Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is pretty interesting. Though 4 of the top 5 are kind of depressing.

Was better when it was "Truck Nutz for all red blooded Americans" with 4500+votes, but well... that got removed.

Fallen668 wrote:Was better when it was "Truck Nutz for all red blooded Americans" with 4500+votes, but well... that got removed.

That's actually a far more sensible proposal than the Fair Tax.

It's a little disappointing to see so many gonzo ideologies polling so well, particularly the flat tax and small government types, but I suppose you can expect to see that among the footsoldiers of any political movement.

It was interesting to see little on ideas with any political viability and substance. Not that they were there but weren't polling well, but they simply weren't there. This is sounding more and more like a party that doesn't really have any idea why it should be in government.

It was cool to see Palin so far down the list.

#2 (the libertarians) made me chuckle - '...the right to life, the liberty to choose...'


errr, what's your position again??

End the war on drugs... yeah sure, end it by executing anyone found with more than 10g of any illegal drug, and less than taht 10 years prison.
War would be over in a year as there woul dbe no drug users left...

For real.. get with the 21st century, lauch net campaigns, and suck up money from supporters $5 per week like Obama did. He won it because he had the fat cash to portray his message more effectively.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:#2 (the libertarians) made me chuckle - '...the right to life, the liberty to choose...'


errr, what's your position again??

I think that is the point. If a Party embraces Libertarianism, then they have to be liberal in terms of how things are handld. The Liberty To Choose, for me, takes precedence over Right To Life, as I don't feel it is the Governments place to interfere here.

The only people the "Fair Tax" is fair for are those who have the money for investments and the like. Having a national sales tax sounds great... until you realize that the overall tax burden would go up, and weigh more heavily on the lower and middle class. And don't even get me started on how it would affect Tennessee, where we don't have a state income tax... but sales tax is almost 10%. So, to let the country music stars in Nashville keep more of their huge amounts of income, I'd have to tack on another 5 to 10% to my sales tax burden already? Funk that.

Fair Tax is misnamed, and will never be enacted by anyone who wants to secure the middle-class vote. So, sure, go for that, GOP; we'll be sure to welcome your replacement on the national stage warmly.

A flat rate income tax would be fairer than sales tax since it would catch up the huge money that flows to wealthy people from investments.

Maybe you already have that in the USA.

It's a graduated system, higher rates for higher incomes, for just that purpose. BUT... it's victimized and hobbled by loopholes, shelters, and other such dodges.

What I find hilarious is that the fair tax is actually more economically invasive than the current tax code. Unless you're going to put a flat sales tax on all goods and services it really amounts to little more than mass government price control.

Kilkrazy wrote:A flat rate income tax would be fairer than sales tax since it would catch up the huge money that flows to wealthy people from investments.

Maybe you already have that in the USA.

Capital gains have their own taxation system. Earnings from holdings less than a year old are taxed at a rate equivalent to income. If those same holdings are maintained for longer than 1 year they are axed at a maximum of 15%, which is a little under half of the highest marginal income tax bracket.

More or less the same in the UK except our Capital Gains tax rate is much higher. (It used to be 40%, I don't know what it is right now or what the allowances are.)

Cash interest counts as income and is taxed separately.

We also have a tax called National Insurance which is 10% of your salary up to a certain limit then 1% thereafter. This is to pay for social security such as pensions. There is no NI on income from cash or capital investments, only on earned income. A subtle way in which the rich are better off than most workers.

Of course all tax systems are a joke when people can hold the bulk of their wealth in off-shore tax havens like Monte Carlo.

We have the FICA tax, which is pretty comparable to your national insurance tax except it is meant to be partially deferred by the employer. Of course, this actually doesn't happen as most employers simply cut the effective salary of their workers. Especially with regard to small businesses, which tend to be run by egotistical idiots.

"I can't form an s-corp, that would give my employees access to MY hard earned money."

Is interest factored into the taxable value of property over there? I know that's long been a topic of debate in the US, and I'm curious as to how it plays out if other nations are doing it.

Property is assessed for taxes in five different ways depending.

Council Tax is a tax levied on householders regardless of their income or capital investments. It is based on the notional value of your house in the late 1990s, split between eight bands ranging from the lowest to the highest at about £300,000. This ensures that pensioners who happen not to have moved from properties that have become desireable, are taxed at a high rate they cannot afford, while extremely rich people with multi-million pound properties are taxed at the same rate as the average Londoner.

There is a separate system of business rates (council taxes.) There are also corporate taxes (profit and loss) on the changing value of property owned by businesses.

The fourth system is Capital Gains Tax. This assesses the value of a property when it is sold compared to when it was acquired, unless it is your sole residence. This system was recently changed in a way that severely penalised small businesses. It applies to businesses and private individuals who own more than one property.

The final system is Inheritance Tax. This is applied at the rate of 40% to the excess value of any willed property over £250,000 (I am not up to date with the current figure.)

I am confused myself from trying to lay out all this. Mind you, a half bottle of Chilean read wine has not helped.

ya man, end the war on drugs man.

no more police state nazis man, FREEDOME man....

what, i have to go vote?? ah forget that man, i got the munchies. any you guys want waffels?

The way to implement a flat tax is to hit up everyone with the same percentage income tax (lets say 15%).
Then you have to remove all the exemptions and tax dodges so that everyone pays tax.

We have a similar tiered tax system here in Australia. In 5 years time, with the investments I am making the wife and I will be getting full refunds, and will for the rest of our lives.

The politicians don't use it effectively so why the hell should I pay it?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:The way to implement a flat tax is to hit up everyone with the same percentage income tax (lets say 15%).
Then you have to remove all the exemptions and tax dodges so that everyone pays tax.

