Posted on 12/19/2004 1:40:29 PM PST by Remember_Salamis
To see how much you would spend do the following:
1. Take your total income.
2. Subtract the exempted poverty spending from your income, being $18,620 for the two of you.
3. Subtract any state and local taxes (not service fees)
4. Subtract any car payments you make
5. Subtract any used goods
6. Subtract any charity
7. Subtract any educational services
8. Subtract any credit card debt payments
9. Take this remaining consumption of ONLY new goods and services and multiply it by 0.23
10. Take the answer from #9 and divide it by #1 (your income)
That is your tax rate.
What is so hard about the concept that if you don't have money you don't spend it. That is the LAW for government, at least it supposed to be.
You can be assured if they change the tax codes you will pay more not less. You are dealing with a spending machine and you had better do something about it. You have to make them stop spending.
Anyway, we both feel the same way about reducing spending. I see the nrst as a way to achieve that goal.
BTW unless you had a zero net tax rate during the time you earned the money you use for your insurance premiums, then you did indeed have to earn more than $800 in order to have $800 available. That's trivial.
Make enough noise and they think the vote is attached to debt they will lower the debt.
I'm all for flat rate or pole tax but it would have to be subsequent to spending cuts and a balanced budget. It will happen because our dollar is no longer the standard and the economy is falling apart.
The Dollar is no longer the Standard? What is?
I don't know about your Economy, Mine is Booming!
Not to mention you take home your ENTIRE paycheck - no more withholding, medicare or ss. This might seem obvious, but most I think most people are envisioning paying 23% "more" for what they are purchasing now with the same take-home pay they have at present.
The way I figure it, our family would have over a $1000 more per month at our disposal. We are fairly low-end consumers - and we would most definitely come out ahead.
The Yuan has been stable with the dollar for twenty years and now that the bottom is falling out of our currency they are in a position to become the standard if and when they desire it. They own more then 2/3 of a trillion dollars.
China is also beating us badly industrially and we can't compete. This year India became king of the tech hill. What's the trend here.
http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/50205.html
Probably enough seniors out there with enough $$$ to organize, buy all kinds of weapons , hire merceneries and eventually take over the country ..
i feel the fair tax is a good idea in that everyone participates in the support of government, and if they vote i believe they should be taxed... pay for what you vote for.
i feel that federal taxes should be paid by the states, according to population and their share. this would make the states sales tax what they need to pay for what their representatives vote for in congress.
this addendum to the fair tax, which is actually how the constitution calls for the funding of government overspending, would put more control of pork barrel representatives than the current system.
teeman
One reason is their cheaper labor.
Another reason is our products have their prices inflated by 25% or so due to tax costs.
The nrst would remove tax costs from our exports AND it would levy the tax on imports.
It's a start.
I have no knowledge of what certain areas look like now but it wasn't that bad a few years ago. China produces more food now then ever (they are considering changing to a 2 child policy) but as you pointed out the iron fisted commies aren't that concerned about the loss of a few million lives. Individual living conditions have no bearing on China's economic impact production does and they are using 50% of the raw materials produced worldwide. Don't know the % production for resale or infrastructure. OH yeah the US is now buying the best high tech oil drilling rigs from them.
We put out 70,000 engineers a year China puts out 700,000 but we're 10 times smarter so that shouldn't figure in.
Sure sounds like they are done for.
-- I agree with you, but I've been told by many paople that it would be unenforcable. For example, what do you do if a state refuses to pay? Civil War? In the opinion of many, this is why our Founding Fathers decided to write a new Constitution as opposed to merely amending the Articles of Confederation. Interestingly enough, there were a handful of proposed Amendments to the Articles of Confderation at the time of the Convention (that's why it was held in the first place). One of these Amendments would have given Congress to levy an apportioned tax on every state, according to population.
-- Actually, the opposite is true:
"China's appetite for food imports is likely to expand because of increasing urbanization and water shortages. China is trying to feed 20 percent of the world's population on 7 percent of its arable land. It currently employs 370 million people to produce as much food as 2 million American farmers. The amount of land being harvested has declined from 90 million hectares in 1998 to 76 million last year. There is also a serious water shortage in the north, where grain production is largest. China has four-fifths of its water in the south, while two-thirds of its cropland is in the north. Water per acre of cropland is therefore only one-eighth of that in the south. The supply of water is also being depleted because of diversion of water from rivers to cities, the depletion of underground supplies in aquifers, and the increasing pollution caused by industrialization."
I posted this from an excellent National Interest Article from Summer 2004 Here
Nice try. 100% of their income includes the phony rebate making their tax rate 23%...You can run but you can't hide from "revenue neutral" taxation.
Hey I'm probably wrong and China is just going to disappear, our politicians will balance the budget, a new tax plan creates money for who knows what without digging deeper into your pockets and we'll all have 72 virgins. This comes from the eminent "Bagdad Bob"
-- Perhaps I should word it better: "And that's if they saved 0% of their income..."
How does that change the fact that the phony rebate would be part of their income?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.