@ Centurian- I do have a fundamental argument. Taxes are a multi millinon if ont billion dollar a year industry. I think the wages earned by a worker should be kept. There shouldn't be a penalty for working. I feel income tax is a penalty and I think a business should focus on their business. Why should we need to 'shelter' our savings for retirement from the government? I am somewhat hysterical. I think the fair tas is the way to go. I do not agree at all with the current tax system and believe that the small businesses in the US which provide over 60% of revenue for our government should not be allowed to be exploited the way they are. Many of them have a hard time making payroll much less have time or funding to hire CPAs to make sure the government doesn't shut them down because of some ridiculous system of taxation that requires them to study volumes of tax code that change annually. There are expersts in various fields. Let them be experts in their field. Do not require them to be experts in tax law too. Keep things simple. The average tax lawyer in the US makes $1million per year. That is an average, and there is a reason for that. I shouldn't need a CPA or a lawyer to paint a house. What is wrong with that?

good point Ghostie, the disproportionate effects on things like fat taxes can not be ignored.

How about a means tested thin benefit, people who qualify could get paid a benefit on a sliding scale depending on their BMI. This would also squash the claim that the tax was really a revenue raiser.

So I could get paid for being skinny even though I am a smoker???
Great idea maybe I can qualify for disability too...

Maybe the government can pay everyone and none of should have to work. I am all for that idea too...

After all the government should support this NOT the tax payers...(sarcasm)

OK, so it needs some refining but that will come when we design the form, people who are skinny but smoke won't get full benefit. People with disabilty already get a benefit (at least in the UK)

Again people in the UK who don't work already get paid not to work.

Do you not see a problem with that???

which bit, people getting disabilty allowance or people getting Job seekers' allaowance.

either...
I don't know about the UK but the US IMHO has a major problem with people getting both and welfare that shouldn't be collecting. ALL of them at the expense of those who do actually work.

And your "means tested thin benefit". What about people with glandular disorders? For instance, hypothyroidism cause obesity which can lead to diabetes, but the person with it (myself, for instance) has no control over it until a doctor finally recognizes it, and then it is still impossible to get the weight off, just control the other issues like the headaches and mood swings. Any benefit must be applied equally, so are we going to allow benefits ot those with doctor's notes certifying their condition is beyond their control? And who is going to make the judgment? I'm 5'11". Most stats say I should weigh 160, but the doctor says, with my 34" shoulders, 200 is a better target for me. So I'm about 20% over weight at 240, but with a medical condition where I can't lose weight.

And I'm not that uncommon when it comes to thyroid issues and diabetes. In fact, my doctor says I'm doing good to maintain the 240-250 that I do (I go up a bit in the winter).

Paying people disability allowance and jobseekers' allowance is IMHO a good thing, it helps people when they are down and provides a safety net. I have no doubt that this like any other system is abused, but I would sooner that than remove the system altogether. I'm happy with government targeting the cheats, although every government says it will, and they seem to do very little about it.

Also, removing these kind of allowance would severly affect the innocents (IE the children of people who can't get a job) and also the rest of society, think of the crime rate if people weren't given enough to live on.

The unemployment rate is rising rapidly at the moment, this is largely due to the failings of the bankers and government, it would be very cruel to reduce payments to the people who have been a victim of business and government incompetance.

@ Draugnar- mine was a loaded question. You already know my profession and hypothyroidism was going to be my next argument. I guess you should qualify for disability too. As should all diabetics. I mean after all if they forgot to eat this morning or forgot their insulin (depending hypo hyper) they could have serious issues. Its not their fault. Since it isn't their fault they should then be granted a government check for life.

I have to disagree. I need to see where it actually helps not generate generations of people relying on government funding. I don't know what it is like in the UK but in the US the abuse is rampant. So why on earth give govt more tax money with which to be incompetent?

@Draugnar, I'm happy to refine my means tested thin benefit to allow for medical realities. I think we should be able to trust doctors to prescribe a band of weight for an individual patient that they should meet and then the state could pay them for remaining within that band.

The issue about putting weight on in winter could also be addressed by a seasonal variance table.

I live in an area with about 500,00 people. We have our share of millionaires and even more a large population of indigents.

Again could you be specific tailboarder? Do you disagree with the state paying unemployment benefit to those people made redundant as a consqence of the economic downturn?

Unemployment isn't for life. It is a stop gap for the person until they can get back to work and they and their employers pay into the fund when they are working. That doesn't fall on the taxpayers dime. So you should really compare apples to apples.

