PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Social programs vs. tax breaks for the wealthy


Cave Johnson
03-11-2011, 02:00 PM
Who ya got?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/hart.html

BucEyedPea
03-11-2011, 02:05 PM
Some of those social programs wreck families, children and teachers. So the cost is even higher there. Not worth any price though.
What is worth the money to me is being able to aspire to having a second home and writing off mortgage interest.
But you could get rid of the money lost from the richies finding loopholes if you just cut 2/3rds of spending.

chris
03-11-2011, 02:12 PM
Who ya got?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/hart.html


Typical Andrew.....liberal fluff.

What about the billions and billions not paid by the 47% that don't pay income taxes?????

I pay accountants and lawyers a lot of money so that I don't have to pay other peoples taxes. And I will continue to do so until the class warfare stops.

If I work my butt off, and can afford to build a vacation home, why shouldn't I be able to deduct the interest?

If there was a flat tax, there would not need to be all these tax avoidance methods.

chris
03-11-2011, 02:13 PM
Some of those social programs wreck families, children and teachers. So the cost is even higher there. Not worth any price though.
What is worth the money to me is being able to aspire to having a second home and writing off mortgage interest.
But you could get rid of the money lost from the riches finding loopholes if you just cut 2/3rds of spending.

Rep, Rep Rep!!!!

I'm so sick of others whining.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 02:19 PM
Well, there you go. For all those complaining that the tax cuts weren't paid for, Andy and Pittsie have a great list of wasteful expenditure candidates to start axing.

KC native
03-11-2011, 10:26 PM
Typical Andrew.....liberal fluff.

What about the billions and billions not paid by the 47% that don't pay income taxes?????

I pay accountants and lawyers a lot of money so that I don't have to pay other peoples taxes. And I will continue to do so until the class warfare stops.

If I work my butt off, and can afford to build a vacation home, why shouldn't I be able to deduct the interest?

If there was a flat tax, there would not need to be all these tax avoidance methods.

You really are a fucking douchebag. Ever heard the phrase, "Trying to squeeze blood from a turnip."?

Our tax system has traditionally been based on ability to pay and fairness. Unfortunately the rich and their lobbyists have stacked the deck in their favor over the last 30 years.

mlyonsd
03-11-2011, 10:47 PM
You really are a ****ing douchebag. Ever heard the phrase, "Trying to squeeze blood from a turnip."?

Our tax system has traditionally been based on ability to pay and fairness. Unfortunately the rich and their lobbyists have stacked the deck in their favor over the last 30 years.

Our tax system set the stage for our ruin when the progressive tax was adopted.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2011, 10:49 PM
Our tax system set the stage for our ruin when the progressive tax was adopted.

Which is why it worked perfectly fine up until the point when it stopped being truly progressive in the 1980s. Ironically, we also cut the shit out of social spending during that time.

Fortunately, we only quadrupled the national debt.

Bewbies
03-11-2011, 10:51 PM
Our tax system has traditionally been based on ability to pay and fairness. Unfortunately the rich and their lobbyists have stacked the deck in their favor over the last 30 years.

Fairness.

Probably depends on who is determining what is fair I guess.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 10:54 PM
Fairness.

Probably depends on who is determining what is fair I guess.

Yeah. Those without a brain and reasoning ability think folks who can't feed their families or pay their rent should pay more, so the rich can continue to get tax cuts and vacation home mortgage deductions and lower capital gains taxes. I mean, it trickles-down to working class scum, after all.

mlyonsd
03-11-2011, 11:00 PM
Which is why it worked perfectly fine up until the point when it stopped being truly progressive in the 1980s. Ironically, we also cut the shit out of social spending during that time.

Fortunately, we only quadrupled the national debt.

It worked fine until we sold out all our blue collar jobs. It had nothing to do with cutting social spending.

mlyonsd
03-11-2011, 11:10 PM
Yeah. Those without a brain and reasoning ability think folks who can't feed their families or pay their rent should pay more, so the rich can continue to get tax cuts and vacation home mortgage deductions and lower capital gains taxes. I mean, it trickles-down to working class scum, after all. I guess I don't have a brain.

