TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:


"Bull" is what the net-nanny changes the abbreviation for "B"atchelor of "S"cience to. I'm not going to comment on it's appropriateness...

Well, that's far sillier than anything I could have conjured up. If your name is Bob Smith, do they call you Bevo or something?

Happily Ever After wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

Happily Ever After wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:A prebate makes the effective rate progressive.

And consequently unfair.

How so?

The handout (prebate) is socialist wealth redistribution. That makes it unfair.

Disclaimer: I'm from Texas, not California.

What a coincidence! So am I, born and raised, a long, long time ago, and a UT alum.

The prebate is not social wealth redistribution. The scheme provides that everyone should not be paying tax on an amount equal to a basic living standard. Rather than engage in a silly and inefficient exemption scheme, this is exempt, that is not, etc. riddled with exceptions and exclusions and political favoritisms, the Fair Tax imposes tax on ALL purchases of goods and services at retail (only), and EVERYBODY gets a prebate of the tax on that level of spending. "No one should have to pay the tax on the basic necessities of life." So, every year the "poverty level" is computed for single, married 3, 4 etc dependents, and everyone gets a prebate of the tax on the appropriate amount in 12 monthly installments.

It is not redistribution because it goes back to those who have paid it.

Nothing is more Fair.

rm9792 wrote:
Never said it was the same tax. You have 2 types of income, earned and unearned. I am not talking Law here just theory. Income is any money or value incoming to you. Heirs did not have the money, then upon death they do, it is in fact unearned income. Now the IRS has it set at different rates and exclusions but I am strictly speaking high level that it is in fact income therefore as yet untaxed. My background is I am 6 classes short of my bull in Accounting/Finance. I am currently in Federal Taxation at UHCL and had this same discussion last week with the instructor, an IRS Auditor.
I still don't believe it should be taxed but the double taxation argument will not work to help end it as it simply isn't true. I for one would like to stop renting my property from the state and just pay higher sales taxes. At least then if I am ever in hard times I would never be homeless.

So, this is one of those, "It is impossible in theory, but works well in practice" issues that theorists like to debate, high level theorists, like IRS auditors?

What's a "bull" in Accounting/Finance? Maybe an abbrev., like U.N. for "utter nonsense?"

What's UHCL?

Happily Ever After wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:A prebate makes the effective rate progressive.

And consequently unfair.

How so?

I'm a big proponent of The Fair Tax, having been a taxpayer myself for more than 50 years, read the books, the Legislation and having a fairly decent background in business and law.

rm9792 wrote:It is not double taxed. Yes the money your parents earned was taxed as income to them when they earned it. However when they die and it goes to you then it becomes income to you as yet untaxed by you. You were not in posession of the money or property till their death so now that you have income you must pay taxes on it. However, that being said I think estate taxes are out of line and should be abolished. If it must be kept then the rate should simply be the same as your regular tax rate.

Well, sort of.

Income tax is not the same as estate or inheritance tax. What you inherit is not income to you, and in most cases, the tax is on the estate, not on the recipient. The current rules allow estates of up to $5.12 million to avoid all estate taxes, and that level can be effectively doubled for a couple. Large estates that do face taxes must pay a levy of 35 percent, which is low by estate-tax standards. Gift taxes have also been relaxed.

Unless Congress takes action, the $5.12 million exclusion will fall to $1 million effective January 1. And that 35-percent tax rate will jump to 55 percent. Financial advisers have been urging their wealthier clients to seriously consider using the current gift and tax rules to transfer assets to heirs this year.

If you had had the foresight to die before 12/31/10, there would have been no tax at all! This wasn't a completely good deal because the step up in basis is affected as I understand it.

I should confess that I am the 17th reason to use H&R Block, and my taxes are handled by my CPA brother. The foregoing reflects my perhaps crude understanding of how thing work.

Oldgringo wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:School tax should not be a property tax. School tax should be a sales tax administrated by the state to give each district an equal share, irregardless as to whether it is a rich or poor district. Stop the Robin Hood effect. Poorer districts need a higher percentage of funds and this way the state could take care of the problem. This way everyone would pay school tax.

Help me understand why childless people should pay school taxes? What's the difference between that and non-union workers being forced to pay union dues?

It is generally accepted that public education costs ought to be paid by the public at large, not by parents alone.

The problem I see is not how they fund it but what they do with the money. I am an advocate for closing public schools and giving parents a voucher to spend as they see fit. Some will chose wisely, find a provider that educates their kids as they wish, and hope. Those private providers will spring up to meet demand. Others will squander the money on worthless nonsense, but at least they won't be interfering with the ones who DO want, and will work to have, a quality education. As it is, the public schools are little more than baby-sitting services for prepubescent children and dating services for postpubes.