So we've defined ourselves as "conservative/liberal", now what?

[TXMomof4]

I was reading over the descriptions everyone has given of their political positions. I would have to define myself as fiscally conservative/socially moderate. I want the gov. to go away and leave me alone. While I am a conservative, traditional Christian, I think the gov. needs to get out of families, marriage, etc. Except abortion. Can't go there.

 

ANYWAY

 

The obvious, glaring difference between conservative/liberal was the opinion on taxes. Now, I will admit, the lower the taxes, the happier I'd be. BUT I have no problem paying taxes at a reasonable rate.

 

Here's my problem. We've discussed the problems with public schools to death and almost across the board we agree that throwing more money at the schools won't fix the situation. You've got anywhere from $13,000/student (DC) to $5000/student (MS) being spent each year. The education these kids are receiving isn't fantastic and in most cases, barely sufficient. I haven't looked at test scores in DC vs. MS, but I'll bet the test scores don't double when you double (or more) the spending on each child.

 

The same thing is happening in almost every aspect of gov. spending. Fraud is rampant in Medicare/Medicaid, public assistance of every kind - not necessarily down at the recipient level, but along the way to them.

The care people receive is very basic care, but we spend billions on these programs every year and the answer given on how to fix them seems to be throwing more money at them.

 

Then there is the issue of pork spending - which I KNOW we all agree is out of control. The ridiculous, obnoxious, obscene things our governement spends money on is sickening. They want more though.

 

Defense spending is out of control! And dh is in the Army - I have seen him have to go rewrite a proposal for new computers because he didn't spend enough money originally.

 

Honestly, if we could figure out how to fix the spending problems our country has, we could more than likely fund a public healthcare option without spending a dime more than what's in the budget already. I am NOT in favor of gov. mandated healthcare, but the fact is, the money is there - being spent, stolen or wasted while my taxes are the ones that will keep going up.

 

I guess that's my question/point of discussion.

 

I didn't see a single person in either of the previous posts say they didn't think we should pay ANY taxes. I am fine with paying a reasonable tax to keep my country as amazing as possible. What makes it amazing may be up for discussion, but we can discuss those things. I am NOT fine with being told I'm stingy/greedy/selfish because I don't just hand over my paycheck and smile when the gov. has zero accountability for their spending of my paycheck.

[pdalley]

I was reading over the descriptions everyone has given of their political positions. I would have to define myself as fiscally conservative/socially moderate. I want the gov. to go away and leave me alone. While I am a conservative, traditional Christian, I think the gov. needs to get out of families, marriage, etc. Except abortion. Can't go there.

 

ANYWAY

 

The obvious, glaring difference between conservative/liberal was the opinion on taxes. Now, I will admit, the lower the taxes, the happier I'd be. BUT I have no problem paying taxes at a reasonable rate.

 

Here's my problem. We've discussed the problems with public schools to death and almost across the board we agree that throwing more money at the schools won't fix the situation. You've got anywhere from $13,000/student (DC) to $5000/student (MS) being spent each year. The education these kids are receiving isn't fantastic and in most cases, barely sufficient. I haven't looked at test scores in DC vs. MS, but I'll bet the test scores don't double when you double (or more) the spending on each child.

 

The same thing is happening in almost every aspect of gov. spending. Fraud is rampant in Medicare/Medicaid, public assistance of every kind - not necessarily down at the recipient level, but along the way to them.

The care people receive is very basic care, but we spend billions on these programs every year and the answer given on how to fix them seems to be throwing more money at them.

 

Then there is the issue of pork spending - which I KNOW we all agree is out of control. The ridiculous, obnoxious, obscene things our governement spends money on is sickening. They want more though.

 

Defense spending is out of control! And dh is in the Army - I have seen him have to go rewrite a proposal for new computers because he didn't spend enough money originally.

 

Honestly, if we could figure out how to fix the spending problems our country has, we could more than likely fund a public healthcare option without spending a dime more than what's in the budget already. I am NOT in favor of gov. mandated healthcare, but the fact is, the money is there - being spent, stolen or wasted while my taxes are the ones that will keep going up.

 

I guess that's my question/point of discussion.