But I also understand that those with vacation homes also pay property taxes.

healthpellets
03-12-2011, 01:21 AM
Typical Andrew.....liberal fluff.

What about the billions and billions not paid by the 47% that don't pay income taxes?????

.....

If there was a flat tax, there would not need to be all these tax avoidance methods.

IMO, it seems that if every family paid something, even if just $50, they'd be more invested in the system.

the EITC, started by R's IIRC, just boggles my mind. the federal government redistributes wealth by this little credit and i simply can't understand it.

as for the flat tax...hey hey, ho ho, the progressive tax has got to go! hey hey, ho ho...

Taco John
03-12-2011, 02:27 AM
The Bourgeois will pay! The proletariat will rise!

God bless the Fatherland!

Silock
03-12-2011, 03:25 AM
IMO, it seems that if every family paid something, even if just $50, they'd be more invested in the system.

the EITC, started by R's IIRC, just boggles my mind. the federal government redistributes wealth by this little credit and i simply can't understand it.

as for the flat tax...hey hey, ho ho, the progressive tax has got to go! hey hey, ho ho...

Exactly.

Also, that chart is bullshit. Tax cuts don't COST anything.

vailpass
03-12-2011, 04:51 AM
What a bullshit post. You should be ashamed.

chris
03-12-2011, 08:18 AM
You really are a ****ing douchebag. Ever heard the phrase, "Trying to squeeze blood from a turnip."?

Our tax system has traditionally been based on ability to pay and fairness. Unfortunately the rich and their lobbyists have stacked the deck in their favor over the last 30 years.

"ability to pay and fairness"????

Who decides this? Looters like you?

I'm tired of the broken system.

Flat tax, flat tax, flat tax.

But you don't want that. You want others to support your way of life.

SNR
03-12-2011, 08:27 AM
You really are a fucking douchebag. Ever heard the phrase, "Trying to squeeze blood from a turnip."?

Our tax system has traditionally been based on ability to pay and fairness. Unfortunately the rich and their lobbyists have stacked the deck in their favor over the last 30 years.What would be the best way to make the rich pay their fair share? This current tax code is pretty simple: Everybody pays taxes. Yet some have found loopholes. How are you going to fix that problem next time around?

chopper
03-12-2011, 08:38 AM
Exactly.

Also, that chart is bullshit. Tax cuts don't COST anything.

I apologize for my overly simple example but this is how I see it. Let's say you and I both make $100 this year, but you made yours at your job, while I made mine on capital gains. If your tax rate is 25% you would pay $25 in income tax, I would pay 15% tax rate on capital gains , meaning I would pay $15 in income tax. Therefore, costing the gov't $10.

chris
03-12-2011, 08:51 AM
What would be the best way to make the rich pay their fair share? This current tax code is pretty simple: Everybody pays taxes. Yet some have found loopholes. How are you going to fix that problem next time around?

And as long as 47% don't pay income tax, I will continue to seek every loophole.

For example, taking advantage of a WI job creation program, I just purchased a small office building with no money down.

All the losses from the purchase and renovation will offset income elsewhere. Thus, no taxes on $50,000 of income this year alone.

With a flat tax, this loophole goes away. And I would do it in a heartbeat. But until then, with Looters constantly seeking more money, I'm constantly looking for tax avoidance.

mlyonsd
03-12-2011, 08:52 AM
I apologize for my overly simple example but this is how I see it. Let's say you and I both make $100 this year, but you made yours at your job, while I made mine on capital gains. If your tax rate is 25% you would pay $25 in income tax, I would pay 15% tax rate on capital gains , meaning I would pay $15 in income tax. Therefore, costing the gov't $10.

The money you have invested which allows you to make that gain is done so at a risk of loss. It also is used as the fuel which powers the economy as businesses use your investment to prosper, grow, and employ other people. (well that's how it's supposed to work but I won't get started on the global economy)

I can understand the difference.

Plus there's nothing keeping me from investing and receiving the same benefit for taking a risk.

Bwana
03-12-2011, 09:12 AM
"ability to pay and fairness"????

