Plane crashes into Austin office building

[CowboyMcCoy]

True. I meant that it needs to be simplified to the point where it is a simple flat tax and there is no loopholes.

Preferably, I would prefer an overall federal consumption tax and get rid of the IRS as we know it all together.

That way everyone who is making a purchase contributes in their own economic situation equally.

I would also exclude certain necessary items from this tax to ensure people weren't burdened buying food and such.

A simple flat tax would work for you and me. But the corporations who lobby in Washington would hate it. Thus, it will never happen under our current political system. Any politician who promises that is lying through their teeth.

 

[theogt]

A simple flat tax would work for you and me. But the corporations who lobby in Washington would hate it. Thus, it will never happen under our current political system. Any politician who promises that is lying through their teeth.

People with kids who depend on the child tax credits would hate it too.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

People with kids who depend on the child tax credits would hate it too.

True but people without kids like myself who get "nothing" from the government would love it.

 

[WoodysGirl]

True but people without kids like myself who get "nothing" from the government would love it.

I get your point, but "nothing" is a pretty relative thing.

There are enough tax deductions and credit that I've consistently gotten a refund, even with no children.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

People with kids who depend on the child tax credits would hate it too.

It would make the credit obsolete. You would just pay for what you use and you would keep EVERY dollar you earn prior to that.

So if you make 500.00 a week, your pay check would be 500.00 regardless of deductions or taxes.

Then when you go to buy something you would then pay a tax on that.

Want to pay lower taxes? Don't buy an expensive car. If you can afford it, then do so.

People who think the government is giving them something for free when they get a refund are fooling themselves.

Where do you think they got the money in the first place.

It's called a refund for a reason. They took too much to start with.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I get your point, but "nothing" is a pretty relative thing.

There are enough tax deductions and credit that I've consistently gotten a refund, even with no children.

But WG, the refund you are getting is money you already paid in. You shouldn't have had to pay the "extra" to the government. Did they pay you interest for using that "extra" money while they had it?

You can't look at a refund/deductions like the government is giving you something. In essence they are taking it from you and then to appease you, they give you some back.

Put simply, if you went to your local grocery store and each week you bought a gallon of milk. Let's say you pay 5.00 for that mike, every week. That's 260.00 a year you spent in milk.

But at the end of the year, the store said, you know what? We over charged you. It should only be 4.00 per gallon so here is 52.00 back from this last year.

The next year the same thing happens. Will you keep going back to the same store? No, you wouldn't.

Especially if you found out that the real cost of that milk should have been 3.00 and the stole and extra 52.00 from you.

This is why I said that a flat tax or a consumption tax would be better than letting the government play with my money for a whole year.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

A simple flat tax would work for you and me. But the corporations who lobby in Washington would hate it. Thus, it will never happen under our current political system. Any politician who promises that is lying through their teeth.

You would support a flat tax, which is innately non-progressive? Seriously? Color me shocked!

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You would support a flat tax, which is innately non-progressive? Seriously? Color me shocked!

Because when people take the politics out of things they can see more clearly. That's for conservatives and lib..er progressives as well.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The thing is it will never get simpler. Legal entropy is something of a Herculean flux because laws just keep growing and grown and it just creates more loopholes, which creates more statutes being made which creates more loopholes and on and on.... That's how law works in most areas, but especially taxes.

We can wish all we want, but as long as big brother has his way it will never happen.

 

[WoodysGirl]

But WG, the refund you are getting is money you already paid in. You shouldn't have had to pay the "extra" to the government. Did they pay you interest for using that "extra" money while they had it?

You can't look at a refund/deductions like the government is giving you something. In essence they are taking it from you and then to appease you, they give you some back.

Put simply, if you went to your local grocery store and each week you bought a gallon of milk. Let's say you pay 5.00 for that mike, every week. That's 260.00 a year you spent in milk.

But at the end of the year, the store said, you know what? We over charged you. It should only be 4.00 per gallon so here is 52.00 back from this last year.

