zoocrew

Not at all. They are different. The government has an interest in curbing excess use of some products and taxes do just that. As for payroll taxes, those are paid by everyone to fund the plan in which everyone participates. Different animals.

It is cheaper than the person being on the welfare rolls. It is also a means to give a boost to those low wage families by making their income more. This means there is a greater chance the person won't stay on welfare, will advance in the work place, and will do better over time.

The rational Reagan used was solid. The argument at the time was that too many people wouldn't leave the welfare rolls because, why should they? They got the welfare and there was no incentive to get a job. So the credit was given to incentivize finding a job AND get a credit to boost that low paying job "real" income a bit more. By giving a small credit, the government saved the larger amount it would have had to pay out in welfare. The paycheck and hopefully some benefits would be a huge savings to the government and encourage work for the person getting off welfare. Again, Taxation and

Different animals.

Again, Taxation and Policy 410. The credit saves the government much more than it is giving as a credit and keeps the families off the welfare rolls. It works. It is a means of getting people to work instead of doing nothing.

That is a regressive tax system.

Reagan supported the credits. So did Bush 1. So did Clinton and W. In fact, it was Reagan that said the credit was "perhaps the biggest anti-poverty program in our history." My link So let's get this straight. It is not welfare. It is a means of keeping people OFF welfare by using the tax code. If you want to call Reagan a socialist or communist, please be my guest.

But when consumer confidence is low, the government doesn't have the income stream. That is one of the reasons why an income tax system works - everyone pays at least every 30 days, if they have a job (or quarterly). With a consumption tax, the poorest DO buy those things constantly because they don't have the option to buy or not. The wealthy do have the option to buy or not, and can afford to buy better quality, thus lasting longer. The poorest have to buy more and more often for lower quality, meaning they pay more in taxes. Also, the tax bill means the poorest pay a larger percenta

This is what Reagan wanted and got. What you are railing against are the tax credits. Those things are designed to use the tax code to make sure the poor and middle class either pay income tax (if they have certain levels of income after deductions) OR have the income to sustain a minimal standard of income. That is what the credits do. It is a means of effectively keeping people OFF WELFARE and using the tax code to minimize the need for expanding the welfare rolls. By removing the credits (deductions), these people are effectively "paying" money since they are losing the credit/welfare

The stipend is INCOME. Everyone pays taxes. The INCOME tax may or may not be one of the taxes he pays. Whether he pays it or not depends on the other deductions. If he has children, there is a deduction. If he has medical bills over a certain percentage of income, that is a deduction. If he is disabled, that is a deduction. If he is drawing Social Security benefits after a certain age, those benefits are not taxed. And when reach age 65-67, your Social Security benefits won't be taxed and YOU will be part of the 47%. If he doesn't have the deductions (tax breaks), then he o

You are being disingenuous. The poorest pay taxes. All people pay taxes. The income tax may or may not be one of the taxes that is paid by individuals. Our system is designed so that unless there is a certain amount of income after deductions, there is no tax paid. That is why we have a progressive tax system - one that places the smallest tax burden in the poorest, and gradually increases on the more wealthy. We don't just tax: we tax fairly. What you're calling for is a tax on the poor and middle class but not a corresponding increase on the wealthy.

walkingawayshakingmyheadatthecomment

It is claimed as income but unless the income is over a certain dollar figure (and then claim the deductions) there is no tax liability.

Not true. Not true. Not true. The problem with the Fair Tax is that the revenue stream for the government to work is compromised, e.g., when confidence is low and people are not buying, there is no consistent income stream in which the government to operate. Second, the proposal is regressive in that it would mean the poorest pay a higher percentage of total income in taxes than the wealthy do, since the wealthy have the option to buy more while the poorest do not have the option. The Fair Tax shifts a large share of the tax burden to those in the poor-middle class, while removing muc

But it is a lot for people who make less than $24,000. That 1% is a lot of money. Our taxation policy doesn't tax the poor. I'm all for a VAT that does touch everyone, but an income tax on the people who make very, very little would be vicious.

You do realize that a VAT is a CONSUMPTION tax, right?

No, that's not the way our income tax system works. The Federal Income Tax is designed as a progressive taxation policy whereby only those that make over certain incomes and don't have enough tax deductions actually pay the income tax. The income tax is levied on everyone but not everyone ends up paying it. That's the way a progressive policy works.

So you are calling for a tax increase on the lower-middle class. Thanks for clarifying.

Terrible idea. Unworkable. Regressive policy. And those are the good qualities of eliminating the income tax in favor of a consumption tax. Now if there were a consumption tax atop an income tax structure, then the system would be both progressive AND still accomplish the good intentions of the Value-Added Tax bolt-on, that would make sense.

Really? So how do they live? What do they eat? How do they clothe themselves? Get school supplies for the kids? Get household appliances?

A tax hike. On the poor and middle class. Got it.

Do what? The consumption tax would be a percentage of income. Come on. This is high school pre algebra here. Set up the ratios and compare.

Great. Just wanted to make sure I had it bookmarked. You propose RAISING taxes on the poor and middle class.

We're talking about the $10 the poor pay as being a larger percentage of income. Let's do the math.

So you are proposing we RAISE taxes on the poor and middle class, by at least 1%.