Who decides this? Looters like you?

I'm tired of the broken system.

Flat tax, flat tax, flat tax.

But you don't want that. You want others to support your way of life.

Not to worry Chris, we can just print out more magic Obama bucks and fix it all!

chopper
03-12-2011, 09:14 AM
The money you have invested which allows you to make that gain is done so at a risk of loss. It also is used as the fuel which powers the economy as businesses use your investment to prosper, grow, and employ other people. (well that's how it's supposed to work but I won't get started on the global economy)

I can understand the difference.

Plus there's nothing keeping me from investing and receiving the same benefit for taking a risk.

Right, I was trying to correct the other poster, without getting too far into this discussion. Tax breaks do cost the gov't. The benefits of the cost of those tax breaks is another discussion.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 10:14 AM
I apologize for my overly simple example but this is how I see it. Let's say you and I both make $100 this year, but you made yours at your job, while I made mine on capital gains. If your tax rate is 25% you would pay $25 in income tax, I would pay 15% tax rate on capital gains , meaning I would pay $15 in income tax. Therefore, costing the gov't $10.

Why don't you say that he cost the government $75 and you cost them $85?

chopper
03-12-2011, 11:57 AM
Because the gov't is entitled to all of our money? That's a stretch.
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
03-12-2011, 12:08 PM
Because the gov't is entitled to all of our money? That's a stretch.
Posted via Mobile Device

Are they entitled to exactly 25%? On what basis do you find your version of this semantic argument to be reasonable and everyone else's to be unreasonable?

How about we say the government is entitled to the top marginal rate of the current progressive tax system, 35%. That means it's costing the government trillions of dollars to give handouts to all the people in the 0, 10, 15, and 25, 28, and 33% brackets. It's high time to quit spending all that money and just make it a flat 35%.

chopper
03-12-2011, 12:23 PM
Who said anyone was unreasonable? If you think we're arguing semantics, you're just as lost as the poster I corrected.
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
03-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Fairness.

Probably depends on who is determining what is fair I guess.

Yeah, a word steeped in subjectivity. Kinda like the word "quality."

BucEyedPea
03-12-2011, 12:25 PM
Yeah. Those without a brain and reasoning ability think folks who can't feed their families or pay their rent should pay more, so the rich can continue to get tax cuts and vacation home mortgage deductions and lower capital gains taxes. I mean, it trickles-down to working class scum, after all.

They probably can't feed their families or pay their rent due to the economic interventionism by our govt in the name of fairness aka social justice and egalitarianism which drives the cost of many things up.

warrior
03-12-2011, 12:36 PM
Yeah. Those without a brain and reasoning ability think folks who can't feed their families or pay their rent should pay more, so the rich can continue to get tax cuts and vacation home mortgage deductions and lower capital gains taxes. I mean, it trickles-down to working class scum, after all.


Yes REP REP REP I'm so sick the rich winning.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 01:34 PM
Who said anyone was unreasonable? If you think we're arguing semantics, you're just as lost as the poster I corrected.
Posted via Mobile Device

You didn't correct anyone, you just chose a different spin. It's a semantic argument whether you recognize it or not.

And you didn't answer my questions.

chopper
03-12-2011, 01:44 PM
You didn't correct anyone, you just chose a different spin. It's a semantic argument whether you recognize it or not.

I can see why you would think that, considering each of us has our own notions of what the gov't is entitled to, versus not entitled to, and what the definition of the word "cost" is. However, I didn't inject any opinion into my first post. The fact is, the gov't has legislated that it is entitled to a portion of our income, at a progressive rate, if you want to take it that far. Therefore, it is so, whether you or I like it or not. So now that we've established that, we can see how giving a tax break on capital gains in the amount of $10, costs the same amount to the gov't as handing a $10 welfare check to homeless Bill. Your feelings about these things turned it into a semantic argument, remove your feelings from this and you can see the comparison made in the chart is valid.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 02:51 PM
I can see why you would think that, considering each of us has our own notions of what the gov't is entitled to, versus not entitled to, and what the definition of the word "cost" is. However, I didn't inject any opinion into my first post.

