Flat Tax or Graduated Tax?

[Apathy]

My dad and I were discussing taxes today and he believes that a flat tax would be much better than a graduated tax. He believes its simplicity would save the average American both money and time. Which one do you believe is the better system?

[sferrin]

Considering the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes per dollar of income a flat tax would RAISE the taxes of the middle class to achieve the same revenue.

[James]

Flat tax or a national sales tax in the U.S.

[Apathy]

Flat tax or a national sales tax in the U.S.

What are the advantages of having a national sales tax?

[annihilation]

Considering the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes per dollar of income a flat tax would RAISE the taxes of the middle class to achieve the same revenue.

They do? Then they need to get better accountants because they are getting screwed. there are so many loopholes in the current tax system.

[daily666]

We have a flat corporate income tax in Poland for all the companies and self-employed at 19%. It's a good choice . Sadly the govt. is afraid to introduce something similar for the personal income tax.

[CG51]

I believe the middle class burdens the majority of the tax revenue of this country. A flat tax is fine by me. What would the national sales tax percentage be?

[signatory]

What are the advantages of having a national sales tax?

People who don't pay tax at all (for various reasons) will then with a national sales tax also contribute to the national services the state provides. Such as defense, infrastructure and so on.

Can't say if it would be a good idea or not... but I am usually for letting people keep all their income. Then finance services with various fees or a sales tax. Would give a better receipt as to what the money go to.

[ElHombre]

Apathy,

Ask your Dad how he would feel if most of his deductions (such as mortgage and state income tax deductions) were taken away, because that's what would happen if a flat tax were implemented. That's the part of the income tax that drives most people nuts. Take them away and you'll find that middle and lower income folks would see their income taxes skyrocket.

[~center~]

Simple, get rid of the Federal Reserve and let the US Goverenment print money instead of private banks. This will get rid of the IRS and the incom tax Americans pay. :cantbeli:

[Abolith]

They do? Then they need to get better accountants because they are getting screwed. there are so many loopholes in the current tax system.

doesn't change the fact that the rich pay FAR more than everyone else.


# In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.




Apathy,

Ask your Dad how he would feel if most of his deductions (such as mortgage and state income tax deductions) were taken away, because that's what would happen if a flat tax were implemented. That's the part of the income tax that drives most people nuts. Take them away and you'll find that middle and lower income folks would see their income taxes skyrocket.


yup, I alone would see my personal income tax more than double.

[James]

What are the advantages of having a national sales tax?

It's tied to spending, not income. If wealthier people spend more money, they will pay more taxes, but they aren't unfairly forced to bear a higher tax burden than the general population.

It can also be a really simple system. We could do away with the IRS.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I'd like to see flat tax here in the UK for the same reasons. Unfortunately I think hell is likely to freeze over first.

[martinexsquaddie]

its like liberatianism a nice idea in theory lousy in practice

[a_very_ex_STAB]

its like liberatianism a nice idea in theory lousy in practice

So you the like the idea of the state treating you like a child?

[Calanen]

My dad and I were discussing taxes today and he believes that a flat tax would be much better than a graduated tax. He believes its simplicity would save the average American both money and time. Which one do you believe is the better system?

You already have flat taxes - Sales tax. I assume you mean, flat Federal income tax.

The time and money spent on taxes arises not from whether it's flat or progressive. It comes from the many deductions permitted and rules surrounding them, as well as from the more novel taxes on capital gains and so on... The tax laws in both the USA and Australia are diabolical, which led a businessman friend of mine to complain 'We are all exposed, not because we don't want to comply, but because we dont know what we are supposed to be doing. And no one can tell us....'

[nognig]

What are the advantages of having a national sales tax?

A national sales tax would capture a lot of revenue from the black market. Pimps and drug dealers still need to buy stuff.

It would be a fair tax as well, since tax rate would be tied to consumption. It would make sense to make certain items tax free (i.e. groceries).

NN

[Herrmannek]

head tax...

[annihilation]

doesn't change the fact that the rich pay FAR more than everyone else.


# In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.






yup, I alone would see my personal income tax more than double.

