2011-01-14T09:54:26Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/67155 2011-01-14T09:54:26Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-14:/comment/225211 christapher I see the opposite effect. If the "smart card" were rolled in with WIC and Food Stamp cards, we could remove redundant bureaucracy and de-stigmatize our social safety net. An individual could apply for WIC, CHIP, and Tax Prebate, and housing help at one office, in one sitting, with one set of documents. I may qualify for the prebate, but not food stamps. Another individual may get on food stamps and get to a point where they are not in need of the safety net. Since they must update their information with this office when applying for tax prebate (incentive), we can streamline and make our social systems more efficient and nimble. What about a waiver, similar to how Section 8 Housing works, to offset shelter costs? This would be based on average housing costs and wages. The tax credit could be applied for when signing a new lease with the funds going to the landowner in exchange for subsidized rent. Just an idea. 2011-01-17T05:24:17Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-17:/comment/225275 jafi6996 23% is BS. Several economists have stated that a 10% tax would result in a trillion dollar surplus. Congress wants to put a higher price on it so they have as much money as possible prior to enactment so they can pat themselves on the back. The feds need to stay out of our lives. They can make plenty of money if they were to do their job. That is to protect our borders against not only tresspassing but also unfair commerce entering across our borders. Leave states alone. 2011-01-21T16:15:44Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-21:/comment/225651 fakk2 MATH: (max spendable income below the 25% marginal rate, single - 2010's tax liability for consumers making below the 25% marginal rate, single - (10% savings of spendable income) x 23%) = new tax liability - (sum of savings) or (33999.99 - 4681.2485 - ($29318.7415 x 10%) x 23%) = 6068.9794905 - (4681.2485 + 2931.87415 + 2400) = ~$3944.14 So, the middle class is actually making more money by being fiscally responsible instead of living at their means? really? that's just crazy! 2011-01-15T03:56:55Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-15:/comment/225242 jbkonkol People would have to currently spend less money on state sales taxes than federal income taxes to justify this bill. Otherwise, the burden on lower and middle class consumers would only increase. Also, it is true richer Americans do work for their money and save it responsibly, that doesn't grow the economy. Lower and middle class Americans grow the economy because they spend their money. The economy doesn't like savers it like spenders, so we should want to reward and protect those who grow the economy (lower/middle class) and not those who are simply financially responsible. 2011-01-12T07:59:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-12:/comment/225139 Mouseclone "if the sales tax is going to be administered (and therefore, I would hope primarily recieved) by the states, where do we intend to get money to pay off our deficit and fund our army?" -kindrapring Personally I would raise tariffs on all imports. The imports would include items that were shipped out, assembled, and brought back to the US; you would have to pay a tax labor serviced to put the product together by another country. Take the time to measure the MSRP (or retail price), domestic vs imports, and adjust accordingly. US Citizens shouldn't suffer just because the government doesn't have a backbone to corporations. I also feel that businesses should be the only one paying federal income tax. Then again, they should really be paying to the states and we should have a very small federal government that would be low cost to run. 2011-01-17T07:26:46Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-17:/comment/225276 fakk2 jafi6996, definitely agree with you about the federal government staying out of our lives! That's the dirty little secret of liberty, we're on our own. Although life was harder 200 years ago, they had freedom out the butt! makes me jealous! I think, if everything was the way it is now, except the states had passed laws which made it that way, then I'd be more understanding of the laws because we'd be sticking to the constitution, even if that meant a 30% state sales tax (although I'd fight like hell to lower it with the state legislature). guess I'm just a strict constructionist though. 2011-01-16T12:31:40Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-16:/comment/225262 fakk2 While having everyone save all of their money would surely destroy the economy, saving 10 - 20% can greatly impact the economy in a better way than "spending your way out of debt". This bill, as it reads to me, would encourage saving money by investing. Regardless if you personally save money in investments, the bank (if you use a bank), would do it for you (which is one way they make profits). Once more liquid capital enters the market, especially with no payroll taxes, businesses would be able to use the excess capital to either: 1.) expand, or 2.) paydown the $1.17 Trillion regulation costs businesses endure (http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371.pdf). The regulation costs don't even include the taxes they currently pay, which equaled $2.5 Trillion in 2008 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm) (continued) 2011-01-11T19:52:42Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-11:/comment/225126 mkail666 As it stands now, the tax code can be manipulated to please specific groups or constituents and the same could basically be done with consumption-based taxes. The best solution is repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, going back to an apportioned tax system and having Senators appointed rather than elected. This puts the burden of taxation and the power of taxation with the state governments (it still is halfway in the hands of the people via the House of Representatives). 