 

I didn't see a single person in either of the previous posts say they didn't think we should pay ANY taxes. I am fine with paying a reasonable tax to keep my country as amazing as possible. What makes it amazing may be up for discussion, but we can discuss those things. I am NOT fine with being told I'm stingy/greedy/selfish because I don't just hand over my paycheck and smile when the gov. has zero accountability for their spending of my paycheck.

 

I agree with you on all accounts.

 

I don't see the school situation getting better until the NEA releases its stranglehold. They are raising a stink in Milwaukee because there is no Vigara coverage in their insurance. Most insurances don't cover this. Not the hill to die on - IMO - in a crisis when teachers are threatened with layoffs and all sorts of other pressures. But that's the hill the NEA in that area - thinks is most important at the moment. Tenure - in any job - needs to go or at least there should be an easier process for weeding out the burnout and/or bad teachers that have no business in the classroom. One of my sons bears the physical and emotional scars of such a teacher. Thanks to my biology teacher in public high school I have to learn biology before I can teach it to my kids. He spent 180 days screaming (literally) about the evils of Jerry Fallwell. We learned nada about what he was supposed to be teaching. My mother complained and was told 'he has tenure'. He's still there.

 

And don't get me started on our education lottery that officials are busy taking money out of. The schools have seen very little of that money so far.

 

Across the board I think the issues are accountability and transparency. Neither party and certainly no incumbents are showing me strengths in either area at this time.

 

I do think we have an obligation to help others - the elderly and disabled in particular. If we could just find some way to cut out the waste and fraud I think we'd be pleasantly surprised at how easily these programs could be funded.

 

Some of this I believe can be accomplished by sending people who are NOT career politicians to represent us. People who go - do a job and don't worry about getting re-elected - they come home and go back to the job they had before. Term limits.

[Daisy]

 

Honestly, if we could figure out how to fix the spending problems our country has, we could more than likely fund a public healthcare option without spending a dime more than what's in the budget already. I am NOT in favor of gov. mandated healthcare, but the fact is, the money is there - being spent, stolen or wasted while my taxes are the ones that will keep going up.

 

 

 

:iagree: Amen!

[Hockey Mom]

I agree with everything that has said so far.

 

Additionally, if we implemented some sort of national sales tax, that would bring in money from: illegals, drug dealers, those who hide money, those who work under the table, those who can 'play the system' and utilize the tax holes, and various other people who are getting a free ride in this country.

[Disney Dreaming]

:iagree: AMEN!!!!!!!!

[Lisa in Jax]

I agree with everything that has said so far.

 

Additionally, if we implemented some sort of national sales tax, that would bring in money from: illegals, drug dealers, those who hide money, those who work under the table, those who can 'play the system' and utilize the tax holes, and various other people who are getting a free ride in this country.

 

We need the FAIR TAX! :)

[Hannah C.]

I agree with everything that has said so far.

 

Additionally, if we implemented some sort of national sales tax, that would bring in money from: illegals, drug dealers, those who hide money, those who work under the table, those who can 'play the system' and utilize the tax holes, and various other people who are getting a free ride in this country.

 

What about those states which already have sales tax, though? Are you proposing an additional national sales tax on top of that, or abolishing state sales tax and replacing it with national sales tax? :)

[Mejane]

Slightly OT but related... Does anyone else cringe when they hear of the US pledging $10 million or $10 billion in aid for natural disasters, etc. in foreign countries? (Seems to be happening every other day lately.) My heart goes out to people going through such things, but we have a deficit - we don't have the money! Anyone?

[AuntPol]

Yes Mejane -I feel for others in many situations. I will personally give what I can in my budget and will forego luxuries to get some extra money. However, I don't go take loans to donate. That would be nuts.

 

Yes I agree that spending is out of control. I also don't think military vs welfare is an either/or thing. I was in the Marines. I have seen the waste. I worked in public sector serving many welfare families, I have seen the abuse there too.

 

Just cutting out pork spending would be a start. Does the federal government really need to spend over $700,000 so that some professor (and probably a friend of politician) can go jam with jazz musicians? How is that going to better the life of the everyday citizen. How many jobs is that creating?

[Spy Car]

We've discussed the problems with public schools to death and almost across the board we agree that throwing more money at the schools won't fix the situation.

 

Spending on high-quality education is one of the best and highest uses for tax dollars IMO. I'd object to the term "throwing more money at schools' as wrong-headed. In our school district budgets are being slashed, and that is a shame.