Now do those figures include individuals who end up paying no taxes in the end or not? Not like I don't trust your figures, but I'd like to see how they caculated those numbers. There are a huge percentage that pay virtually no taxes and I wonder if they get tossed in the mix.

[annihilation]

Thats the thing the flat tax sounds like a great idea. But then we would loose all of our deductions, then people start to bitch, because they want their deduction.

I just want a simplified tax system with no deductions and removed loopholes. I think its bull**** that companies can setup shop in the grand caymans (sp?) and get away with it. Yet congress does nothing about it. Its estimated we loose 70 billion dollars a year (I'm not to sure if that was accurate).

[Scrim]

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
For Gods sake get rid of the IRS.

[Martial]

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
For Gods sake get rid of the IRS.


This is the way to go, right here.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[bryanleu2002]

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
For Gods sake get rid of the IRS.

The FAIRTAX: A TROJAN HORSE FOR AMERICA?

By Claire Wolfe & Aaron Zelman


http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm (http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm)


We're likely to end up with both a national sales tax and an income tax. Even if legislation required abolition of the income tax (as HR 25 does), a “national crisis” would soon cause the income tax to be “temporarily re-instated” and the Internal Revenue Service would remain in our lives on an “emergency basis” that never ended.

What type of tax do we propose instead? Now comes the moment where we're supposed to propose our alternative. “Be constructive,” someone will demand. “If you don't like their proposal, what have you got to offer that's better?”


Here's our alternative: Nothing.


Ban the income tax, definitely. Banish it. Disband the Internal Revenue Service and auction their buildings to the highest bidder. Let all the IRS auditors, clerks, and armed enforcers get honest jobs.


But don't replace the income tax with any tax, of any variety.
The United States survived until 1913 without an income tax. It survived until World War II without wage withholding (a federal trick “for the duration of the war” that increased tax collections enormously).


The income tax has enabled and encouraged wild governmental spending sprees. And irony of ironies, the federal government has now gotten so drunk on reckless spending and its attendant debt that (5 (http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm#fn5)) an amount equivalent to all the income taxes collected west of the Mississippi River accomplishes nothing but helping pay the interest on that debt! You pay and pay and you're not even getting government services for your money. Just paying off debt that should never have been incurred – and probably wouldn't have been incurred if Americans hadn't been forced to hand over so much money to government.


If you want smaller government, then don't spend your time thinking of “better” ways to feed big government. If you want freedom, don't fall for ploys that simply enable to government to find new routes into your pocket and your life.


If you want to tame the beast of tyranny – starve it into submission. Ban the income tax. Trash the unFairTax. And put the government back on a leash.


http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm

[bryanleu2002]

For those voteing for a graduated income tax. read the 2nd plank to the communist manifesto

Flat Tax http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar2.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar2-r.gif 15 62.50% Graduated Tax http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar3.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar3-r.gif 9 37.50%

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c..[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#_note-2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

[annihilation]

So number 10 also looks fimiliar, point is?


For those voteing for a graduated income tax. read the 2nd plank to the communist manifesto

Flat Tax http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar2.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar2-r.gif 15 62.50% Graduated Tax http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar3.gifhttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/polls/bar3-r.gif 9 37.50%

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c..[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#_note-2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

[bryanleu2002]

So number 10 also looks fimiliar, point is?

No point, Just Conjecture.

[nahimov]

It's tied to spending, not income. If wealthier people spend more money, they will pay more taxes, but they aren't unfairly forced to bear a higher tax burden than the general population.

It can also be a really simple system. We could do away with the IRS.

So I'll just spend all of my money in other countries. If an item is expensive I'll just order it from Canada or something. How many businesses will move and how much money they will lose as a result?

[annihilation]

So I'll just spend all of my money in other countries. If an item is expensive I'll just order it from Canada or something. How many businesses will move and how much money they will lose as a result?

You would still have to back a tax on that item when it gets brought in. Also no more tax free purchases off the internet either.

[Herrmannek]

BTW by flat you mean constant percent of their income(linear tax) or a head tax everyone pay the same money for the head poor or rich?

