|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 24, 2013 20:17:28 GMT -6
Contrasting info from one poll to the next ND ranks in the top 10 in one and ranks 48 in the other? Fed aid is fed aid correct?
Any state with an Indian reservation is going to be higher because of the massive mount spent on reservations.
Also state taxation rates need to be figured in as well.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 24, 2013 22:30:03 GMT -6
MN and WI have lots of reservation land and several tribes and we are well below the norm for receiving federal monies. Don't get me wrong being self sufficient is not a bad thing but talking about being independent and on your own with your hands out and your pockets open creates dysfunction at the least.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Mar 24, 2013 23:06:47 GMT -6
"Any state with an Indian reservation is going to be higher because of the massive mount spent on reservations."
First it was stated that AG states got more, neither is true.
It's so easy to fact check.
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 25, 2013 4:08:37 GMT -6
Look at the reasons why they get these amounts as per your post? How can you say AG subsidies don't play a major role? Plus the polls differ as one shows fed per income generated and the other is total makeup of state budget that changes the results and rankings from your link.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 25, 2013 12:16:02 GMT -6
Ag subsidies do make a huge difference as do military bases, and energy subsidies. Reservations do as well but their budgets are peanuts compared to the Military. Like it or not the best single way to look at who gets used and who gets blessed is the per caita returns as we are a nation of people that form a society. One of the major reasons you don't see the red states clamoring for huge spending cuts they want a trillion in a decade. The sequester almost gets that but it comes out of the areas they like as well. Also they know if they just cut taxes or tax rates it does not change the fact that they get far more per ca pita then the states that pay more then they gain and they will still win.
We need major overhaul of spending and revenue generation. For most conservatives the revenue generation side is a big deal but important and needed to maintain infrastructure in a large, travel oriented mobile society.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Mar 26, 2013 6:50:30 GMT -6
I'm of the opinion that a tax on income is counter productive. Neil Boortz and Congressman John Linder wrote a book called the FairTax. Take some time and read it, I think it is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Mar 26, 2013 14:48:49 GMT -6
Wouldn't you love to abolish the IRS ... Keep all the money in your paycheck ... Pay taxes on what you spend, not what you earn ... And eliminate all the fraud, hassle, and waste of our current system?
"Then the FairTax is for you. In the face of the outlandish American tax burden, talk-radio firebrand Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder are leading the charge to phase out our current, unfair system and enact the FairTax Plan, replacing the federal income tax and withholding system with a simple 23 percent retail sales tax on new goods and services. This dramatic revision of the current system, which would eliminate the reviled IRS, has already caught fire in the American heartland, with more than six hundred thousand taxpayers signing on in support of the plan."
As Boortz and Linder reveal in this first book on the FairTax, this radical but eminently sensible plan would end the annual national nightmare of filing income tax returns, while at the same time enlarging the federal tax base by collecting sales tax from every retail consumer in the country. The FairTax, they argue, would transform the fearsome bureaucracy of the IRS into a more transparent, accountable, and equitable tax collection system. Among other benefits, it will:
Make America's tax code truly voluntary, without reducing revenue Replace today's indecipherable tax code with one simple sales tax Protect lower-income Americans by covering the tax on basic necessities Eliminate billions of dollars in embedded taxes we don't even know we're paying Bring offshore corporate dollars back into the U.S. economy Endorsed by scores of leading economists and supported by a huge and growing grassroots movement, the FairTax Plan could revolutionize the way America pays for itself. In this straight-talking book, Neal Boortz and John Linder show you how it would work—and how you can help make it happen.
-----------------
with a 23% flat sales tax I'm thinking consumption would go wayyyyy down very quickly.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by stickbowhntr on Mar 26, 2013 16:58:57 GMT -6
with a 23% flat sales tax I'm thinking consumption would go wayyyyy down very quickly.
Pam
PAM just how much do you really think it costs NOW? Taxes cost me a ton percentage wise of my Gross income....I just don;t understand ....explain your statement to me PLEASE.
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Mar 26, 2013 17:31:33 GMT -6
The cost of taxes is already embedded in the cost of our goods and services. The FairTax just makes it visible, and hopefully more painful. If you want to reduce your personal tax burden, buy used goods, and do for yourself some of the things you pay for.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 26, 2013 17:38:48 GMT -6
Pam may fed tax is darn near there now and I support 4 kids, add in state income tax and other taxation I'm in the 30 some percent bracket on taxes. Doing away with the IRS and deductions would be fair to all and then add to this a balance budget amended into our countries constituion and we would all be better off IMO.
