Eliminate Property Taxes?

[rm9792]

Again, i was not arguing how it was treated. Just the fact it is not double taxation. Why does everyone want to delve into law when i am just referring to the definition of "income". There are lots of forms of income and lots of ways it is handled. I, again, am talking at a very high level not the specific laws.

[tbrown]

It's because you're making a logical argument and they're making an emotional one.

[Slowplay]

Again, i was not arguing how it was treated. Just the fact it is not double taxation. Why does everyone want to delve into law when i am just referring to the definition of "income". There are lots of forms of income and lots of ways it is handled. I, again, am talking at a very high level not the specific laws.

I can only speak for myself. What you said is income IS NOT income for federal tax purposes (unless you're a beneficiary of a tax deferred vehicle upon death - which should be excluded from the estate anyway, so the beneficiary gets stuck w/ paying the tax that was deferred).

I'm not sure what argument you're making "at a very high level not the specific laws." I guess that was lost on me and I have not followed this thread enough in detail. How you want to define income for your own "very high level" theoretical debate is fine I guess, but some of us have to deal with the reality of what is income and subject to federal income taxation (and "logic" contrary to that reality is something I don't like to see unchallenged).

[rm9792]

Ok, I am not being clear so I give up. Death taxes and estate taxes are double taxation and I was wrong. Everyone keeps delving into laws and exclusions and limits while I was trying to explain why an heir paying taxes is not double taxation (and that was all, no more) but am unable to do so in a clear manner, I apologize.
Dad makes money.
Dad pays taxes on money
Dad dies
Junior gets money he did not have before
Junior pays taxes on new money to him he did not have before.
Who has paid taxes twice?
Discussing things on a high level means very general terms that are not absolute (quite far from it) and not getting into the minutia of the item being discussed. Just the most basic of the idea.
But back on topic.....

[JALLEN]

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.

[tbrown]

Seems a pretty slick way to do it to me.

Progressives are very slick when it comes to getting the camel's nose under the tent.

[JALLEN]

"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?

[sjfcontrol]

Seems a pretty slick way to do it to me.

Progressives are very slick when it comes to getting the camel's nose under the tent.

Now you're just being silly and purposely irritating. The camel has been entirely in the tent and sleeping in your bed for decades. You want everybody to pay exactly the same rate even if they only make $10.00 per year? Good luck with that. I'll be happy if we can get the other 99% of the camel out of the tent.

[Dave2]

Since it would be problematic to eliminate a sales tax only for the poor, and only on necessities

Not really... That's why there's no sales tax on non-prepared food. I think I remember seeing something about deductions for first-time home buyers, too. I can't think of any way out of sales tax on clothing, but you can get that pretty cheap if you focus on functionality rather than trendiness.

[sjfcontrol]

Since it would be problematic to eliminate a sales tax only for the poor, and only on necessities

Not really... That's why there's no sales tax on non-prepared food. I think I remember seeing something about deductions for first-time home buyers, too. I can't think of any way out of sales tax on clothing, but you can get that pretty cheap if you focus on functionality rather than trendiness.

The point here is that you don't have to prove you're qualified for exemption, and everybody is treated the same, and you don't have to exempt entire product lines -- like non-prepared foods. EVERTYTHING is taxed, EVERYBODY pays, and EVERYBODY is "prebated" for the poverty-level spending.

[Happily Ever After]

Seems a pretty slick way to do it to me.

Progressives are very slick when it comes to getting the camel's nose under the tent.

That's true. Most of us probably know people who say they support the Second Amendment, and may even believe they're pro gun, but who think CHL shouldn't be allowed to carry everwhere (and every way) off duty LEO can carry. In the same way, there are people who say they support fair taxation, but think it's a good idea to embrace "limited" socialist wealth distribution in the form of tax credits or "prebates" or "goolamontogues" plans.

[Jaguar]

I don't understand your visceral negative reaction to the prebate. It is a method to prevent the howls from the left saying you are overburdening the poor. But the execution of the prebate allows for an even handed approach to the cries you and I know would be there, the poor do not have to pay taxes since they get the tax credited to their debit card before they ever buy one item, and in the process, so does everyone else.

No one would be forced to pay the FairTax, no one's home would be taken by the government if they never spent a dime above the poverty level, no one would be audited if they did their major purchases at garage sales. The government would not force hours upon hours of documentation, forms filled out, statements from banks and employers, just to comply with the regulations. If you have a business, you would be held accountable as you are now with state taxes, but you would loose all the income tax forms, medicare and SSI tax forms, and only be accountable for the money collected under the FairTax.

The average life expectancy in the U.S. (for a male) is 75.6 years, that equals 662,256 hours. 6.1 billion hours are spent every year complying with the federal tax code. Do the math, every year over 9200 "man lives" are spent in this country doing taxes. Time to simplify.

ETA: Karl Marx describes in his Communist Manifesto the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power necessary to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of the communist manifesto.

2.- a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.