You want to know my theory?
Because there are so many exceptions to the rules for the rich.
If we all could just pay evenly in sales tax, i think it would MUCH EASIER, AND MUCH FAIRER, AND EVERYBODY PAYS ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSUMPTION!!
what is yours? for or against the complication?
2007-03-07
04:25:27
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Charles R
1
in
Business & Finance
➔ Small Business
AND JUST THINK, NO NEED FOR ACCOUNTANTS!!
2007-03-07
04:27:09 ·
update #1
TO NC, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I AM FOR A FLAT PERCENTAGE FOR ALL CONSUMABLE GOODS. THE PEOPLE WHO CONSUME MORE , PAY MORE. MAKES IT EASY, AND FAIR.
2007-03-07
05:15:44 ·
update #2
NO EXEMPTIONS FOR ANYBODY , ANYTHING!
2007-03-07
05:16:36 ·
update #3
you should read neal bortz' book "Fair Tax". it explains a simple and brilliant taxing methodology based on what people consume rather than earn. more information is on a web site, i think called,
fairtax.org
spread the word, especially to your so-called representatives in DC
2007-03-07 04:30:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ovrtaxed 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It would be nice to have a simple tax system, but would it be a fair system? Our notions of fairness are complex, so a fair tax system, unfortunately, cannot be simple...
Let's say we went with your suggestion and everybody pays according to their consumption. Who do you think will have the greatest effective tax rate in this system? The rich? Nope; cancer patients, dialisys patients, and parents of children with disabilities. They consume a lot of REALLY expensive stuff -- medications, equipment, doctors' and nurses' time... Is this your idea of fair taxation?
Now, let's say we exempted healthcare from taxation in the interest of fairness. How far should this exemption go? Will dentistry be exempt as well? What about cosmetic surgery? Physical therapy? Speaking of physical therapy, how do we prevent abuse by personal trainers masquerading as physical therapists? What about lobbying efforts by the fitness industry trying to get the healthcare exemption extended to gym memberships and dietary supplements? Pretty soon, the system becomes complicated again. Rulebooks, enforcement personnel, congressional debates, and all that jazz...
2007-03-07 04:59:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by NC 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I refer you to the bill Clinton era. of course you have not been staring on the backside lines of the bigger firms. there are basically an extremely few small agencies that internet income greater advantageous than $250,000 according to 3 hundred and sixty 5 days. You declare that Mr.Obama isn't being honest. His plan a minimum of leaves clauses for transformations for small agencies. we've carried out so properly under Bush (who McCain voted with many of the time) i don't be responsive to why we don't purely shop Bush. The financial device is advantageous, each and every physique is working, no person is dropping their pensions, the wealthy are paying their straight forward proportion of taxes, etc. it somewhat is heaven. Edit: i will submit a information superhighway website in case you will.
2016-10-17 11:59:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by shakita 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm sure I read somewhere that Britain has the most complicated tax laws in Europe. So while you're trying to work out what to pay to these parasites they hit you with a late payment fine. Even more for their coffers. But I totally agree with you. What can we do as whatever government is in power WE ARE USED & ABUSED.
As for the Accountants, it's called (highly paid)
job creation.
Sorry I can't help, I can only agree.
Best of luck in your endevours....
2007-03-07 04:48:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by stuart d 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know if you are in UK but here it seems that the Authorities hound the small businessperson more than the big boys. I suppose this is because it is easier and there are no lawyers sitting on the sidelines and that there is always more money to pay fines.
Don't suppose it is much different anywhere in the World.
2007-03-07 04:31:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by MANCHESTER UK 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most small businesses work on the simple princible of "some for you and some for me" when deciding how much the tax man can have. This principle tends to even out the inequalities you mention.
2007-03-07 04:43:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
im with you charlie boy
2007-03-07 04:34:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by john w 2
·
0⤊
0⤋