The next year the same thing happens. Will you keep going back to the same store? No, you wouldn't.

Especially if you found out that the real cost of that milk should have been 3.00 and the stole and extra 52.00 from you.

This is why I said that a flat tax or a consumption tax would be better than letting the government play with my money for a whole year.

I'm aware of everything you've posted in the bold and I work every year in adjusting my exemptions so that the "refund" is minimal. My suggestion to him is that in this current tax system, the idea of getting "nothing" is not exactly true.

It's a slippery slope for single folks like myself. Get taxed the most with fewer deductions.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I'm aware of everything you've posted in the bold and I work every year in adjusting my exemptions so that the "refund" is minimal. My suggestion to him is that in this current tax system, the idea of getting "nothing" is not exactly true.

It's a slippery slope for single folks like myself. Get taxed the most with fewer deductions.

You're right. And it's not fair to single people at all. That is why I really like the consumption tax. You wouldn't have that problem anymore.

Plus it would effectively do away with one of the governments biggest boondoggles of an agency, the IRS.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

The reason the code is so dense is because people look for holes. The code is a hodge podge of government plugging holes.

no.

The reason it is so dense is because the government has spent decades granting favors to individuals doing various things. Then when others use said favor, it is called a loophole.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

The thing is it will never get simpler. Legal entropy is something of a Herculean flux because laws just keep growing and grown and it just creates more loopholes, which creates more statutes being made which creates more loopholes and on and on.... That's how law works in most areas, but especially taxes.

We can wish all we want, but as long as big brother has his way it will never happen.

Correct. That is why those who believe tax increases are never going to be the ones to help change the situation. We get one voice that matters and that's at the ballot box. Regardless of your political stripe, I think everyone would agree that the government takes too much, provides too little and mishandles most of it.

That is why smaller government is a step in the right direction.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

no.

The reason it is so dense is because the government has spent decades granting favors to individuals doing various things. Then when others use said favor, it is called a loophole.

WOW! EB.

Where have you been?

Good to see you on here.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

WOW! EB.

Where have you been?

Good to see you on here.

I read often.

 

[theogt]

It would make the credit obsolete. You would just pay for what you use and you would keep EVERY dollar you earn prior to that.

So if you make 500.00 a week, your pay check would be 500.00 regardless of deductions or taxes.

Then when you go to buy something you would then pay a tax on that.

Want to pay lower taxes? Don't buy an expensive car. If you can afford it, then do so.

That's not a "flat tax." That's a sales tax, which is a regressive tax (i.e., people that make less pay a higher %).

 

[theogt]

no.

The reason it is so dense is because the government has spent decades granting favors to individuals doing various things. Then when others use said favor, it is called a loophole.

You haven't actually ever read the tax code have you?

 

[Eric_Boyer]

You haven't actually ever read the tax code have you?

the whole thing?

nope.

My point remains.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

I get your point, but "nothing" is a pretty relative thing.

There are enough tax deductions and credit that I've consistently gotten a refund, even with no children.

If you are single, live in an apartment and don't own a business, there are very little tax credits you can receive.

I know if I had a ton of kids, I would get more money back from the government. My brother use to date a girl, who's sister had 6 kids and every year they got tons of money from the government.

I know a single mother with 2 kids who pays about $400 in rent in Mckinney, TX because she is a single mother.

I just bought my house last year, I would love to get in on that deal but I can't because I don't have kids and supposedly "make" too much.

So in my "relative" terms, the tax system is fairly annoying for people that fit my demographic.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

That's not a "flat tax." That's a sales tax, which is a regressive tax (i.e., people that make less pay a higher %).

No, I mentioned the flat tax earlier. This is a consumption tax. A consumption tax on non necessary items (food, clothes under a certain dollar amount etc) is what I was referring to. They would pay the same percentage on a consumption tax.

With a flat income tax, again they would pay the same %.

either way, it is a much better wa to go than what we have now.