most people will pay less, that’s my argument.”
Cain’s plan throws out the current tax system by establishing a 9 percent corporate tax, a 9 percent income tax and a new 9 percent national sales tax. During a lengthy discussion with Gregory, Cain defended his plan from critics who say the plan will make lower income earners pay more.
Asked by Gregory who will pay more, Cain said, “The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods. That’s a big difference that doesn’t come out.”
So this asshole admits that his asinine tax plan will make "some people" pay more without bothering to point out that those people who will pay more are the poor. He then goes on to say that the poor will avoid his dick taxes by pointing out that they don't buy new stuff, just old, used crap.
Oh, gee. Thanks Herman. If the poor don't want to get their asses taxed off, all they have to do for you is never buy anything new or nice again, shop exclusively in thrift stores for home furnishings and clothing, and drive old clunkers.
How can we thank you enough, Herman, for pointing out how the poor don't deserve anything new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 16, 2011 11:17:03 GMT -5
Are we buying used food as well?
|
|
Also, the graph in the pdf is deceitful, it assumes that everybody spends all of their income, this doesn't happen. You've made it slightly better, now you're not taking away food money from the poor family, but instead you're taking away the money spent on health insurance for a middle class family instead of the jetski for the rich. In large part because the poverty line is a shitty thing to use, you can easily be above the poverty line, but not have any money for luxury spending. It takes a while before you have money to spend on things other than food, housing, transportation, clothing, education, and health care. So there will still be many people who have money that would otherwise be spent on one of these get taken away and lowering their quality of life severely, whereas it has a negligible effect on the wealthy. How is a tax fair if it causes severe harm on one family, but another family really doesn't notice it?
