Actually, I can claim the 2 boys every, plus this year I get to claim my daughter, plus as part of the ongoing custody agreement, we are trying to get one of Husband's girls as well.

But even with just the two boys, especially when I was claiming head of household, I was paying in about $3500 a year total, and getting $6000 a year back.

And don't forget, I used to live in Nevada, which has no income tax. And I didn't own property for most of that, so I paid no property tax, either.

So yes, technically, I'm paying the taxes in, but it's more like an "after christmas fund".

The problem with the FairTax and other "revenue neutral" proposals is that it doesn't move towards the direction of less taxation or more liberty. It makes it "fairer" maybe, but quite frankly their isn't a such a thing as a tax that's "fair." The fairtax, instead moves sideways. And considering what we know about government, sideways tends in actuality after all the debates, ammendments, and regs to mean towards more tyranny.

2ndly, all spending is a tax. Regardless of how the monies collected, it still needs to be paid for somehow. The only way to actually cut taxes in the long run, is to cut spending waving some majic government wand to restructure how taxes are collected isn't going to solve that problem. There's no way for the government to take 2 trillion dollars out of the ecconomy with-out causing serious disruptions.

I don't think we should settle for replacing the current tax scheme with another one. If all those people who spend all their energy towards restructuring actually spent their energy trying to repeal it, repealing it would be possible. Especially since, as I said, repealing the income tax would only decrease government revenues down to about Clinton era currently. It seems to me that it's practical and even pragmatic to advocate the abolishion of the income tax.

Oynx, sounds to me like you're on a form of welfare dole. The difference between the $3500 that you would have paid in, and the $6000 in child tax credits ($2500) is other peoples money. Money the government took from other people to give to you. I understand, you've got to live in the system though.

Tracy

The only "welfare" I'm on is Reduced lunches for my kids at school. Instead of paying $1.75 for lunch per day, they pay $.40.




edited.

Ah, contemplate the utopia we could live in if everything the government spends money on was instead handled by unregulated corporations!

those with skills, training, drive, and a fat load of luck would be very happy.


those missing one of those would be grumbling hard.

those missing two would be just plain effed.

Bush's tax commission (reg required) has come up with a plan to simplify the tax code.

Hey, that may have some merit. It's common knowledge that many wealthy people and corporations can use odd tax loopholes and deductions to pay no taxes, right?
This, combined with an estate tax repeal, will certainly make taxes simpler - if you're poor or middle class, pay up!

From the Fairtax site; OK, here's my objection. If the spending up to the poverty level is free that means you have to file to get a refund for the tax you paid up to the poverty level. That means we get rid of the complicated tax code and keep the bureaucracy. We change the name but it's still the IRS drones. :mad:
I say lower the rate and no exceptions or exempt food. Does that mean all the programs that pay people like OC, go away or does that bureaucracy stay?