Spending needs to go down not up by our fed govt as we will soon see what a 16 trillion deficit does for spending in the next 4 years. I'm a betting man that it sure isn't going to be a help on spending.
Cuts in military,welfare, subsidies with today's AG prices can be done, and save billions. Make alla welfare people take a monthly drug test no pass no check that month. If I have to pee in a cup to have a job offer they should do the same to take my tax dollars. Takes 5 mins per person.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 26, 2013 17:49:17 GMT -6
A 23% fair tax on "new" items would curtail production of most things rapidly. How do you buy a used hamburger or used hair cut. We have a 12-14 trillion dollar GDP in this country. If we taxed even half of that as new sales we would get more tax revenue then we do today with our crazy system. In a consumer economy a very large tax on buying items would really cut down on profits. a 23% fee on the sales of new autos for example from an auto dealer would be a much, much larger portion of their gross sales then the current 35% corporate tax rate on very, very profitable corporations. How many times do you want to tax an item? Tax the beef calf, the sale of the beef, the sale of the wholesale meat and then the sale of the burger at McDonald's. Could you imagine the lobbying costs and debate over what gets excluded and or included when you have a tax that is that high on the sale of goods and services? You can't buy a used tax service to file your taxes and avoid the fee. If you were a business it would be a good way to lower wages about 20% across the board and that will impact retirement, SS, Medicare and everything else.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Mar 27, 2013 6:45:39 GMT -6
FairTax only happens at final retail sale. Read the book before you start making ignorant comments. With the FairTax you won't need a "used" tax service. You won't need any tax service. Your barber has the cost of his income tax built into the cost of your hair cut already. You just don't see it, and he may not even realize it is there. It is not a VAT that adds a tax at every layer of production. Don't poopoo it until you understand it.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2013 8:21:03 GMT -6
Pam may fed tax is darn near there now and I support 4 kids,
and with 6 dedendents and personal deductions, plus other tax liability deducations such as morgage intetest etc- you ain't paying close to 23% in federal taxes.
fair tax is no more than a utimate sales tax on goods and services- and if 23% is what mentioned as a goal (and I haven;t read the book, so pardon my ignorant comments) its ludicrious insofar is the goal is a balanced economy and a mobile middle class.
a loaf a bread or a gal of gas and on and on is the same to a rich man or a poor man-
whats fair, is a straight flat tax on income- and that folks, will never happen as those that make the rules don't want to change the rules-
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 27, 2013 16:34:57 GMT -6
So it is only the retailer that pays the full tax? Wow that is going to be popular with retail outlets. How much more will prices have to raised to cover the cost of items. We would be further ahead to tax items at the wholesale level and keep taxes lower not higher. Income is a fair way to tax but the political process of determining income is a real problem just as it would be to write the code of fair tax and what gets taxed, what does not. One would need to see what the major changes in how our economy would change with a major tax law change. I would not want to pay 23% -5% or 17% more for an item if I am in a 15% tax bracket on my adjusted gross income.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Mar 27, 2013 17:13:45 GMT -6
No, the retailer will not pay the tax. The retailer will collect the tax, and be paid to do so, the purchaser will pay the tax. If I buy a $100 pair of shoes, $23 of the purchase price will be tax. It is not added on like most state sales tax is now, it is inclusive. There are no exemptions, but there is a "prebate" on the tax paid on necessities up to the poverty level. Like I said read the book, and then present some legitimate opposition to it. The only thing I can see is that the politicians can't use the tax code for social engineering, and behavior modification like they do now. Also there will be no social security or medicare withholding, so again it helps the poor, by letting them keep all of their paycheck. The FairTax is being presented as revenue neutral(when the book was written), so the gov. would be funded at the same level as it is (was before Bush's wars and Obama's health care). Personally I would like to see the Federal government smaller, and more constitutional, but I'd take a simpler, fairer tax first on the road to that goal. Frugality is a virtue, and ambition to aquire wealth should not be punished.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2013 19:42:18 GMT -6
I don't agree in any way, shape or form, about a flat 23% all inclusive sales tax, that wouldn't do anything but collapse the economy
who is punishing the wealthy? Romney paid well under 15% - thats fair?
