Tax Refunds

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

If one was to talk to oneself , would that get around it ?

Probably, but no matter how good I am, I have never paid myself to write me software.

BOb

[NatCh]

Well, there's your solution then!

[Ervserver]

didn't take long to spend it

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Ervserver

didn't take long to spend it

We had already planned to have our pool deck re-surfaced. So, it went toward that. (At least I put it back into the economy, rather than saving it. )

BOb

[slayda]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Heh... well, when I tell people there is NO NEED for personal income taxes they scoff at me and tell me we wouldn't have highways. I try to remind them that there was a time when there was no income tax... and the first income tax was to help fund the war, was only levied on the very rich and was supposed to be temporay...

Morons indeed....

BOb

And I'm told, was never ratified by the states and so is not legal.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by NatCh

That's why the FairTax proposal includes a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Amendment that allowed income taxes in the first place (they were originally prohibited by the Constitution). At the time, there was a proposal that the income tax be capped at 6% (I think it was), but it didn't pass because "everyone" agreed the rate would never go that high.

If they need more money under the FairTax plan, they have to raise the rate, but that would be quite visible to the public (very few are so out of it that they don't notice their prices at the register jumping) so it would have an automatic pressure to lower it again. That's the idea, anyway. The explanation on their site is, of course, much more detailed.

You might also like to see opposing views here and here. A case in point, "Further, the FairTax proposal can be passed by a simple majority of both houses of Congress plus the President's signature. But the much-touted repeal of the 16th Amendment, which authorizes the income tax, requires a much more demanding 2/3 vote in each house and then approval by ¾ of state legislatures. The likelihood of ending up with both the 23% federal tax and the current income tax is therefore all the greater."

I might add that the definitions of "new goods and services" is not explicitly stated. For examples if one purchased a new apartment building as an investment, is that included as "goods"? If so then it could be resold without taxation since it would no longer be "new". If the so called "fair" tax was a tax on everything sold, including things from a loaf of bread to a luxury yacht or an office building bought for investment or stocks and bonds, i.e. on everything sold (whether old or new) by anyone (individual or corporation), then "maybe" it would be fair (i.e. poor, rich & middle class would all pay their "fair" share). This should result in a much lower percentage tax as well, making it easier to enforce.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by slayda

And I'm told, was never ratified by the states and so is not legal.

That argument goes that Ohio was not officially recognized as a state in 1803 by the Congress. It was admitted as a state, but the Northwest Ordinance allowed territories to join when they reached a population of 60,000. In 1801, when the law allowing Ohio to join the union was passed, they had onlly 45,000. The law stated that Ohio was growing so rapidly that in 1803, there was no doubt that it would qualifiy. This was later seen as not being an actual proclamation. When the 16th amendment was passed, it passed by only one state, so everyone with an axe to grind (mostly the population of the US) tries to get the 16th disqualified by using that argument. The Supreme Court has repeatedly told those who try to do something about it to bugger off.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

If you have a progressive income tax then if you get sick and get less money then if the total amount you earn that year is reduced then the tax you should pay is reduced in a non linear way. That means that an employer can never exactly deduct the correct amount of money.

So if in the UK they do not have tax returns or tax payments then the tax system must be much simpler than in most countries and the tax cannot be progressive.

We do have a "progressive" tax system in the UK, but relatively few people fall into the higher rate (40%) tax bracket. If you only pay the standard rate of income tax (23%), and you have no other form of income other than a single salary, you don't need to fill in a tax return (banks, etc, automatically deduct standard rate tax from interest payments). If you are in the 40% tax bracket then you do indeed need to fill in a tax return.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

The Supreme Court has repeatedly told those who try to do something about it to bugger off.

Somehow I suspect the official Opinions were worded slightly more formally.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Somehow I suspect the official Opinions were worded slightly more formally.

That was the synopsis. They reserved the actual use of "bugger off" for the 2000 election decision.