[nahimov]

You would still have to back a tax on that item when it gets brought in. Also no more tax free purchases off the internet either.

Can you imagine trying to enforce this? Black market would skyrocket.

[annihilation]

Can you imagine trying to enforce this? Black market would skyrocket.

Well people go around the law all the time. People go on vacation and buy some jewelry. They mail the box home and wear the item back home on the plane. Customes then asks if that was bought and all you have to say no we brought it with us on our vacation.


The internet, there would be ways to take care of that. Everyone here uses 1 of 3 or 4 major credit card companies. The tax can be taken / withheld by the credit card from what ever the end of the month bill is.

[tyovan]

Graduated taxes are just. The rich earn more, so its logical that they should pay more. The poor and middle class are worse off under a flat tax system.

In Pennsylvania right now, the minimum wage is $6.25 per hour. Based on a 40 hour week, 52 weeks per year, this is a yearly income of $13,000. Lets say we set the flat tax rate at 10%. This minimum wage earner will pay $1,300 in taxes, leaving them with $11,700 left after taxes. They're gonna be struggling.

Now somebody making $1,000,000 per year, taxed at a flat rate of 10%, will have to pay $100,000. After taxes, their income will be $900,000. They'll be doing fine and their lifestyle won't be that much different.

Under the current (graduated tax system), the minimum wage earner will pay $193.78 in taxes, leaving them with an after tax income of $12,806.22. The person earning $1,000,000 will have to pay $90,871.35 leaving them with an after tax income of $909,128.65.

Under flat tax, the minimum wage earner will be paying almost seven times as much in taxes, while the millionaire will be paying almost ten percent less in taxes!!!!

What the hell kind of fair system makes the poor pay more while the rich pay less?

[Freibier]

What the hell kind of fair system makes the poor pay more while the rich pay less?
That's why unrestricted capitalism sucks

[Mastermind]

It is really a non-worthy discussion. The current tax system is in place because it allows the elected lords of the people...congress persons, the power to give special tax breaks to their supporters...check out the outrageous tax breaks Tyson Chicken gets now...and only Tyson Chicken...because Tyson was a huge supporter of Bill Clinton. This goes on constantly in Washington....that is why the tax code is hundreds of thousands of pages and no one really knows how to intrepret it anymore....not even the IRS. In order to get a fair tax system, one that really taxes every citizen according to their economic ability and status, the politicians would have to give up their fantastic super powers and treat every citizen the same...now, everyone knows, they are never, ever going to do that.

[James]

Can you imagine trying to enforce this? Black market would skyrocket.

Are you Russian?

[James]

Graduated taxes are just. The rich earn more, so its logical that they should pay more. The poor and middle class are worse off under a flat tax system.

In Pennsylvania right now, the minimum wage is $6.25 per hour. Based on a 40 hour week, 52 weeks per year, this is a yearly income of $13,000. Lets say we set the flat tax rate at 10%. This minimum wage earner will pay $1,300 in taxes, leaving them with $11,700 left after taxes. They're gonna be struggling.

Now somebody making $1,000,000 per year, taxed at a flat rate of 10%, will have to pay $100,000. After taxes, their income will be $900,000. They'll be doing fine and their lifestyle won't be that much different.

Under the current (graduated tax system), the minimum wage earner will pay $193.78 in taxes, leaving them with an after tax income of $12,806.22. The person earning $1,000,000 will have to pay $90,871.35 leaving them with an after tax income of $909,128.65.

Under flat tax, the minimum wage earner will be paying almost seven times as much in taxes, while the millionaire will be paying almost ten percent less in taxes!!!!

What the hell kind of fair system makes the poor pay more while the rich pay less?

Where'd you come up with those numbers? They're a bit off; Someone earning $1 million a year in the U.S. will pay around $400K (depending on their creativity at tax time), not $90k.

Making the rich pay more is like a penalty for being successful. Regardless, my primary interest is in making it easier for those of us who pay taxes.

[Herrmannek]

What the hell kind of fair system makes the poor pay more while the rich pay less?