 

Teacher in most districts are paid less than trash collectors, prison guards, police and fire-fighters. They pay is not commensurate with the education we'd hope teachers ideally possess, so often schools don't attract the best and the brightest.

 

And when they do it is because individual teachers choose to make a personal sacrifice of their income potential to educate children rather than seek higher paying employment in the public sector.

 

We need accountability and make sure their is neither waste or incompetency in the schools, but we also need to make sure that educators earn a salary that keeps them in the middle class. And that isn't always the case now.

 

You've got anywhere from $13,000/student (DC) to $5000/student (MS) being spent each year. The education these kids are receiving isn't fantastic and in most cases, barely sufficient. I haven't looked at test scores in DC vs. MS, but I'll bet the test scores don't double when you double (or more) the spending on each child.

 

Except even a 10% difference in a test-score is indicative of a huge increase in performance. A doubling of results is the difference between functional illiteracy and very high achievement. I'm not in favor of cutting school funding to the point school test scores drop 50% as that would be a travesty.

 

I share the feeling that waste, corruption, and lack of accountability ought to be rooted out. Stealing from public funds, which is what some of these abuses clearly are in my mind, are (from my perspective) tantamount to treason. On these matters I'm as much a deficit-hawk as anyone.

 

Bill

[cdrumm4448]

I agree with everything that has said so far.

 

Additionally, if we implemented some sort of national sales tax, that would bring in money from: illegals, drug dealers, those who hide money, those who work under the table, those who can 'play the system' and utilize the tax holes, and various other people who are getting a free ride in this country.

 

Frankly, I don't want to see one.more.tax. I don't care what it would be for. The government (both sides of the aisle) needs to fix the problems we have before they would EVER deserve any more money.

[Hockey Mom]

Frankly, I don't want to see one.more.tax. I don't care what it would be for. The government (both sides of the aisle) needs to fix the problems we have before they would EVER deserve any more money.

 

A national sales tax would replace income tax.

[Spy Car]

A national sales tax would replace income tax.

 

And since sales taxes are highly-regressive it would force more of the tax burden on the poor, the working-class and middle class families, while liften the tax burden on the super-rich.

 

we are already looking at widening gaps between the "haves and have-nots", such a tax policy would seal the deal.

 

Bill

[Hockey Mom]

And since sales taxes are highly-regressive it would force more of the tax burden on the poor, the working-class and middle class families, while liften the tax burden on the super-rich.

 

we are already looking at widening gaps between the "haves and have-nots", such a tax policy would seal the deal.

 

Bill

 

Do the "super-rich" not buy more luxurious and expensive items?

[Spy Car]

Do the "super-rich" not buy more luxurious and expensive items?

 

They don't spend as much relative to their income, no economist disputes the fact tha sales taxes are "regressive."

 

A national sales tax to replace income taxes would result in a greater tax burden on working people at the lower end and middle of the economic spectrum, and a lightening of the load at the top.

 

Bill

[TXMomof4]

Every model of a national sales tax I've seen has people up to a certain income exempt. The total amount of the tax could be refunded.

 

A fair/flat tax makes more sense to me. Income up to a certain amount is exempt - I think the figure I've seen thrown out is up to $28,000/family of four. After that a flat rate.

 

But really - my point is this. If I'm so far in the hole that I can't see the sky anymore, the last thing I need to do is spend more. I don't understand why such a simple concept is so foreign. Go back to your budget. Look at where the money is going and figure out ways to make what you have work for you. Then figure out a way to save some and get out of debt.

 

Bill - my point is if we FIXED what was wrong, there would be more money for schools. If the administrations were required to actually account for their spending, the teachers could have a better income. Better teachers would be drawn because teaching could provide a livable income. We wouldn't have to fire hundreds of teachers while we have administrators making $1million a year. It makes me sick!

[Mama Geek]

The obvious, glaring difference between conservative/liberal was the opinion on taxes. Now, I will admit, the lower the taxes, the happier I'd be. BUT I have no problem paying taxes at a reasonable rate.

 

 

I really don't see that taxes are the only issue where there are major differences of opinion in this country or even among the people on this board.