here is fair- a flat income tax of even 13-14%- of TRUE income without the shelter, and ridng stables, off shore accounts and every other loophole they, themselves, have had written into law-
but you can bet your sweet bibby, that they would fight any flat tax to hell and back- or any revisions of the tax code- and that answer, is pretty simple and clear-they know how good they have it under the present system
punishing the weathy? lets stop protecting them
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 27, 2013 22:21:07 GMT -6
So you are saying that the 23% tax will be passed on to the consumer. So a 40K car actually sells for 30,400? The retailer gets paid for collecting the tax. How does that get determined. Sounds good but like Swiss Cheese until you get all the holes out of the system. So a family making 80K that would pay roughly 5K federal with 2 kids and a mortgage are going to just gladly pay 23%for say even a 23% tax on 40,000 of purchases? Even an 8th grade math student is not going to agree to that big of a tax increase.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Mar 28, 2013 0:55:14 GMT -6
Since a good share of the elderly (with the elderly population rising evey year) are "poor" and don't pay state or federal, income taxes any longer, how will adding a 23% sales tax possibly help them? For the most part, they live on Social Security. If no pays SS, medicare or disability taxes, what happens to people when they become elderly or disabled and have no income at all?
========== "Many filers exempt from federal income tax are the beneficiaries of programs aimed at helping the working poor. At the NYT, Bruce Bartlett points out that between 2000 and 2008, during the presidency of George W. Bush, the percentage of filers who paid no federal income tax rose from 25.2 percent to 36.3 percent. During this time, Bartlett says, Republicans added a significant child credit to the tax code, resulting in a rise in nonpayers.
In fact, the number of filers paying no federal income tax has hovered between 40 and 50 percent for the past several years.
In 2010, 45 percent of households paid no federal income tax, according to the Tax Policy Center. In 2009, it was about 47 percent. In 2008, 49 percent were exempt from federal income tax.
All in all, according to the Tax Policy Center, there will be 76 million nonpaying “tax units” in 2011. The Center defines a tax unit as “an individual, or a married couple who file a tax return jointly, along with all dependents of that individual or married couple.
And not all of those tax units represent the working class.
Nine million nonpayers, or 12.8 percent of the total, are in the middle income quintile. Another 1.9 million -- 2.6 percent of the total -- are in the second-highest quintile, and some 443,000, or 0.6 percent of the total, are in the top quintile.
The Tax Policy Center breaks down that last number a bit further: There are 78,000 non-paying units in the top 95th to 99th income percentile, 24,000 in the top 1 percentile, and 3,000 in the top tenth of a percentile.
This group has a nickname, too: they're the HINTs, for high income, no taxes.
These might be people who get their income from tax-exempt bonds or overseas sources, as CNN reported last year.
Or they might be people who have incurred losses from partnerships or S Corporations. Or people who have run up "extraordinary" medical or dental bills. As The Fiscal Times noted in December, these are other ways to realize one's HINT status."
================
"....add in state income tax and other taxation I'm in the 30 some percent bracket on taxes."
Would state, county, and local income, sales,and property taxes disappear as well? Wouldn't that make them more dependent on the Federal Government than they already are?
It's like my favorite cousin always said, "I don't complain about taxes, I'm just happy to be lucky enough to have the income to owe them."
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 28, 2013 7:33:57 GMT -6
Many have what they feel are simple, fair and common sense solutions to taxation. Federal income tax has been here about 100 years and we see little about being simple, fair or common sense and that is with 3 generations of people working to get this done. One of the main reasons we have such a archaic system is that we have allowed special interests, groups and or used tax credits, loop holes, subsidies to become political throw ins for other legislation such as defense, human services, depletion allowances, off shore investing etc. Another huge complicating issue is that the desire to have services continues to rise while the willingness to pay even the same let alone more for those services. As the income distribution narrows and the fortunate 5% or less have incomes rising up to 400% over thirty years compared to 1/4 of that for the rest or even lower for the lower income the tax load indeed is shifting to the very few who have the political power to lower their contribution. This sets us up for deficits. The preferred option by many is to just cut spending to match income. What most in the 95% of tax payers don't want to accept or realize is that just puts most of those 95% even further behind the very few with the federal budget cuts being huge while the tax savings on a whole for the nation will only benefit a very few.
When we spend a 100 K to educate our youth so they don't have to work in a factory, farm, sewer or other job we don't feel is appropriate we also send a message to millions of youth that are not able to get educations for a multitude of reasons, why work if all you are going to be is looked down upon as a low level worker. Much easier to be despised as a lazy no count doing nothing then a dumb low income worker busting your butt.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by James on Mar 30, 2013 23:03:54 GMT -6
The best argument for taxing the rich may be the utilitarian one:
They're the guys with the money.
It's pointless to argue for taxing the poor because they couldn't pay it anyway.
Jim
|
|