sk Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Isn't a "flat tax" one that gets levied on A-cups muffy just thinks everything should be SIMPLE cause I hate having to pay a stupid accountant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arlen Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Last year it took me so long to fill out my tax form my beer went flat.I am against any idea that was the words flat and tax in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 ..sales tax always burdens the poor more than the rich especially if its on food. We get around that simply by not charging provincial sales taxes on food. Clothing for kids under 15 is also exempt, as are books, newspapers and magazines. The Federal sales tax applies to everything except "basic groceries", which leads to some fairly silly situations. For instance, if you buy a muffin or a cookie, that's considered snack food, and is taxed, but if you buy a big bag of muffins or cookies, it's "groceries" and is not taxed. So how many do you have to buy before it's considered groceries instead of snack food? I think the bean counters in Ottawa finally decided that if you buy 6 or less cookies, it's taxable, but a package of 7 cookies or more is tax-exempt. Anyhow, there are ways of exempting certain classes of goods - food, kids' clothing, books, medicines - in order to ease the burden on the poor. There can also be things like a sales tax credit for low-income families, although that would require some sort of means test to determine eligibility. Or a rebate system that everyone is eligible for. Up to the first $5,000 of an individual's spending in any given year, you send in the sales receipts and get the tax back. You can claim for yourself, and up to some number of legal dependants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Muffy is my friend. She is an absolute doll. She is not an economist. Furthermore, at least in her current situation, any viable flat tax scenario would cost her more of the collective tax burden than she is already shouldering. Tax reform is really complicated, and that's why we've had a sort of fucked up tax code for like ever. you know i'm a big fan of muffy. what i was wondering is where she pulled the specific 3% number. if there was a credible source behind a number that low, i'd go out of my way to find it and study up a bit. i've assumed that much like our state sales tax basic necessities such as groceries would be exempt so that it would not result in an undue burden on those with less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Muffy is my friend. She is an absolute doll. She is not an economist. Furthermore, at least in her current situation, any viable flat tax scenario would cost her more of the collective tax burden than she is already shouldering. Tax reform is really complicated, and that's why we've had a sort of fucked up tax code for like ever. you know i'm a big fan of muffy. what i was wondering is where she pulled the specific 3% number. if there was a credible source behind a number that low, i'd go out of my way to find it and study up a bit. i've assumed that much like our state sales tax basic necessities such as groceries would be exempt so that it would not result in an undue burden on those with less. honestly I can't remember. I read a resurch thing some where a million years ago that sugested that we have an income tax of 3% and that taxing start at the 30,000$ a year range. I don't know if it is POSSIBLE to make it work I am not an economist. I just like the sound of it. I think that ( as I have said before) political work should not be a way to GET RICH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I'm voting for MurrayS in 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Are you channeling Trask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 honestly I can't remember. I read a resurch thing some where a million years ago that sugested that we have an income tax of 3% and that taxing start at the 30,000$ a year range. I don't know if it is POSSIBLE to make it work I am not an economist. I just like the sound of it. You probably read something about a STATE income tax. For the Federal thingy, a 3% flat rate would probably mean revenues of about an order of magnitude less (that's one tenth of current). Given the fact that we are currently overspending our budget to the tune of 500 billion dollars, I hardly think a little belt tightening is going to cover the gap there. Plainly and simply as I have stated before. The flat tax is appealing to rich people because they will get to pay less money. The flat tax is appealing to a lot of non-rich people who are arithmetically illiterate and find the 1040-EZ form incomprehensible. If this sounds like you, here's a little tip. Hiring an accountant would be cheaper for you than paying the flat tax rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 As I pointed out earlier in the thread some believe we are already paying something close to a flat tax right now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.