Wow I can't see how 100,000$ is less than 1,600$... Its some commie mathematics...

[nahimov]

Are you Russian?

Russian-American

[Mastermind]

Where'd you come up with those numbers? They're a bit off; Someone earning $1 million a year in the U.S. will pay around $400K (depending on their creativity at tax time), not $90k.

Making the rich pay more is like a penalty for being successful. Regardless, my primary interest is in making it easier for those of us who pay taxes.
Yes...that number is rediculous for the million dollar guy. Unless, of course, he had tremendous business losses that year...or lost his arse at the casino ...losses like that are deductable now days if you do your betting right. Heh...but, if I lost enough to get my million dollar income tax down to only less than 90 grand, I would be inclined to go off and slash my wrists...

[tyovan]

Damn, my numbers are off. Trying to make an enlightened post and talk to the girlfriend on the phone at the same time isn't recommended.

I'll run the numbers again tomorrow and post then.

[Smersh]

Get rid of the IRS, all of the income tax goes to paying interest owed to bankers.

Solves the debate over graduated versus flat income tax

[Limeyfellow]

What are the advantages of having a national sales tax?

Rich people spend less of their overall earnings so they would keep more of their money, while poorer families have to spend the majority of their earnings on rent, food and services so they would pay far more of their money. Its a nice way to move the tax burden towards poorer people.

[~center~]

Most of you are focusing too much on the TAX issue which would not even exist if Congress used their power to abolish the Federal Reserve system, which is why we pay an incom tax in the first place.
So really, a flat tax or any other for that matter is irrelevant.

[Douros81]

No tax at all.

[sferrin]

No tax at all.

Yeah that would be great. I wonder if you'd be one of the first to complain if somebody didn't fix the roads and the nation reverted to anarchy (no cops, firemen, no laws, no military and so on and so forth.)

[Douros81]

Yeah that would be great. I wonder if you'd be one of the first to complain if somebody didn't fix the roads and the nation reverted to anarchy (no cops, firemen, no laws, no military and so on and so forth.)


Taxes suck, get rid of SS tax and I would be happy.:-*$

[~center~]

Yeah that would be great. I wonder if you'd be one of the first to complain if somebody didn't fix the roads and the nation reverted to anarchy (no cops, firemen, no laws, no military and so on and so forth.)

LOL, you think your federal incom taxes fix that stuff?!!! Your STATE taxes take care of all that.

[D-gin]

I for one would be happy if they would getrid of the death tax.

[Calanen]

Graduated taxes are just. The rich earn more, so its logical that they should pay more. The poor and middle class are worse off under a flat tax system.


The rich pay a lot of tax proportionately in terms of cash, but, don't pay a lot of tax percentage wise. Too many deductions. If you have enough money, its pretty easy to organise your affairs so you pay very little tax. Its the middle class who get PAYE taken out of their salaries that cant avoid it.

Its not an easy issue however. If you slam high earners too hard, you lose your best people to other countries.

[bryanleu2002]

If you want to live free and not pay the "income tax" try this site

good luck,

http://livefreenow.org/presidents_letter.cfm (http://livefreenow.org/presidents_letter.cfm)

Catalog-http://livefreenow.org/downloads/Freedom_Catalog.pdf

I am not condoning any of the above, and am not encouraging anyone not to pay taxes.

I pay my taxes dutifuly, and you should too....

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

At the end of the day. The current tax regimes in all developed nations is grossly unfair for low income earners.

I would much rather all taxes be abolished and a flat tax be put on purchases. It's as simple as that. The poor can't say they are getting screwed. (Although the poor always get ****ing screwed) and the rich can't say they are paying for the poor people.

[tyovan]

Ok, here is where I'm getting my numbers from. Page 13 of this publication from the IRS for rate calculations: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

This shows the standard deduction amount for an individual at $5,150: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p501/ar02.html#d0e6024



Current Graduated System
Minimum wage earner ($13,000 per year) Pays $800 in federal income taxes (6% of income)

Millionaire pays $321,448 in federal income taxes (32% of income)


Flat Tax System - Taxed at 10%
Minimum wage earner ($13,000 per year) Pays $1,300 in federal income taxes (162% more in taxes than under the graduated income tax)

Millionaire pays $100,000 in federal income taxes (which is a mere 31% of what they would have paid under the graduated income tax.




