Fairtax

[TimG]

The point is that despite making the same income, it's reasonable to argue that A is barely making ends meet whereas B is saving huge sums. This is despite the fact that neither of them is spending recklessly and their expenses are similar (same size residence, etc). Why should the tax code further penalize A while giving B even more savings?

I would argue that they are not both making the same income. Sure, they are both making $X, but the true measure is what they can buy with those $X.

 

I might also suggest that the guy who is making $50k per year and spending $24K per year in rent may be spending his money a bit on the reckless side. But, perhaps I am out of touch with the realities of responsible spending.

[kenberg]

A simple factual question: My son-in-law mentioned that he thinks most of the European countries do not have an income tax. Of course we all know about the VAT, but I thought there was an income tax as well. Can some of you straighten me out on this?

[Codo]

A simple factual question: My son-in-law mentioned that he thinks most of the European countries do not have an income tax. Of course we all know about the VAT, but I thought there was an income tax as well. Can some of you straighten me out on this?

I am sure that Germany has income taxes- up to 45 % if memory serves well.

 

I nevere thought much about it, I thought any country has it.

 

But it surely exists in Austria, Poland and Switzerland.

[cherdano]

A simple factual question: My son-in-law mentioned that he thinks most of the European countries do not have an income tax. Of course we all know about the VAT, but I thought there was an income tax as well. Can some of you straighten me out on this?

Your son-in-law is wrong.

[jtfanclub]

Some would argue that "Fair" is based on total wealth, not income. But even then, consumption isn't "Fair" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I happen to really like a dual grade "Flat Tax", for example...

 

20% of income earned over $20,000

-50% of amount earned less than $10,000.

 

Person A earns $40,000. She pays 20K*20%=$4000 in taxes.

Person B earns $15,000. He pays nothing in taxes.

Person C earns $4,000. He gets a 6K*50%=$3,000 tax rebate.

Person D earns nothing. She gets a $5,000 tax rebate.

 

The great part is, I don't have to know that A is married to B, and that C is 12 and D is a baby and they're all one family unit. I don't have to know what church they donated to or look at receipts. It's a quick and easy calculation and I can submit all of them on one sheet of paper. It's fairly easy to catch cheaters (since the only ways to cheat is on under-the-counter income and making up people who don't exist), it's "fair" and it's revenue neutral.

 

But more importantly, it's almost impossible to make a mistake (what are you going to do, miscount your kids?) and it keeps the government out of our private lives. To me, those are the crucial parts.

[han]

The name "fairtax" would, for me, be enough reason not to consider the scheme. A politician who thinks his voters are stupid enough to fall for such a cheap marketing stunt will not get my vote.

The fairtax is called VAT in Europe. :) I think you gals fell for it a long time ago. :)

 

A simple factual question: My son-in-law mentioned that he thinks most of the European countries do not have an income tax. Of course we all know about the VAT, but I thought there was an income tax as well. Can some of you straighten me out on this?

 

Is Mike777 your son-in-law?

[TimG]

Person A earns $40,000. She pays 20K*20%=$4000 in taxes.

Person B earns $15,000. He pays nothing in taxes.

Person C earns $4,000. He gets a 6K*50%=$3,000 tax rebate.

Person D earns nothing. She gets a $5,000 tax rebate.

I see two problems right off:

 

1) There is incentive to shift income from one spouse to the other: your A and B pay $4000 in taxes; couple C & D who make $35k and $20k pay $3000 in taxes.

 

2) You're only making 50 cents on the dollar at the low end of the scale.

 

Oh, and babies are worth $5k/year.

[kenberg]

A simple factual question: My son-in-law mentioned that he thinks most of the European countries do not have an income tax. Of course we all know about the VAT, but I thought there was an income tax as well. Can some of you straighten me out on this?

 

Is Mike777 your son-in-law?

On the internet, who knows??? But unless he is posting under an alias, no.

 

An intriguing thought.

[helene_t]

Some would argue that "Fair" is based on total wealth, not income.

I had a conversation with a first-year law student from Copenhagen:

 

Law student: we just started learning about philosophy. Ethics and stuff.

Helene: Interesting. Could you tell me: do ethicists have anything to say about the concept of "fairness"?

Law student: Yes. They consider it an empty concept.

[pclayton]

Well, maybe the enforcer. Who do you think decides on taxes? Who do you think passes tax codes? Who do you think comes up with the interpretations and regulations?

When the 'interpretations' and 'rulings' of this labyrinth become as important as the codes themselves then I would agree with you.

 

The IRS is no different than the EPA, DFW and rogue agencies that feel the need to set policy.

[kenberg]

In discussing with friends the European taxes, VAT and Income, it was mentioned that some countries, Sweden and Germany were mentioned, have a religious tax. I'm rarely struck speechless but this qualifies. Is it true?

 

I apologize for being the uniformed American, but I was totally unaware of this and I want to check back for verification.

[helene_t]

It means that churches use the revenue service for collecting membership fees. It's a purely administrative thing. It's not important.

[Winstonm]

Slightly off topic, but a Louisianna jury acquited an attorney named Tom Cryer of criminal charges.

 

Unlike the snakeoil salesman that raled againt IRS and ended in prison, this attorney took a reasoned approach.

 

World Net Daily reported:

 

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

 

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income

.

 

As he pointed out, WalMart may sell billions of dollars worth of goods but are not taxed on total sales - they back out the costs and are only taxed on profits; alternately, wages are taxed as if they were 100% profits.

 

An interesting concept.

[helene_t]

I think it's silly to take such philosophical issues to court. The law is quite clear.