 

There are many social and economical issues that the conservatives and the liberals are on opposite sides of with no one budging. The last several presidential elections have been close enough to say that 1/2 the country is on one side and the other 1/2 is on the other side. For conservative Christians (which I am one of), meeting in the middle is not an option. For example, I believe that things like gay marriage and abortion go against the teachings in the Bible. I don't see the liberals that are in support of these things coming any closer to the middle either.

 

I am not trying to start another debate on these issues. My question instead, is as a country have we come to an impasse where we won't be able to resolve our differences and live in a peaceful society? As I have heard people say before...if this were a marriage, there would certainly be in divorce.

[Spy Car]

Every model of a national sales tax I've seen has people up to a certain income exempt. The total amount of the tax could be refunded.

 

Sounds complicated in exactly the way sales-tax proponents claim a sales tax would not be. And how does one show proof of sales taxes paid? Sounds potentially easy for the relatively privileged who pay with "plastic" and have accountants. But what about those who lack those thing? Those who can ill-afford to wait up to a year of more for reimbursement for taxes paid for basic requirements of daily living.

 

A fair/flat tax makes more sense to me.

 

A fair tax and a flat tax are not the same thing. When you undo progressive income taxes you put more tax burden on the middle and working classes. The pressures on the middle class are already overwhelming. A narrow class has profited from distortions in our national economy in recent years and a "fair" tax would take that into consideration when making tax policy.

 

Income up to a certain amount is exempt - I think the figure I've seen thrown out is up to $28,000/family of four. After that a flat rate.

 

I'm sure billionaires and multi-millionaires would love the idea. Everyone else better look out.

 

But really - my point is this. If I'm so far in the hole that I can't see the sky anymore, the last thing I need to do is spend more. I don't understand why such a simple concept is so foreign. Go back to your budget. Look at where the money is going and figure out ways to make what you have work for you. Then figure out a way to save some and get out of debt.

 

Generally speaking, I'm in favor of balanced budgets and deficit reduction of the sort we saw during the Clinton years, and unlike the reckless spending under Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. In the middle of deep economic recession deep budget cuts and budget balancing can cause more harm than good. But i like fiscal responsibility.

 

Bill - my point is if we FIXED what was wrong, there would be more money for schools. If the administrations were required to actually account for their spending, the teachers could have a better income. Better teachers would be drawn because teaching could provide a livable income. We wouldn't have to fire hundreds of teachers while we have administrators making $1million a year. It makes me sick!

 

You won't find me opposing eliminating waste, fraud, corruption or any other financial malpractices that steal the people's monies. You have an ally there. I'm an absolute hawk on guarding tax-dollars. It is stealing money from children's education when there are abuses in school districts, just as it undermines national security when money is stolen by defense contractors.

 

Bill

[Audrey]

A national sales tax would replace income tax.

 

 

Umm... no, it probably wouldn't. We have a GST here and still have income tax. I'm not complaining, though, because I'm still paying less in income taxes, than I paid JUST for health insurance in the States (and which I get for no fee here), so I feel like it's quite the bargain!

Edited August 10, 2010 by Audrey

[Catwoman]

Teacher in most districts are paid less than trash collectors, prison guards, police and fire-fighters. They pay is not commensurate with the education we'd hope teachers ideally possess, so often schools don't attract the best and the brightest.

 

That's not necessarily the case, Bill. In our district, the average public school teacher makes over $90,000.00 a year, as do the school nurses, and that is their base pay, not including the money they make for coaching a sport or advising a club. School principals make far more than that, and the district superintendent makes well over $200,000.00 per year.

 

The teachers' unions in many states spend a lot of time and money to get the general public to believe that teachers are still overworked and underpaid. I know that things are different in other parts of the country, but in the most of the NY/NJ/CT metropolitan area, that is simply not the case.

 

Cat

Edited August 10, 2010 by Catwoman

[Spy Car]

That's not necessarily the case, Bill. In our district, the average public school teacher makes over $90,000.00 a year, as do the school nurses, and that is their base pay, not including the money they make for coaching a sport or advising a club. School principals make far more than that, and the district superintendent makes well over $200,000.00 per year.

 

The teachers' unions in many states spend a lot of time and money to get the general public to believe that teachers are still overworked and underpaid. I know that things are different in other parts of the country, but in the most of the NY/NJ/CT metropolitan area, that is simply not the case.

 

Cat

 

 

 

Where are you getting your numbers?