This graduated system poses both moral and ethical problems.

- How will the government make up the lost revenue by lowering the tax rates of the wealthiest members of society?
- How can you in good conscience advocate a tax system which gives money back to the rich while taking more from the poor. You're not being a political conservative, you're being a heartless thief. You're stealing from the mouths and hands of the poor to further enrich the wealthy.

Shame on you sirs.

[Liptow]

We have flat income tax, corporate tax and VAT all at 19%. More, our tax system got much less complicated. No wonder we have an economical growth around 8%. Even our primitive communist PM who got elected by the stupidity of the masses didn´t dared to touch it.
The biggest problem when introducing flat tax is jealousness of poorer people towards the richer ones.

[Herrmannek]

- How will the government make up the lost revenue by lowering the tax rates of the wealthiest members of society?

Simple one. Will cut expenses in the welfare/education/ public health care area...

[James]

- How will the government make up the lost revenue by lowering the tax rates of the wealthiest members of society?
- How can you in good conscience advocate a tax system which gives money back to the rich while taking more from the poor. You're not being a political conservative, you're being a heartless thief. You're stealing from the mouths and hands of the poor to further enrich the wealthy.


I think the government should be required to have a balanced budget. I certainly am. I'm also pretty conservative with ideas about government spending for social welfare. In short, I think a lot of expenditures should be done away with or cut back drastically.

I don't think the tax system gives money back to the rich; it takes less away. People below a certain level can be absolved of all taxes and not worry about it.

[tyovan]

While I don't agree with your rugged individualist ideas towards social spending, I'm glad to see that you won't screw over the poor with your tax proposals.


Haven't seen you post for a while James, so welcome back to the forums :)



@ Hermannek:
For being so religious, maybe you should read your Bible more.
"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me."

[sferrin]

LOL, you think your federal incom taxes fix that stuff?!!! Your STATE taxes take care of all that.



Since when does "taxes" not include state?

[~center~]

Since when does "taxes" not include state?

The descussion at hand is not about state taxes, it's about federal taxes. The states are free to tax whatever they like; If you don't like it move to another state. There are plenty of states who have zero sales taxes and zero incom tax.

[Herrmannek]

@ Hermannek:
For being so religious, maybe you should read your Bible more.
"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me."

How there is "me/you" in obligatory paid taxes? Bible is clear about this. You don't go to heaven because you pay taxes... You could say, maybe paying taxes don't lead you to the heaven, but supporting taxes that can save so many do.. And I tell you NO, giving someone else's money don't warranty you heaven either... Its a persons own responsibility to use his wisdom, his own resources and his attention to help other not to pass this responsibility as it was fire and forget missile... social use of taxes is evil deed...

[Mastermind]

Herrmannek said it all....It is not the governemnt's responsibility to redistribute the wealth of the citizens.

[Durandal]

doesn't change the fact that the rich pay FAR more than everyone else.

*chuckle*

The rich will always pay MORE than the those with incomes less than theirs.

Flat tax or graduated.

I am all for simple is better. If it means a loss in revenue (and it won't) then tighten the belt and spend appropriately. Its not like "not having the money" has prevented us from writing trillions in debt all ready. p-)


But, tax code is a business. Like any good business, there are special interest groups that do two things simply fund politicians to keep their money flow (accountants and their firms) and activists for the poor that somehow claim the poor will be affected by this when there are all sort of simple solutions to this.

I mean, the tax code is simply ridiculous, not because I cannot read it, but because I simply do not have the time to read it and make sure EVERY stinking year that I am taking proper advantage of the system (which should be every American's goal) and making sure the government gets the most minimal amount of money short of a penalty that you can (after all, if you are sort your are penalized but of they have taken to much, they are not).

If you get a tax return the government has STOLEN from you.

What kills me is that people are actually HAPPY they get a tax return.

Idiots...

