Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 11-14-2012, 06:23 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I am against what the liberals stand for. The libs stand for a larger centralized government that thinks that what works for me will work for you and it will work with whoever gay abortionist etc.... The best thing for issues in which there are fundamental diffeences would be delegating those things to the states. Maybe there should be some sort of FAIR TAX setup to where there is no need for exemptions and such therefore no need for the govenment to legislate marriage. I don't know. I think I could stomach a "civil union" but calling gay marriage marriage attempts to put it on the same level of normalcy and acceptance as conventional marriage. I just think we are a clearly divided nation. It is just sad. One side is for a more traditional America and the other is for a "new" America.
FWIW, I don't think the government should recognize anything as "marriage". To me, the concept of marriage is legal shorthand for a large number of poorly-written legal documents between the partners, such as wills and powers of attorney.

If the government is going to recognize a union between two people, they should recognize it as a civil union. That seems to make more sense to me anyway. We have situations right now where two people are living together, raising children together. They are eachother's closest next-of-kin. From the outside looking in, they do all the same things as a married couple. But, inside the family, it turns out they sleep in separate bedrooms and do not have any sort of sexual relationship. They are each single parents - the kids were from previous marriages. And it turns out that they are adult siblings, not spouses. They've created a stable family structure, but they're not eligible for any of the benefits the government uses to promote stable families.

I believe the government should recognize this partnership and family as a civil union. I wouldn't consider this a marriage, and I don't think the participants would consider it a marriage. But they are a family, a household (admittedly an unusual one), and they should to be treated the same way as any other.



The "FairTax" idea is overly complex. Read: ridiculously inefficient. Every man, woman, and child would receive monthly payments from the government for their entire lives. The system appears to be perfectly designed to be defrauded on all ends - sellers under-reporting sales to sit on 21% of their gross income. Consumers misrepresenting their personal expenses as untaxed business expenses. Fraudsters collecting multiple "prebate" checks would force government to be overly intrusive in demanding your identity.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 06:37 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
The "FairTax" idea is overly complex. Read: ridiculously inefficient. Every man, woman, and child would receive monthly payments from the government for their entire lives. The system appears to be perfectly designed to be defrauded on all ends - sellers under-reporting sales to sit on 21% of their gross income. Consumers misrepresenting their personal expenses as untaxed business expenses. Fraudsters collecting multiple "prebate" checks would force government to be overly intrusive in demanding your identity.
Of the fraud you listed, all of them can and are done now. The biggest thing I like about that setup is that there is that nothing is income based (personal income tax) and the monthly payment would be the same for everyone regardless of income. I think that many opportunities for fraud and misuse are eliminated. Currently, politicians buy votes with gov't benefits, tax credits, different laws, and all is based on people's differences and benefits only certain "voting blocs". That is one of the things that feeds corruption. I would like the power of politicians picking winners and losers reduced. The same sales tax rate and payment to everyone. I am aware it isn't perfect. I don't know that anything will tru;y be flawless as long as it involves people.
And, really?? "Overly complex" compared to what? Our current tax system? Surely you jest...

Now, I do agree that there are many details when it comes to business and manufacturing that have to be looked at closely.
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 07:15 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
Of the fraud you listed, all of them can and are done now. The biggest thing I like about that setup is that there is that nothing is income based (personal income tax) and the monthly payment would be the same for everyone regardless of income. I think that many opportunities for fraud and misuse are eliminated.
Quite the contrary, the issue with fraudsters collecting multiple checks only happens where people receive government payments. Fraudsters don't report the deaths of social security beneficiaries, but social security beneficiaries are a a much much smaller portion of the population. Fraud on this, and any benefit program, is significantly smaller.

With "FairTax", EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD is entitled to a government check. Everyone. Everyone that any fraudster can convince the government exists will be entitled to a prebate check.

The issue of retailers misrepresenting sales tax... today, retailers in my state have a ~6% incentive to misreport their sales. Every $100 they misreport gains them $6. With "FairTax", they'll have a 21% incentive to do so - every $100 they misreport will earn them $21. Hell of a lot greater incentive.