 

A quick web search is showing figures that teachers in the Sattes of NY/NJ/CT have average starting salaries of around $38-39k per year, with "average" salaries being around $58-59k per year. That is no where near $90k per year.

 

Bill

Edited August 10, 2010 by Spy Car

[Catwoman]

Bill, in our district, I don't think any full time teacher starts at $39k per year. The lowest salary I've heard of is in the $50k range, and that is for a new teacher with only a bachelor's degree, but I know that teacher's aides make less than that. Office staff makes more than $39k per year, often considerably more.

 

I only know the figures for my own school district and those of our neighboring towns, but I would prefer not to mention them here, as I never list my address in online forums for security reasons. I'm sure other districts pay less, and that's probably why the average salaries you found are lower in poor districts -- and although I think $48-49k is still a low estimate, those salaries also include full medical (and usually dental) insurance coverage for the employee and his or her family, as well as other benefits.

 

I don't know how things are in other parts of the country, but I wanted people to be aware that the concept of the "underpaid teacher" is just a myth in my area. I wasn't implying that the situation isn't different elsewhere in the country, and I apologize if it seemed that I was.

 

Cat

Edited August 10, 2010 by Catwoman
typo!

[pqr]

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/72DE1FF1-EDFC-40D7-9D61-831014B39D1E/0/TeacherSalarySchedule20083.pdf

[Catwoman]

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/72DE1FF1-EDFC-40D7-9D61-831014B39D1E/0/TeacherSalarySchedule20083.pdf

 

That's very interesting!

 

Are the 2010-11 figures available anywhere? I wonder how much the salaries have increased since 2008.

 

Thanks for posting the link!

 

Cat

[Catwoman]

I just realized that I was mistaken when I said that our average teacher salary is $90k. I just doublechecked, and the average salary is $80k, with the lowest teacher salary being approximately $55k and the highest being slightly over $100k. School principals all make over $100k.

 

Sorry I misspoke -- I should have checked the figures before I posted. :blushing:

 

Cat

[Spy Car]

I just realized that I was mistaken when I said that our average teacher salary is $90k. I just doublechecked, and the average salary is $80k, with the lowest teacher salary being approximately $55k and the highest being slightly over $100k. School principals all make over $100k.

 

Sorry I misspoke -- I should have checked the figures before I posted. :blushing:

 

Cat

 

No worries. Those are still pretty unrepresentative salaries nation-wide. In a very narrow band of wealthy areas in and around NYC I'm not suprised salaries are higher (given what it costs to live there) but not many teachers earn that kind of income.

 

Bill

[Catwoman]

No worries. Those are still pretty unrepresentative salaries nation-wide. In a very narrow band of wealthy areas in and around NYC I'm not suprised salaries are higher (given what it costs to live there) but not many teachers earn that kind of income.

 

Bill

 

Thanks, Bill!

 

This is a weird area in terms of income and cost of living. I always feel sorry for people who move here from other parts of the country because they get a huge salary increase and think they will be living like kings... only to discover that their "newfound wealth" will buy them a home half the size of their old one, and the taxes will be triple what they paid for their old, much larger house.

 

Cat

[Mejane]

I agree that a lot of educators cry poverty when that is far from the truth. I live in CT and know many teachers. They average around $75,000 in my area. My neice, a brand-new college grad just got a job in a NY (Long Island) public school starting at $50,000. Not bad. I know that's not the case in many states, but I suspect their salaries are still indicative of the area overall.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Mejane

[Laurie4b]

And since sales taxes are highly-regressive it would force more of the tax burden on the poor, the working-class and middle class families, while liften the tax burden on the super-rich.

 

we are already looking at widening gaps between the "haves and have-nots", such a tax policy would seal the deal.

 

Bill

 

Sales tax does not have to be regressive. Many states which have sales tax take care of that by not taxing food& most clothing (evening gowns, etc. are taxed.) It wouldn't be complicated to exempt sales tax on necessities. Personally, I would favor no tax on food, utilities, public transportation. You can give tax free weekends (done in some states) on school supplies & clothing for kids. I think I would favor tax on clothing, though, or a tax on clothing above some percentage mark so that expensive clothes, which are a luxury item, are taxed.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Laurie4b

[Laurie4b]

I am for a line-item veto, for governors and the president, on anything that costs money in a bill. That would make the "buck stop here" with a single individual, and wouldn't result in the whole game of "chicken" now played by the executive and legislative branch over budgets. The legislature could override a line item veto, but it would have to override them singly. That would cut out a whole lot of pork. Yes, it would have its own problems, but I'm willing to exchange our budgetary mess for those other problems.