[PPSH41]

I think the first step to changing the tax system would be to stop companies from deducting taxes from each paycheck. People have become so complacent as they never even see the money taken from them. It gets removed unquestioned as they don't know any different. Most people don't even view it as being their money. It is removed before they ever touch it!

I believe if you made people write a personal check for $10,000 and send it to uncle sam every April 15, things would change quickly.

[Durandal]

The descussion at hand is not about state taxes, it's about federal taxes. The states are free to tax whatever they like; If you don't like it move to another state. There are plenty of states who have zero sales taxes and zero incom tax.

Actually there are not "plenty" There are a small number...

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not have a income tax.

Less than 10.

Of those only Alaska and New Hampshire have no sales tax...

And of those two ONLY New Hampshire TRULY has no sales tax since Alaska allows municipalities to charge sales tax.

1 of 50 (52 if you include D.C. and Puerto Rico)

Live Free OR Die.

[Hollis]

Actually there are not "plenty" There are a small number...

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not have a income tax.

Less than 10.

Of those only Alaska and New Hampshire have no sales tax...

And of those two ONLY New Hampshire TRULY has no sales tax since Alaska allows municipalities to charge sales tax.

1 of 50 (52 if you include D.C. and Puerto Rico)

Live Free OR Die.


To add Oregon has no sales tax, but has one of the highest personal income tax. States w/o sales tax are rare.

[Mastermind]

The most fair tax is the gasoline or fuel tax. Everyone who uses the highways, pay the tax. Of course, now, the fuel tax has begun to take over as a prime source of income for the politicians...the higher the price of gas, the more the state rakes in...that on top of the sales tax on it and the flat "highway tax" and the newer "general fund" taxes placed on it. The Federal government charges about 20 cents a gallon and the states add on from 40 cents (California) to about 16 cents (New Mexico). This is the tax consumers pay at the pump. but, I found out there are hidden taxes on a gallon of gasoline now. Most states charge the refiners and transporters of gasoline and fuel more at the terminals and the refineries. There are from 1.75% value added tax to prices per actual gallon for fules refined in the state, fueld transported into the state and fuels just blended in the state but refined elsewhere. These "value added" taxes are seldom noticed by the consumers except int he outragous pump prices.

The only saving grace is, if you dirve, regardless of if you are wealthy, poor, criminal or otherwise...you pay the tax. The only ones exempt are the people who don't buy fuel...but, they pay for it in higher food, clothing, transportation, etc costs.

[~center~]

*chuckle*

The rich will always pay MORE than the those with incomes less than theirs.

Flat tax or graduated.

I am all for simple is better. If it means a loss in revenue (and it won't) then tighten the belt and spend appropriately. Its not like "not having the money" has prevented us from writing trillions in debt all ready. p-)


But, tax code is a business. Like any good business, there are special interest groups that do two things simply fund politicians to keep their money flow (accountants and their firms) and activists for the poor that somehow claim the poor will be affected by this when there are all sort of simple solutions to this.

I mean, the tax code is simply ridiculous, not because I cannot read it, but because I simply do not have the time to read it and make sure EVERY stinking year that I am taking proper advantage of the system (which should be every American's goal) and making sure the government gets the most minimal amount of money short of a penalty that you can (after all, if you are sort your are penalized but of they have taken to much, they are not).

If you get a tax return the government has STOLEN from you.

What kills me is that people are actually HAPPY they get a tax return.

Idiots...

EXACTLY!!!


Actually there are not "plenty" There are a small number...

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming do not have a income tax.

Less than 10.

Of those only Alaska and New Hampshire have no sales tax...

And of those two ONLY New Hampshire TRULY has no sales tax since Alaska allows municipalities to charge sales tax.

1 of 50 (52 if you include D.C. and Puerto Rico)

Live Free OR Die.

LOL, well I didn't really mean, "plenty" as if their was half the Union you could move too and not pay taxes. :)

[Laconian]

I like the Fair Tax idea. I read Neal Boortz's book but I just don't see anyone really attempting to put it in place. Politcally, I've heard folks (candidates) say they like, but just don't see it making it out of committee.
I am also one of those sheep who let my HouseHold 6 do all the taxes. When I signed my returns this year I realized I paid more in taxes this year than I made as a 2LT in '85.