2012-01-05T02:04:07Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-01-05:/comment/242408 oakle78 Even into the prison yard the breeze had brought the fresh vivifying air from the fields. But in the corridor the air was laden with the germs of typhoid, the smell of sewage, putrefaction, and tar; every newcomer felt sad and dejected in it. The woman warder felt this, <a href="http://www.northfacelocationsoutlet.net/">north face outlet store</a> though she was used to bad air. She had just come in from outside, and entering the corridor, she at once became sleepy.She carried herself very straight, expanding her full bosom. 2011-01-18T07:53:06Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-18:/comment/225331 jlkoolio Think about the effect on the unemployment rate. Over 100,000 IRS employees laid off. H & R Block, Jackson-Hewitt, thousands of independent tax professionals...jobs gone, never to come back. The multi-billion tax preparer industry gone. And the Republicans call the Health Care Bill job killing! 2011-01-16T12:32:18Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-16:/comment/225264 fakk2 If more Americans had decided to save 10 - 20% every year throughout their life, maybe the trust funds' reserves wouldn't be completely exhausted by 2037 (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr10summary.pdf) (all done) 2011-01-18T12:02:09Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-18:/comment/225356 fakk2 **blink blink** Let's see, businesses gain an additional $2.5 trillion in year 1 just by not paying taxes this bill hopes to cut. 100,000 employees making $100,000/year = $10billion. So, we have 2.5 trillion versus 10 billion...I think the money would cover the jobs. 2011-01-19T08:24:03Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-19:/comment/225433 Sxeptomaniac This bill would break the middle class. It's a horrible idea. Those below the poverty level could get credits, but those making just enough see the price of everything go up 23%. As far as I can tell, even food is not exempted. I'm glad to say this bill is just for show, and is not going to go anywhere. 2011-01-21T16:15:29Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-21:/comment/225650 fakk2 While I see your point Sxeptomaniac, I don't think it will be as bad as it sounds. Yes, everyone making below $16.35 (~$34,000) for 2010 would've seen an increase (if the bill was now law this year) of 8% from what they would've had to normally pay (last page @ http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf), that's only if they spend all of their yearly money though. Think about it, the MAX someone would be able to pay in taxes (not including investments, interest, etc) is 23%. Now, if the consumer saves the $4681.2485 they'd be getting back by not having to pay income tax, they'd have $29318.7415 in spendable income. If the customer then saves 10%, they'd have a $26386.86735 in spendable income. They would have to pay $6068.9794905 in taxes @ 23%, and have a savings of $7613.12265. Plus, all consumers are eligible for the $200/month rebate which increases savings to $10,013.12265. Overall, even after paying taxes with savings, the consumer has a positive cash flow of ~$3944.14. 2011-01-27T09:40:42Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-27:/comment/226110 flynnfree Social programs like Social Security and others are unaffected by this bill. This bill is simply an alternative way to collect the money for the expenses of the federal government. Including for the programs you're concerned about. The support or opposition to those programs are a completely separate debate. 2011-01-24T07:19:01Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-24:/comment/225778 Sxeptomaniac So the price of everything goes up 23%, but they are supposed to still set aside 10% of their income? Basically, if you're above the poverty line, the less you make, the more painful this tax would be. The less a person makes, the larger the percentage of their income the necessities take up. 2011-01-25T02:49:54Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-25:/comment/225854 Sapphireyes All taxation is theft, but it seems a necessary evil in a civilized society. If we must accept taxation, it seems best to structure it in a way that individuals can control when, where and how much taxes they pay. This way the "pursuit of happiness" is least infringed. 2011-01-16T12:32:10Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-16:/comment/225263 fakk2 If this bill ever were to pass, it would create some hardships such as eliminating the Payroll Tax which helps funds social welfare programs. But then again, when it comes down to it (not to mention the fact the funds are almost completely out of money and full of bonds the government has paid to themself [which is the same as me taking $50 from a rainy day fund and writing an IOU to myself that says I'll pay myself $50 later]), if I'm paying for someone else to live, I would rather be able to choose who, when, and how much I donate instead of being told to "redistribute the wealth". After all, it was my money to begin with through a contract/agreement with my employer; not a promise I made to someone else. Then again, that's just me wishing someone would ask me to pay their retirement instead of creating a law for it. (continued) 2011-01-28T19:45:22Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-28:/comment/226251 Ramjr51 The bill is revenue neutral,in that tax revenues would remain the same as now. The added benefit is that with corporate taxes eliminated the country would be flooded with investment money from offshore accounts and around the world seeking the higher profit margins and increasing the job market. It is estimated that $14 Trillion would pour in igniting manufacturing and insuring full employment and thus increase revenues even more 2011-01-28T19:50:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-28:/comment/226253 Ramjr51 The truth of the matter is Corporations pay not one penny of tax anyway every cent is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. To raise corporate taxes is to cut your nose off to spite your face