Got my W-2 today ...

I'm doing no such thing; I'm just pointing out why people might be upset if they're shelling out 21 percent of their paycheck if they're not getting their 21 percent's worth out of the government.

And you should hold everyone to whom you give money for products and/or services to that ideal. You don't judge them on it as a yes/no question, but how well they did towards giving you your bang for the buck. Of course, in the private sector you have options to change the provider or not get the service if it doesn't meet with your approval, which isn't a (legal) choice with the government.

 

don't know how you measure "21 percent worth" - that's way too metaphysical for me.
21 percent worth compared to what? compared to the $85 ticket for a snooze of an NBA game?

how much do you value police and fire protection, schools, health agencies, environmental regulation, waste disposal, etc?

personally i value them - can't imagine living without them. true, government has a monopoly - but we vote, remember? elected officials aren't in for life, remember?

 

Obviously I value them, but if you could show that the government could run as or close to as well as it does now on 10 or 15 percent of your check instead of 21, then you'd be receptive to lowering the tax rate, right?

By the same token, if Rush Limbaugh's wet nightmare came true and a socialist took power, immediately putting us on a European-style tax system, would you be okay with it on principle, because you value the police and schools? Or would you be hesitant until they showed you what your 40-50 percent was getting you?

 

I haven't received my W-2s yet. It worries me because I kinda wanted to get my taxes done early. I wonder if I could call and ask for them or pick them up?

 

if our tax rate went up to european levels it would be accompanied by universal health care, guaranteed higher education, and affordable housing. our way of life would change - a broader middle class - diminished poverty - less stress. it wouldn't be a terrible thing - that's why so many americans enjoy traveling in europe.

but i'm not necessarily in favor of that. i kind of like our cowboy entrepreneurial sink-or-swim ethic. charles darwin would be comfortable here - as is rush and michael savage - they're the winners. i'm a winner, in a relatively modest sense. but i'm wary of squeezing the losers too much - they will rise up and kick our asses - history assures us of that, i.e, the inner city riots of the 1960s.

i do not begrudge our tax rate - nor the government services we provide - however inefficiently. i advocate for more efficiency, but not lower taxes. and if i have to pay more, i won't complain.

 

I have 7 W2's and counting.

 

Well, I just got back from lunch, and I received one of them in the mail. I think I have 2 more to go.

 

Now imagine a life where we didn't have to file taxes. Where our contribution to the tax base was based on what we spend, not what we make, including the government? There would be no waiting around to see how much of a free loan you gave to the government so it could make interest off your money. No more IRS, meaning less government, meaning the money that ended up in Washington could actually be put to better uses than to make sure everyone in the country filled out the correct forms.

Yes, it could happen, but people are afraid of this Fair Tax. I guess the idea of more personal wealth with lower expenses is too much for too many people.

 

Or they don't like the idea of a regressive tax system that places an undue burden on the middle and underclass.

Whatever.

 

I knew that would be the first argument presented against fair tax.

Nevermind it isn't true, but as long as the opponents keep using that tactic against the FT, it'll probably never see the light of day

 

It most certainly IS true . . . UNLESS you do one of two things:

1) Remove essentials (food, clothing) from what is taxable.

2) Make the first $20,000 spent non-taxable --- the premise being someone making $20,000 likely will spend all of it, making his entire income subject to tax. This, of course, would mean sending rebates to everyone.

 

under the proposal, as I read it, that families earning less than a certain amount would be eligible for a "prebate" based on what they would spend on essentials. That would eliminate the need for classifications of what is necessary and what isn't. I don't have the figures in front of me, but it was something like 425 a month. That might not be right. But whatever it was, it certainly would cover the 23% consumer tax a family would have to spend on monthly living expenses.