I'd like to keep more of my money so it could fuel my mid-life crisis...

[Bert]

No tax.

Tax is by definition encroachment on individual sovereignity and theft because noone agrees to it voluntarily, and in society only voluntary actions should be lawful, not coercive actions.

Government should be small enough to be able to fund itself by participating in the free market - if it needs to steal from its people, it has expanded its mandate way beyond the protection of life, liberty and property.

[Mastermind]

No tax.

Tax is by definition encroachment on individual sovereignity and theft because noone agrees to it voluntarily, and in society only voluntary actions should be lawful, not coercive actions.

Government should be small enough to be able to fund itself by participating in the free market - if it needs to steal from its people, it has expanded its mandate way beyond the protection of life, liberty and property.
Very well said...and I fully agree.....but, then, we have to face the dreaded reality of life. I guess we must be coerced by our governemnt to pay fo the things we need to defend us from being coerced for taxes by some other government we may like even less.

What can you do...?

[Smersh]

To think a state can be wholly voluntary and have no coercive elements is utopian, no matter how "democratic".

[Bert]

To think a state can be wholly voluntary and have no coercive elements is utopian, no matter how "democratic".

Yeah, because the powers that be who have managed to appropriate for themselves the monopoly of force and monopoly of theft will not relinquish such acquired rights that easily.

[tyovan]

To think a state can be wholly voluntary and have no coercive elements is utopian, no matter how "democratic".

The anthropological definition of a state is that it rules by force. Otherwise it would just be one REALLY big chiefdom.

[Mastermind]

Yeah, because the powers that be who have managed to appropriate for themselves the monopoly of force and monopoly of theft will not relinquish such acquired rights that easily.
Try this little exercise I was introduced to in a law class many years ago: Imagine a bunch of cave men and their families. This group lives in the vicinity of a cave in pre-historic France...they survive by managing to follow game by seasons, pick wild fruits, nuts, berries and roots in the warm months and live by carefully rationing out their gathered supplies through the harsh winters. They consist of about 35 individuals.
what "rules" do you suppose they might have? Do you think they have a leader? Do you think they have crime? Do you think they have punishment for violation of rules? Do you think rules are necessary for them to survive? Are they living under a democratic system, an autocratic system? What do you suppose they do when a memeber of the tribe goes insane? What do they do with their elderly and infirm? what do you suppose they do with infants born with birth defects? What do you think they would do with people who refuse to help gather food or go on a hunt? When they are threatened by predatory animals or other tribes, what do you think they do with people who refuse to help defend their family? Do you think they practiced abortion or infantacide? Do you think they lived in a utopian society?

These questions (and many others on the subject) really put things in perspective for us. The discussion made us realise that many of the things we do today are luxuries...we have so many specialists in our society, we fail to grasp the nature of the world for ourselves. We have others defending us, feeding us, taking care of our elderly, infirm, and unstable. We have the luxury of being able to lock up our criminals, when there was a time we simply could not afford to tolerate them. Indigenous American Indians...even after the arrival of the White men, left their infirm, elderly and infants with birth defects on the trail to die by wild animal attack or starvation...even their dearly beloved family members.

If you enlarge the group all the way up to our modern day, you can see, any way of life requires rules. Even a man living alone on a deserted island must have rules to live by...it is called "Discipline"...without it, you will die. In any society, no matter how small or large, you must have rules and you must enforce those rules...we call them laws, of course.

You could say the real difference between liberals and conservatives really comes down to intrepretation, enforcement and evolution of the rules we all have chosen to live under. Clearly, liberals would like to relax the laws and ignore many laws and yet, grandly "broaden" the laws, while conservative would like to narrow the intrepretations of law, more strictly enforce the laws and to stop the evolution of laws.

the real question comes down to this...as laws are liberalized, do they enhance our security, happiness, and way of life or does liberalism endanger those factors? How does conservativism enhance our chances for preserving our way of life and ensuring our culture will survive for our future generations? We all are evolutionary creatures...I certainly am more liberal than I was as a boy...and at the same time, I am far less enthusiasic about our future...I am much more cynical as I have learned so much about life in general since then...I am far less idealistic. But, the demands of my youth are exactly the same demands of the youth of today. I resist change and long for "The good old days" ...yet, I can not say we were happier,or more secure then than we are today.