[ArtK78]

Slightly off topic, but a Louisianna jury acquited an attorney named Tom Cryer of criminal charges of tax evasion.

 

Unlike the snakeoil salesman that raled againt IRS and ended in prison, this attorney took a reasoned approach.

 

World Net Daily reported:

 

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

 

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income

.

 

As he pointed out, WalMart may sell billions of dollars worth of goods but are not taxed on total sales - they back out the costs and are only taxed on profits; alternately, wages are taxed as if they were 100% profits.

 

An interesting concept.

No, that is not true.

 

The government dropped the charges of tax evasion before trial. He was acquitted of two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns. He argued to the jury that he did not believe that he had to file any tax returns, so he did not willfully fail to file. The jury bought it.

 

At trial, Cryer did not argue that the income tax was not valid or that it did not apply to him. So all of the crap being sent out over the internet that the Income Tax is not lawful is just that - crap.

 

This is an isolated case. And a silly jury.

[Winstonm]

Slightly off topic, but a Louisianna jury acquited an attorney named Tom Cryer of criminal charges of tax evasion.

 

Unlike the snakeoil salesman that raled againt IRS and ended in prison, this attorney took a reasoned approach.

 

World Net Daily reported:

 

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

 

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income

.

 

As he pointed out, WalMart may sell billions of dollars worth of goods but are not taxed on total sales - they back out the costs and are only taxed on profits; alternately, wages are taxed as if they were 100% profits.

 

An interesting concept.

No, that is not true.

 

All that happened was that 2 of the 4 counts of the indictment against Tom Cryer were dismissed because they were "lesser included offenses." In other words, there were 4 counts to the indictment against him, but the charges in two of them included the charges in the other two.

 

No jury has found him not guilty of tax evasion.

O.K., thanks for the clarification.

[jdonn]

So when I watched the GOP debate, did I hear Mike Huckabee right that instituting a fair tax would raise the same amount of revenue, but cost every individual group of tax payers (poor, middle class, wealthy, elderly) less? I don't know what makes me shake my head more, that he would say something like that if he knew it wasn't true, or that he might believe it's true.

[ArtK78]

Winstonm, I rechecked the case. My edited post is above. You quoted from my post prior to the edit.

 

Sorry about that.

 

In any case, the bottom line is that he was not acquitted of tax evasion. For whatever reason, the government dropped those charges prior to trial. He was acquitted of two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

[helene_t]

In Denmark they have a politician who promises tail wind on the bicycle paths. And the U.S. patent offices receive a remarkable number each year of applications related to perpetuum mobile.

[ArtK78]

So when I watched the GOP debate, did I hear Mike Huckabee right that instituting a fair tax would raise the same amount of revenue, but cost every individual group of tax payers (poor, middle class, wealthy, elderly) less? I don't know what makes me shake my head more, that he would say something like that if he knew it wasn't true, or that he might believe it's true.

So, Huckabee says that everyone would pay less but the total raised by the government would be the same.

 

Interesting concept.

 

When did 1+1 stop being equal to 2?

[cherdano]

In discussing with friends the European taxes, VAT and Income, it was mentioned that some countries, Sweden and Germany were mentioned, have a religious tax. I'm rarely struck speechless but this qualifies. Is it true?

 

I apologize for being the uniformed American, but I was totally unaware of this and I want to check back for verification.

If you choose to be a member of one of the two big churches in Germany (Lutherian-protestant and catholic), you pay an additional eight or nine percent of taxes that is passed on to your church. (The state gets some cut for the administrative handling of collecting the taxes.)

Unlike Helene I would say this is a big thing, the membership fees for these churches are regulated by law and collected by the state, in contradiction to the "separation of government in church" that is supposed to exist in Germany.

[Winstonm]

Winstronm, I rechecked the case. My edited post is above. You quoted from my post prior to the edit.

 

Sorry about that.

 

In any case, the bottom line is that he was not acquitted of tax evasion. For whatever reason, the government dropped those charges prior to trial. He was acquitted of two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

I appreciate the help and research. I altered my above post, as well, to refelct that it was not income tax evasion - however, as I understand it, the charges were still criminal in nature. Is that correct?

[Winstonm]

So when I watched the GOP debate, did I hear Mike Huckabee right that instituting a fair tax would raise the same amount of revenue, but cost every individual group of tax payers (poor, middle class, wealthy, elderly) less? I don't know what makes me shake my head more, that he would say something like that if he knew it wasn't true, or that he might believe it's true.

So, Huckabee says that everyone would pay less but the total raised by the government would be the same.

 

Interesting concept.

 

When did 1+1 stop being equal to 2?

Gee, haven't you heard of supply-slide economics? :(

[Winstonm]

For the sake of accuracy.

From The Shreveport Times:

 

A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.

 

A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.

 

And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial.

[ArtK78]

Winstonm, I rechecked the case.  My edited post is above.  You quoted from my post prior to the edit.

 

Sorry about that.

 

In any case, the bottom line is that he was not acquitted of tax evasion.  For whatever reason, the government dropped those charges prior to trial.  He was acquitted of two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

I appreciate the help and research. I altered my above post, as well, to refelct that it was not income tax evasion - however, as I understand it, the charges were still criminal in nature. Is that correct?

Yes, the charges were criminal in nature. And that is the reason he got off. The jury could not convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of willful failure to file. Hard to imagine how they came to that conclusion.

 

If the charges were civil in nature, the standard would be a preponderance of the evidence. I strongly suspect that the jury would have found in favor of the government in that event.

 

What is missing from these reports is the result of any civil proceedings against Mr. Cryer. In other words, did the government get any taxes, penalties and interest from him?