Misrepresenting consumer goods as business expenses today doesn't matter much. The seller of those goods was taxed on his income from selling them. But one of the "features" of Fairtax is that it only applies to new consumer goods and services, not businesses. So when my restaurant buys food at wholesale, the wholesaler doesn't pay any tax on it, nor does he pay any sort of income tax. When that food goes to my pantry instead of my restaurant's pantry, it's never taxed at all. Business-owner-me bought a new TV for over the bar, but once it was delivered, I discovered it would fit in the space I had alloted for it, so I threw it out and wrote it off as a loss. Then consumer-me found this "used" TV sitting next to the dumpster and took it home. No tax was ever paid for this TV.

FairTax would give me a 21% discount on pretty much everything I ever purchased. Because it's the only tax, it's incredibly easy for me to structure a "business venture" to avoid it.
Quote:

Currently, politicians buy votes with gov't benefits, tax credits, different laws, and all is based on people's differences and benefits only certain "voting blocs". That is one of the things that feeds corruption. I would like the power of politicians picking winners and losers reduced. The same sales tax rate and payment to everyone. I am aware it isn't perfect. I don't know that anything will tru;y be flawless as long as it involves people.
And, really?? "Overly complex" compared to what? Our current tax system? Surely you jest...

Now, I do agree that there are many details when it comes to business and manufacturing that have to be looked at closely.
Too many to overcome. The fundamental nature of the system is to concentrate **ALL** tax collection at the interaction between retailer and consumer. Anyone who can structure themselves as something other than a retailer or consumer (i.e. "A business") can completely avoid taxation. As soon as you don't allow that, however, you're left with the same income tax by a different name.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 07:26 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
Quite the contrary, the issue with fraudsters collecting multiple checks only happens where people receive government payments. Fraudsters don't report the deaths of social security beneficiaries, but social security beneficiaries are a a much much smaller portion of the population. Fraud on this, and any benefit program, is significantly smaller.

With "FairTax", EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD is entitled to a government check. Everyone. Everyone that any fraudster can convince the government exists will be entitled to a prebate check.

The issue of retailers misrepresenting sales tax... today, retailers in my state have a ~6% incentive to misreport their sales. Every $100 they misreport gains them $6. With "FairTax", they'll have a 21% incentive to do so - every $100 they misreport will earn them $21. Hell of a lot greater incentive.

Misrepresenting consumer goods as business expenses today doesn't matter much. The seller of those goods was taxed on his income from selling them. But one of the "features" of Fairtax is that it only applies to new consumer goods and services, not businesses. So when my restaurant buys food at wholesale, the wholesaler doesn't pay any tax on it, nor does he pay any sort of income tax. When that food goes to my pantry instead of my restaurant's pantry, it's never taxed at all. Business-owner-me bought a new TV for over the bar, but once it was delivered, I discovered it would fit in the space I had alloted for it, so I threw it out and wrote it off as a loss. Then consumer-me found this "used" TV sitting next to the dumpster and took it home. No tax was ever paid for this TV.

FairTax would give me a 21% discount on pretty much everything I ever purchased. Because it's the only tax, it's incredibly easy for me to structure a "business venture" to avoid it.


Too many to overcome. The fundamental nature of the system is to concentrate **ALL** tax collection at the interaction between retailer and consumer. Anyone who can structure themselves as something other than a retailer or consumer (i.e. "A business") can completely avoid taxation. As soon as you don't allow that, however, you're left with the same income tax by a different name.
I cannot disagree necessarily. I very much like the idea of removing some power from the politicians (the power to essentially buy votes). That is my primary thing. If you have some good ideas I am open to them I think that the ability to unfairly dispense tax breaks, gov't benefits, incentives, laws, etc.. is probably the biggest problem we face. It seems to be the biggest cause of most of our problems.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:37 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,896 | Kudos: +93
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I cannot disagree necessarily. I very much like the idea of removing some power from the politicians (the power to essentially buy votes). That is my primary thing. If you have some good ideas I am open to them I think that the ability to unfairly dispense tax breaks, gov't benefits, incentives, laws, etc.. is probably the biggest problem we face. It seems to be the biggest cause of most of our problems.
Well said!
__________________

__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.