 

I would like to get rid of property tax on your home/certain amount of land your home is on or means of livelihood (farm or other business building/land you own). It bothers me that in a time of economic woe that people could lose property that they own outright through inability to pay taxes.

[Spy Car]

Sales tax does not have to be regressive. Many states which have sales tax take care of that by not taxing food& most clothing (evening gowns, etc. are taxed.) It wouldn't be hard to not have sales tax on necessities. Personally, I would favor no tax on food, utilities, public transportation. You can give tax free weekends (done in some states) on school supplies & clothing for kids. I think I would favor tax on clothing, though, or a tax on clothing above some percentage mark so that so that expensive clothes, which are a luxury item, are taxed.

 

I'm trying to imagine being in line while a sales-clerk tries to figure out if the (now on sale) item I'm purchasing is above (or below) some threshold "percentage mark" that either necessitates the implementation of a sales-tax, or is now excempt.

 

Good-bye simplicity!

 

Bill

[Laurie4b]

I'm trying to imagine being in line while a sales-clerk tries to figure out if the (now on sale) item I'm purchasing is above (or below) some threshold "percentage mark" that either necessitates the implementation of a sales-tax, or is now excempt.

 

Good-bye simplicity!

 

Bill

 

True; I was thinking out loud. However, it doesn't negate the fact that you can exempt most necessities without any hassle at all.

In the state I grew up in, my friends and I used to laugh because bathing suits & evening wear had a sales tax and other clothing didn't, yet if we went swimming, we had to wear swim suits! It didn't complicate anything, but it was an effort to tax luxury goods.

[Leav97]

IMO all the talk of personal taxes is a red herring. If you want to fix the tax system start with the corporate side. Eliminate the existing taxes and loop holes for corporations. Make companies pay a tax on ALL revenue earned in the USA.

 

I think we can all agree that better accountability would be a good first step.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Leav97
Misread a post

[hornblower]

Cdn sales taxes are crazy. Buy one muffin - it's taxable b/e it's a snack.

Buy 12 muffins - tax free b/e it's a staple.

 

But cupcakes - always taxable b/e they're a treat & not a staple.

 

CRAZY making.

 

I'm one of those liberal types but I don't support sales taxes, if for no other reason that there's a bureaucrat out there figuring out whether this granola bar is a staple but that chocolate dipped one is a 'luxury' snack.

 

And yeah - I think they do hit low & mid income earners harder though supposedly these folks get that $ back in rebates from the gov't in the form of a check several times a year. But again, another level of administration and bureaucracy etc.

[Jugglin'5]

I'm trying to imagine being in line while a sales-clerk tries to figure out if the (now on sale) item I'm purchasing is above (or below) some threshold "percentage mark" that either necessitates the implementation of a sales-tax, or is now excempt.

 

Good-bye simplicity!

 

Bill

 

Texas doesn't charge sales tax on food items. It is all automated in the scanner/computer systems. The sales clerk doesn't have to do anything.

 

Personally, I like the idea of a sales tax because it increases privacy, and rewards savings and investment.

[TXMomof4]

Texas doesn't charge sales tax on food items. It is all automated in the scanner/computer systems. The sales clerk doesn't have to do anything.

 

Personally' date=' I like the idea of a sales tax because it increases privacy, and rewards savings and investment.[/quote']

 

Even in TX, there is tax on some food items, but not others. Soft drinks, chips, etc. are taxed, but other food items aren't. I could buy all of the makings for pizza tax free, but a pizza at the deli at the grocery store would be taxed. Makes sense to me - pay for the convenience or the 'extras' not for the necessities.

[Haiku]

Additionally, if we implemented some sort of national sales tax, that would bring in money from: illegals, drug dealers, those who hide money, those who work under the table, those who can 'play the system' and utilize the tax holes, and various other people who are getting a free ride in this country.

 

I wholeheartedly support the FairTax.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

They don't spend as much relative to their income, no economist disputes the fact tha sales taxes are "regressive."