Not sure about elsewhere, but in the UK we have contribution-based Job Seekers' Allowance (JSA) and means tested JSA. If a worker has paid their National Insurance contributions they receive contributions based JSA regardless of their capital and needs. If they haven't paid their contributions, say because of time out raising a family or they haven't worked since leaving school, they get means tested JSA based on their capital and needs, ie they get more if they have dependants.

The later is what we call welfare and, in the US, that increased based on dependents make for welfare mommas who crank out babies for the additional income. They don't actually care about the kids, they just want the cash.

Something dumped when I made my last post.
Working tax payers shouldn't support non working. That does go on for generations here in the US. People never having had a job get government funds every month in the form of welfare. Their kids are brought up knowing how to work the system and also receive welfare funding. The problem is they have kids usually by age 16. I picked up a pregnant girl the other week who was 23 and pregnant with her 6th child.
Unemployment is collected by someone who is out of work temporarily. Unemployment taxes are paid 100% by employers. It is illegal to deduct these taxes from an employee. This tax is a percentage of your payroll as an employer. If your boss is holding unemployment taxes then you should report them to the local department of labor. I feel unemployment should be withheld from the employees check. The employer will never see this compensation.
Social security taxes which are withheld from employees are matched 100% by the employer.

@ tailborder

>I think the fair tas is the way to go.

You mean the FairTax, a 30% national sales tax in the U.S. to completely replace the national income tax? Why is that any better? Now you're penalising commerce instead of penalising working.

I believe that no tax is justified. Some are constitutional, some aren't; some will have better effects on the economy, and some will have worse; so I care what tax policy is, even though I don't like any of it. But all taxes take wealth out of the rest of the economy and into the government; and whether your politics are left or right, it should be clear that the U.S. government's priorities (like those of most other large governments) for spending money are far out of whack.

With the fair tax if you decide to save your money for the future there is no need for tax shelters and penalties for spending your money. There is no capital gains tax for interest earned on savings. Yes you are taxed on what you buy. If you consume then you are taxed. If you save you are not. If you work it doesn't matter.
Tourists pay taxes, drug dealers, prostitutes, illegals, etc. Everyone pays taxes if they consume. Citizens will receive prebates for taxes on food.
Credit card companies have already offerd to give the government money to disperse the prebates and generate more revenue versus costing more tax money.

As for the prebate it depends on your family. For example the average family of four may spend about $400 a month on groceries. Your tax would be about $100 a month. You would receive this at the beginning of each month. If you are frugal then you will get over. Fine...
If you have fillet mignon every day then you will pay higher taxes.

You want to see tax evasion skyrocket and make it so the poor have to choose between paying for groceries and making rent, institute the "fair tax".

Ghost, the difference is without healthcare people can die. Basic healthcare is a right, as is basic education. Social assistance isn't a right, its certainly a privledge.

I get where you are coming from on your second point though. What about a carbon tax, though? Corporations certainly respond to taxes great and small, it effects their business cost. As long as the overall tax burden doesn't increase, whats the problem?

...I realise that this is deviating from taxing fatty foods a bit, which is basically like a seletive sales tax. In fact, tailboarder, wouldn't you be in favour of such a tax if it reduced the income tax burden?

Also, can I just say the money taxed doesn't disappear, it gets put right back into the economy. The difference is the same multiplier effect isn't applied by the public sector, so it loses some of its edge in transition. Hardly an argument for big government, but lets not blow things out of proportion.

For example, if the government decided to cut the size of government in half, we would be plunged into massive recession, simply because a ton of people would have lost their jobs, or sources of income, and demand would take a nosedive. In the long run it might be better for growth (perhaps not other things though) but thats a whole different topic.

Centurian did you even read my last post? How much do you know about the fair tax? Imagine being able to keep every dollar you earn...
How is a prebate forcing people to choose between rent and food???
I think you have been misinformed somehow.
A carbon tax is like the whole carbon credit thing Al Gore came up with. It is broken and doesn't solve anything. Allow people to consume more because they pay a fine? Does this mean they don't have to clean up after themselves either?

I forgot about the prebates with the FairTax. Between that and the promotion of the underground economy that Centurian points out, it may be a good trade.

But it still doesn't make it fair.

>the money taxed doesn't disappear, it gets put right back into the economy

But how? That's why I mention the government's messed up spending priorities.

But then the guys buying 24" rims would be paying more taxes than me. I don't care. I would take my 50% pay raise and put it into the bank and not spend it. I wouldn't be paying as much. Then since I'm not helping to support it as much I wouldn't give a shit. Let the government do what they want with their money not mine.