In the following sentence, where you say "the fact is", what you're really saying is "chopper's opinion about these various definitions is".

The fact is chopper's opinion about these various definitions is, the gov't has legislated that it is entitled to a portion of our income, at a progressive rate, if you want to take it that far. Therefore, based on chopper's definitionsit is so,...

Nothing but semantics. There's nothing magically more correct about your spin than about silock's or mine.

So now that we've established that, we can see how giving a tax break on capital gains in the amount of $10, costs the same amount to the gov't as handing a $10 welfare check to homeless Bill. Your feelings about these things turned it into a semantic argument, remove your feelings from this and you can see the comparison made in the chart is valid.

This isn't about my feelings. And if you think my feelings can turn this into a semantic argument, I'm not sure you understand what a semantic argument is.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 02:58 PM
You really are a ****ing douchebag. Ever heard the phrase, "Trying to squeeze blood from a turnip."?

Our tax system has traditionally been based on ability to pay and fairness. Unfortunately the rich and their lobbyists have stacked the deck in their favor over the last 30 years.

30 years? The deck is always stacked in favor of those with money and power (listing both of those is almost redundant) That is the way of the world and it won't be changing anytime soon.

That said, the entire tax system is broken and needs to be blown up and rewritten. No more loopholes, no more bullshit. Simple, fair, easy to understand.

The amount of taxes you pay, should not be dependent on how many accountants you can hire.

KC native
03-12-2011, 03:03 PM
What would be the best way to make the rich pay their fair share? This current tax code is pretty simple: Everybody pays taxes. Yet some have found loopholes. How are you going to fix that problem next time around?

I've been consistent in expressing my desire for a progressive system with zero loopholes and deductions. If we do this, then IMO, we can drastically lower statutory rates. I have no problems with credits for lower income earners.

If we went with a dramatic rewrite like this then we would also drastically reduce tax compliance and tax avoidance/evasion costs. Those wasteful costs could then be redirected to more productive economic activities.

KC native
03-12-2011, 03:04 PM
And as long as 47% don't pay income tax, I will continue to seek every loophole.

For example, taking advantage of a WI job creation program, I just purchased a small office building with no money down.

All the losses from the purchase and renovation will offset income elsewhere. Thus, no taxes on $50,000 of income this year alone.

With a flat tax, this loophole goes away. And I would do it in a heartbeat. But until then, with Looters constantly seeking more money, I'm constantly looking for tax avoidance.

No, you're a piece of shit and looking for tax evasion. Move to Somalia if you don't want government and taxes you fucking leech.

Silock
03-12-2011, 03:05 PM
I apologize for my overly simple example but this is how I see it. Let's say you and I both make $100 this year, but you made yours at your job, while I made mine on capital gains. If your tax rate is 25% you would pay $25 in income tax, I would pay 15% tax rate on capital gains , meaning I would pay $15 in income tax. Therefore, costing the gov't $10.

That's not a cost. They may collect less revenue, but that is NOT the same thing as a tax "costing" anything. Cost is related to spending, not taxation.

KC native
03-12-2011, 03:08 PM
30 years? The deck is always stacked in favor of those with money and power (listing both of those is almost redundant) That is the way of the world and it won't be changing anytime soon.

That said, the entire tax system is broken and needs to be blown up and rewritten. No more loopholes, no more bullshit. Simple, fair, easy to understand.

The amount of taxes you pay, should not be dependent on how many accountants you can hire.

Yes, but there are two books that I will highly recommend if you want to see the radical shift in the tax code starting in the early 80's.

Free lunch by David Cay Johnston
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591842484/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299967594&sr=8-1

and Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston

http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich---Everybody/dp/1591840694/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1299967594&sr=8-3

patteeu
03-12-2011, 03:09 PM
No, you're a piece of shit and looking for tax evasion. Move to Somalia if you don't want government and taxes you ****ing leech.

It's not tax evasion, naive. It's tax avoidance and it's perfectly honorable. He's only doing the things Congress chose to incentivize. How much more patriotic can you get?