 

A national sales tax to replace income taxes would result in a greater tax burden on working people at the lower end and middle of the economic spectrum, and a lightening of the load at the top.

 

 

FairTax would have a predetermined amount that is refunded to all families in an amount based on the poverty level. Every household would qualify for this rebate of tax spent up to the poverty level.

 

I consider myself liberal and I don't want the tax burden shifted to lower income people. We are not rich by any means, and I really like the idea that we would determine how much tax we pay based on how much stuff we buy.

 

After reading a lot about taxes, my opinion has become that FairTax would be better than the nightmare we have now.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

 

Personally' date=' I like the idea of a sales tax because it increases privacy, and rewards savings and investment.[/quote']

 

:iagree:

 

Tara

[pqr]

After reading a lot about taxes, my opinion has become that FairTax would be better than the nightmare we have now.

 

 

 

Rarely happens, but I am in agreement.

Edited August 10, 2010 by pqr

[ma23peas]

Fair Tax would get rid of the IRS, the thousands of deductions/both corporate and private that could fill a landfill....

 

But before I would even go to the FairTax (I'm for it 100%), I would STOP spending! I am still trying to swallow a health care plan that we have to pay into for four years before ever seeing one benefit....if my employer said I had to pay into a plan for 4 years and still pay my own medical bills at 100%..I'd RUN to another company...

 

Vow to never take an earmark again, require our representatives to read the entire bill before voting on it...then we'll get somewhere...kick those that won't OUT>

 

Tara

[TXMomof4]

STOP THE PRESSES - Tara and PGR just agreed. Holy guacamole!

;)

[Barry Goldwater]

One aspect of the FAIR tax that I've not seen posted is that it is only levied on NEW items...buy a NEW CAR, pay the tax...2 years later, or 5 years later, a 'poorer' person buys that car used, NO TAX on that car. That solves somewhat the so-called 'regressive' aspect.

 

As mentioned, the FAIR tax eliminates the need for the IRS tax code, which is how the govt. conducts all sorts of social engineering by incentivizing or discouraging certain economic behaviors, and which generates a huge demand for lobbyists/briberies, hence all the corruption.

 

And remember, corporations don't pay taxes...their customers do...

[pdalley]

Fair Tax would get rid of the IRS, the thousands of deductions/both corporate and private that could fill a landfill....

 

But before I would even go to the FairTax (I'm for it 100%), I would STOP spending! I am still trying to swallow a health care plan that we have to pay into for four years before ever seeing one benefit....if my employer said I had to pay into a plan for 4 years and still pay my own medical bills at 100%..I'd RUN to another company...

 

Vow to never take an earmark again, require our representatives to read the entire bill before voting on it...then we'll get somewhere...kick those that won't OUT>

 

Tara

 

The IRS tax code is just ridiculous. Half the time their own agents can't make sense of it. I agree on Fair Tax.

 

And as I told one of my reps, if the bill is too large to read? Get a clue, you shouldn't be voting on it anyway! That infuriates me - the 'what do you mean you want me to read it before I sign it?' nonsense. If I sign a contract and don't read it I cannot claim I didn't know what was in it. And common sense dictates that I wouldn't.

 

I held my breath when our employer sponsored health insurance came up for renewal. It only went up a small amount but I was prepared to lose it entirely or for it to go up a lot more.

[Spy Car]

Help me understand this so-called "FAIR" tax scheme.

 

It would eliminate exemptions for charitable giving? Money given to non-profits, and charities (including donations to churches and other faith-based organizations, including "tithes") would no longer quality for tax-exemption?

 

Bill

[ma23peas]

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq

 

More answers than you'd need to know...

 

HTH

Tara

[Catwoman]

But cupcakes - always taxable b/e they're a treat & not a staple.

 

 

Well, that's just crazy talk! Everyone knows that cupcakes are a staple! ;)

 

Cat

[Jugglin'5]

Even in TX, there is tax on some food items, but not others. Soft drinks, chips, etc. are taxed, but other food items aren't. I could buy all of the makings for pizza tax free, but a pizza at the deli at the grocery store would be taxed. Makes sense to me - pay for the convenience or the 'extras' not for the necessities.

 

Yes, fast food is taxed. I wonder if some of this varies by county, though. :confused: