Jank,
You can't have it both ways. you cannot cry that we are not paying the workers enough, while at the same time allowing an unfettered supply of workers into this country who are willing to work for less than minimum wages. If you do they will be paid cash under the table, you cannot stop it with the current tax system we employ. And yes if they break the law, they should be deported, and their family with them if they want to stay togther. It is harsh, but do you think if i went to Mexico and acted in that manner I would be set free to do as I please?
I apologize. I was not inferring that you said this, I was referring to the fact that what we are doing now is not working. I have no problem with making it easier for people to become citizens and obtaining a visa to work. I just want it done legally. The border is too porous, and there is no way short of building a fence that is going to stop the migration. I don't like it any better than anyone else, but if the access to cheap labor is there ist is going to be exploited. the current administration states they are doing more to control the flow, but it still appears to me that it is not enough, and before you think I am bashing this administration, the previous one and the one before that did nothing either. For some reason the people in Washington do not want to deal with this issue.
I have read many of the fair tax proposals and all of them utilize some form of deductions for the first $40K or so a family makes in order to offset their tax burden. EVERYONE would recieve this benefit and then everyone would pay the tax on goods they purcahse.
Most of the plans I have seen, like HF said, do away with the income tax and return a portion to the individual or family. These taxes are not placed on food or utilites, so again there is no detriment to their buying power. It captures the cash flow from drugs, prostituion and gambling that occur. A drug dealer bringing down $1M a year spends that money, while his income is never taxed nor reliably traced. Capture the taxes on the expenditures.
Obviously those who make more, spend more, and buy more luxurious items, therefore paying more in tax. The "poor" have an offset and in all likelihood are able to get back just about everything they spent. how is that not fair?
Refer to the above. The poor would not be paying taxes on food, of course no one would. This is why it is a "fair plan". you are taxed on what you buy, therefore you have the option.
And I disagree. For the past few years it has been a steady assault by the Liberals that those making more than $250K are not paying enough taxes. "The rich don't pay their fair share", etc. This is echoed by Obama almost every time he speaks. In reality, there are very few of these high paid CEOs and certainly more people scamming the government system, and costing the tax payers money, than revenue being lost to these rich CEOs who shelter their money. The current assault by the administration has been to talk more about class warfare and create a stigma against those who make, or who might, make more than you. there is always going to be income inequality. Without it their is no incentive to anything. This is basically a speaking point by the Libs that 1% holds 50% of the country's wealth. If you want to say that is true, then you also have to admit that 80% of the taxes in this country are being paid by the top 10% of the people.
Of course thre is income inequality, however I do not think you would solve it with a simple increase of the minimum wage. This is why I proposed a compromise. Simply raising the minimum wage is going to contribute to inflation since the prices will rise, and eventually you are back to square one with less buying power. It is a short term attempt at a fix that will provide no long term stability.