It's about time we started making the poor pay their fair share of the income tax burden. Just say no to progressivity.

KC native
03-12-2011, 03:15 PM
It's not tax evasion, naive. It's tax avoidance and it's perfectly honorable. He's only doing the things Congress chose to incentivize. How much more patriotic can you get?

It's about time we started making the poor pay their fair share of the income tax burden. Just say no to progressivity.

It's evasion and there's nothing honorable about it. Just because congress has been bought and paid for, that doesn't change the fact that he is specifically look to evade taxes.

Does he not drive on the roads provided by our government? Does he not benefit from a legal system that enforces the contracts he engages in? Does he not benefit from police services that keep people from walking in and taking his shit.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 03:19 PM
It's evasion and there's nothing honorable about it. Just because congress has been bought and paid for, that doesn't change the fact that he is specifically look to evade taxes.

Does he not drive on the roads provided by our government? Does he not benefit from a legal system that enforces the contracts he engages in? Does he not benefit from police services that keep people from walking in and taking his shit.

He's not evading taxes, he's avoiding them. Do you take your personal exemption? How about the standard deduction or itemized deductions for home mortgage interest or charitable donations? Do you participate in a medical expense reimbursement program? If you do any of these things, you're doing the same things he's doing. IOW, you're playing by the rules as you find them just like he does.

I know you understand this because you're smarter than the average member of the moron class, so please don't continue to play dumb.

KC native
03-12-2011, 03:22 PM
He's not evading taxes, he's avoiding them. Do you take your personal exemption? How about the standard deduction or itemized deductions for home mortgage interest or charitable donations? Do you participate in a medical expense reimbursement program? If you do any of these things, you're doing the same things he's doing. IOW, you're playing by the rules as you find them just like he does.

I know you understand this because you're smarter than the average member of the moron class, so please don't continue to play dumb.

Deflection and semantics. Conversation is over.

mikey23545
03-12-2011, 03:25 PM
Deflection and semantics. Conversation is over.

In other words, you just had your ass handed to you.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 03:26 PM
Deflection and semantics. Conversation is over.

:LOL: OK, April 15 is around the corner. Make sure you pay your rate right off the top without any allowed deductions or exclusions.

KC native
03-12-2011, 03:30 PM
:LOL: OK, April 15 is around the corner. Make sure you pay your rate right off the top without any allowed deductions or exclusions.

Last statement, if you can't see that there was no legitimate purpose for his purchase of the office building other than to evade taxes on other income then you are blind. Comparing that with individual deductions is asinine.

This is exactly why I rarely post in DC anymore. Have fun being the rich's spooge towel boy for the rest of your life.

chris
03-12-2011, 03:32 PM
No, you're a piece of shit and looking for tax evasion. Move to Somalia if you don't want government and taxes you ****ing leech.

I'll go slow so that you can understand in your simple mind.

There is tax evasion and tax avoidance.

One is legal and one is not.

As long as 47% don't pay taxes, and politicians practice class warfare, there will be tax loopholes.

I don't mind paying taxes; just not yours. :)

patteeu
03-12-2011, 03:37 PM
Last statement, if you can't see that there was no legitimate purpose for his purchase of the office building other than to evade taxes on other income then you are blind. Comparing that with individual deductions is asinine.

This is exactly why I rarely post in DC anymore. Have fun being the rich's spooge towel boy for the rest of your life.

What do you mean there was no legitimate purpose for the purchase? It sounds to me like he's fixing the place up to either use it himself or sell it to someone who needs it. That's called progress. If you've got a beef with Congress for incentivizing that behavior then take it up with them, not with chris. He's just following the incentives in a way that makes the most sense for him and his business.

chris
03-12-2011, 03:37 PM
Deflection and semantics. Conversation is over.

Perfect of example of closed, blinded, simple mind confronted with facts that he chooses to ignore.

You are wasting time.

chris
03-12-2011, 03:42 PM
Last statement, if you can't see that there was no legitimate purpose for his purchase of the office building other than to evade taxes on other income then you are blind. Comparing that with individual deductions is asinine.