That's a regressive tax code which unduly burdens the poor. Forfeiting 15% of a million dollars is far less economically problematic than forfeiting 15% of 30 thousand dollars.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
We have a similar tiered tax system here in Australia. In 5 years time, with the investments I am making the wife and I will be getting full refunds, and will for the rest of our lives.

The politicians don't use it effectively so why the hell should I pay it?

Define effective use. Do you mean effective in that it benefits you directly? Or effective in that it benefits others?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:The way to implement a flat tax is to hit up everyone with the same percentage income tax (lets say 15%).
Then you have to remove all the exemptions and tax dodges so that everyone pays tax.

There isn't a way to implement a fair tax. There is no rate that is low enough to leave the working poor with enough to eat and and high enough to give government enough money to provide basic services. The system has been tried in a few South American countries, and the result each time was a bankrupted government.

The Fair Tax proposed by libertarians is a little different, because it includes a stipend paid to every citizen each month, that basically negates the tax paid on the first few thousand dollars of income (I think like 8 grand). So it's still a progressive system, albeit one with a much lower tax rate for the rich and very rich. The reduction in taxes paid by the very rich is accounted for either by setting a flat rate that really hammers the middle class, or one that is covered by 'savings in government spending'* or by new sources of revenue as the black market is finally taxed.

* Apparently there is all this waste out there that they can only find and cut once this tax system comes in. Basically they're going to cut welfare and start running huge deficits.
** This one sounds more reasonable and I believed it would happen for a long time, but it's ultimately a crock too. Turns out each time a sales based tax has been brought in the additional revenue projected from taxing the black market is about an order of magnitude greater than what ends up being received. In Australia they projected about an extra 10 billion, and got around one billion. Whoopty do.

We have a similar tiered tax system here in Australia. In 5 years time, with the investments I am making the wife and I will be getting full refunds, and will for the rest of our lives.

The politicians don't use it effectively so why the hell should I pay it?

Are you talking about franked credits on shares? If so, it isn't that you're not paying tax, its that tax has already been paid on the dividend by the company.

dogma wrote:That's a regressive tax code which unduly burdens the poor. Forfeiting 15% of a million dollars is far less economically problematic than forfeiting 15% of 30 thousand dollars.

That isn't what regressive means. Regressive occurs when the poor pay a greater percentage of their income than the rich, if everyone had to cut a cheque for $100 just for being here it'd be a regressive tax. People argue sales taxes are regressive, because although the rate is a proportion of their income, the tax is only levied on consumption income. Poor people spend all their money on consumption goods because they're living paycheque to paycheque, while richer people are able to save and invest.

But a proportionate tax being harder to pay doesn't make it regressive.

I was always of the perception that a regressive tax was defined by its affect on marginal purchasing power. Is there another term for that which I am unaware of?

Hard to take this seriously when they spell "Demo☭rats" with a hammer and sickle.

How about "act like grown ups" as an option?

Hahahaha, you're always such a kidder, KK.

dogma wrote:Define effective use. Do you mean effective in that it benefits you directly? Or effective in that it benefits others?

The government (K-Rudds idiot Labor party) don't give us Jack. At least Howard and the coalition gave us something. But all these means tests and handing out 10 billion to the bogans to buy Wiis and plasma TVs is too much.

I don't care for bogans to be supported by my hard work.
Stuff them.

I have superannuation.
I have life insurance.
I have medical insurance.
I have income insurance.
I have insurance on home and contents (and cars and dog)
I put myself through 7 years and 2 university degrees.


I work too hard and too long and pay out to cover myself and my wife. If someone can't work because they are too dumb or too lazy well then some other idiot can support them. Not me.

END RANT

Oh no! You have to contribute to society!

I doubt you put yourself through 2 uni degrees, not completely.

I know your insurance is not a product of your own effort.

Nor is your superannuation.

But hey, it's all by your own bootstraps right? What a joke.

dogma wrote:I was always of the perception that a regressive tax was defined by its affect on marginal purchasing power. Is there another term for that which I am unaware of?

It's the common form of regressive tax, and is what I described in my reply to your post, and what you didn't describe in yours. But it doesn't matter because it seems we're on the same page now.

I did work throughout both degrees, paying as I went, the insurance covers me for when things go wrong (so I won't need the dole).

I have no problem paying tax if everyone pays it.
Which is why I used to support the flat tax, but if I don't have to pay then I won't.

But all this tax talk is off topic and we need to head it back to the original context of the thread.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I did work throughout both degrees, paying as I went, the insurance covers me for when things go wrong (so I won't need the dole).

I have no problem paying tax if everyone pays it.
Which is why I used to support the flat tax, but if I don't have to pay then I won't.

But all this tax talk is off topic and we need to head it back to the original context of the thread.

Even though you worked through your degree, the cost of the degree itself was about 60% covered by Govt.

@Gonads: Do you really have that little compassion? Not everyone on benefits is lazy or stupid you know. Some may have suffered through illness, bereavement or disability, or cannot get work. You say you get no benefit from paying taxes, so I guess you don't drive on any roads then? And you don't call the police or fire service in an emergency? I could go on, but I think you get the point. A flat tax is a ridiculous idea, why implement something like that to benefit the rich? They don't need helping! Tax the rich spend on the poor, that's what I bloody say.

Cue cries of 'Commie'.

Envy89 wrote:ya man, end the war on drugs man.

no more police state nazis man, FREEDOME man....

what, i have to go vote?? ah forget that man, i got the munchies. any you guys want waffels?

Are you saying you wouldn't want to end the war on drugs? I'm not sure of your point...