So taxes, laws, politicians, police, leaders, parents and impatient, rowdy children can be said to be a necessity of life we simply can never avoid. It is never going to be "fair" and none of us will ever like it the way it is. But, it all comes down to an everlasting compromise between the State and the individual. When compromise is at last intolerable by either side, one or the other must and will be forced to change.

[Bert]

You think I'm an anarchist? I am against the initiation of aggression on parties which have done nothing to deserve this aggression - the enforcement of law, apprehension of criminals and response to an initial aggression does not fall under this. Tax collection does. The idea that a state, rendered an immune monopoly, is granted the right to theft to the betterment of society would be completely foreign to any rational individual not many centuries ago. It is a vestige of the absolute monarchy and rulers claiming divine rights.

I want a government that warrants its right to exist rather than claim it by force. I want a government that protects life, liberty and property rather than intrude on every one of those domains whenever such an intrusion is deemed the 'common good'. See eminent domain, taxation, conscription.

[Mastermind]

So. it is not governemnt that is the problem...it is the size of the government. Is there a correlation between the size of governement and the size of the governed body? Would there not follow another correlation....that the more people there are to govern the stricter the laws must be, the more laws there must be and the more empowered the governement must be. Rather like thinking of a ship...the larger the ship, the more massive the timbers must be that it is made of.

Don't misunderstand...I am no pal of big government...I am just trying to keep it all in perspective so I can make some sense of it all.

[Bert]

So. it is not governemnt that is the problem...it is the size of the government. Is there a correlation between the size of governement and the size of the governed body? Would there not follow another correlation....that the more people there are to govern the stricter the laws must be, the more laws there must be and the more empowered the governement must be. Rather like thinking of a ship...the larger the ship, the more massive the timbers must be that it is made of.

Don't misunderstand...I am no pal of big government...I am just trying to keep it all in perspective so I can make some sense of it all.

Government must be as small as possible, and you are right in the fact that the smaller the country, the smaller the government needs to be. It's no coincidence that in nearly all 'happiness' polls, small countries end up on top.

[Smersh]

Try this little exercise I was introduced to in a law class many years ago: Imagine a bunch of cave men and their families. This group lives in the vicinity of a cave in pre-historic France..."The State" in the definition we are talking about, came about in Europe in the 15th century, like Bert said "It is a vestige of the absolute monarchy and rulers claiming divine rights." Rules, organization and political forms i.e government type, should not be confused with the state.

[supersnipersgirl]

Graduated taxes are just. The rich earn more, so its logical that they should pay more. The poor and middle class are worse off under a flat tax system.


What the hell kind of fair system makes the poor pay more while the rich pay less?

What kind of system takes MY hard working, educated and well earned paycheck and gives it to people too lazy to do the same? If 'they' want more money, 'they' can get their hand out of MY pocket and get a better or second job like I have done my entire life! I grew up on welfare in a trailer in the hills. I am now (100% independent of assistance since the age of 18!) comfortable and still aspiring. There are a million programs to help EVERYONE in this country better themselves. And I dont want to hear "cant work more, need childcare etc" I may not get to have children as my clock is ticking against me but that was MY choice. Americans need to learn to live with the choices they make and stop blaming everyone else!

Like I tell every street corner beggar, 'I gave at the office, Uncle Sam has your money.'

Forget about the amount I make versus what others make (take into consideration that beggar who makes nothing), would it be fair for the Gov to tax you 28% of YOUR paycheck to help that man who is worse off than you? YOU appear rich to him.

End of rant, now i dont need to go to the gym to get my cardio today. Thanks.

[perdurabo]

Americans need to learn to live with the choices they make and stop blaming everyone else!
I think this should be applied to every human beeing! (not only yanks)