This is exactly why I rarely post in DC anymore. Have fun being the rich's spooge towel boy for the rest of your life.

You can read my thoughts?

You know of the transation?

I bought the building to obtain room for my growing company. It was cheaper to buy than continue to rent.

I started out of college broke, huge eduational debts. Decades later, due to hard, hard work, I'm buying buildings. We all make choices. Perhaps you made poor decisions where you now resent others that may have done better?

blaise
03-12-2011, 04:10 PM
Corporations are "the wealthy"? I thought they employed thousands of people.

Chiefshrink
03-12-2011, 04:37 PM
Which is why it worked perfectly fine up until the point when it stopped being truly progressive in the 1980s. Ironically, we also cut the shit out of social spending during that time.

Fortunately, we only quadrupled the national debt.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh the ole Evil Capitalism argument by the Radical Lefty Marxists vs the Independent Liberty Freedom Fighters. Here is a post I made several hrs ago in another thread that I think fits appropiately. I'll be damned if I'm going to have some whiny lazy ass Liberal tell me I'm unfair that I make too much $$ and force me to share with that deadbeat:spock:

I say to those "mofos" get off your ass use the freedom and liberty granted by God resulting in the Constitution that will at least allow you the opportunity(freedom) to choose your lot in life as opposed to replacing God with the Fed Govt and determining your outcome thus ruining our whole country in the process.

Here is my previous post:

So is it capitalism or corrupt individuals that so call in your words "f" this country? Think awhile before you answer this so then you will answer 'honestly'. Hell let me help you here.

Capitalism is "financial freedom" to at least have the opportunity to acquire and maintain your particular "lot in life" on how you see fit to live it.

It is not the Govt's right to come in and tell you what your worth is to society and tell you when to piss and sh** and how much and what you will make financially and what you are allowed to own materially. Capitialism in and of itself is not corrupt but in the hands of "corrupt people" becomes not Capitalism anymore but outright "theft".

"We the People" must protect ourselves by enforcing the laws we have already in place to avoid the "corruption" that allows those individuals/groups from the financial world and our Fed Govt to "steal" from "We The People".

When a society begins to snub it's nose to high moral ethics(ala Judeo Christian values) and approaches everything with a greeedy attitude of "everyman for himself, gonna get mine and "f" everyone else" mentality as we are seeing right now in our country. Then Capitalism turns into "greed" resulting in "theft" and like cancer that is not cut out before it gets into the "lymph system"(ala enforcing our laws) then the "unchecked greed" will ultimately kill our country because corrupt individuals in power never enforce the law. What did Thomas Jefferson say, "As soon as the Fed Govt realizes they can vote themselves $$ the country will cease to exist or something like that. That is what is happening now and has been for the last 6 decades.

The Seven Deadly Sins of which no country in history has ever been immune to but our country has been somewhat more successful than most "BUT" in the last 60yrs has given in significantly to these sins and we have paid a dear, dear price of which IMO we will never recover from.

So I ask you again, is it Capitalism in and of itself or "corrupt individuals" that turn Capitalism into "theft and greed"? And show me anywhere in world history that a govt has taxed itself into prosperity and a socialist approach to govt has been better than our last 200 plus yrs of Liberty and Freedom?

petegz28
03-12-2011, 04:45 PM
Last statement, if you can't see that there was no legitimate purpose for his purchase of the office building other than to evade taxes on other income then you are blind. Comparing that with individual deductions is asinine.

This is exactly why I rarely post in DC anymore. Have fun being the rich's spooge towel boy for the rest of your life.

Would this be anything like John Kerry docking his yacht in one state as opposed to his home state to avoid serveral hunder thousand in tax $'s? he would otherwise owe?

chris
03-12-2011, 04:47 PM
Ohhhhhhhhhhh the ole Evil Capitalism argument by the Radical Lefty Marxists vs the Independent Liberty Freedom Fighters. Here is a post I made several hrs ago in another thread that I think fits appropiately. I'll be damned if I'm going to have some whiny lazy ass Liberal tell me I'm unfair that I make too much $$ and force me to share with that deadbeat:spock:

I say to those "mofos" get off your ass use the freedom and liberty granted by God resulting in the Constitution that will at least allow you the opportunity(freedom) to choose your lot in life as opposed to replacing God with the Fed Govt and determining your outcome thus ruining our whole country in the process.

Here is my previous post:

So is it capitalism or corrupt individuals that so call in your words "f" this country? Think awhile before you answer this so then you will answer 'honestly'. Hell let me help you here.

Capitalism is "financial freedom" to at least have the opportunity to acquire and maintain your particular "lot in life" on how you see fit to live it.

It is not the Govt's right to come in and tell you what your worth is to society and tell you when to piss and sh** and how much and what you will make financially and what you are allowed to own materially. Capitialism in and of itself is not corrupt but in the hands of "corrupt people" becomes not Capitalism anymore but outright "theft".

"We the People" must protect ourselves by enforcing the laws we have already in place to avoid the "corruption" that allows those individuals/groups from the financial world and our Fed Govt to "steal" from "We The People".

When a society begins to snub it's nose to high moral ethics(ala Judeo Christian values) and approaches everything with a greeedy attitude of "everyman for himself, gonna get mine and "f" everyone else" mentality as we are seeing right now in our country. Then Capitalism turns into "greed" resulting in "theft" and like cancer that is not cut out before it gets into the "lymph system"(ala enforcing our laws) then the "unchecked greed" will ultimately kill our country because corrupt individuals in power never enforce the law. What did Thomas Jefferson say, "As soon as the Fed Govt realizes they can vote themselves $$ the country will cease to exist or something like that. That is what is happening now and has been for the last 6 decades.

The Seven Deadly Sins of which no country in history has ever been immune to but our country has been somewhat more successful than most "BUT" in the last 60yrs has given in significantly to these sins and we have paid a dear, dear price of which IMO we will never recover from.

So I ask you again, is it Capitalism in and of itself or "corrupt individuals" that turn Capitalism into "theft and greed"? And show me anywhere in world history that a govt has taxed itself into prosperity and a socialist approach to govt has been better than our last 200 plus yrs of Liberty and Freedom?

Amen! Nice.

petegz28
03-12-2011, 04:47 PM
No, you're a piece of shit and looking for tax evasion. Move to Somalia if you don't want government and taxes you ****ing leech.

Seriously, dude, how can you call someone a leech when you just said you support tax credits for lower income individuals?

chopper
03-12-2011, 05:10 PM
That's not a cost. They may collect less revenue, but that is NOT the same thing as a tax "costing" anything. Cost is related to spending, not taxation.

How so? If the gov't takes tax revenue and chooses to "spend" that revenue on a social program that is a cost. If the gov't enacts a law, that when put into place, leads to "less revenue" that is also a cost. There may be different benefits to the social program versus the tax break, but they both result in the gov't having less money. But please, take this all with a grain of salt as it is just my opinion based on various definitions of words that are mine alone.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 05:16 PM
How about instead of arguing over whether it's right to call it a cost or not, we weigh in on whether we're better off with the social spending, the tax cut, both, or neither. Break it down line item by line item if you want or consider each as a comprehensive package. For me, I'll take the tax cut (i.e. flattened rate structure) without the social spending.

When we see where that gets us, we can consider adjusting the tax rate structure. Personally, I'd be fine with eliminating things like the home mortgage deduction for everyone in return for flattening the rate structure permanently. Do away with targeted tax subsidies like those for ethanol while reducing/eliminating the rate on investment income permanently.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 05:22 PM
Wait...when did paying taxes become Patriotic?

Have all of you forgotten why we aren't British?

chopper
03-12-2011, 05:43 PM
How about instead of arguing over whether it's right to call it a cost or not, we weigh in on whether we're better off with the social spending, the tax cut, both, or neither. Break it down line item by line item if you want or consider each as a comprehensive package. For me, I'll take the tax cut (i.e. flattened rate structure) without the social spending.

When we see where that gets us, we can consider adjusting the tax rate structure. Personally, I'd be fine with eliminating things like the home mortgage deduction for everyone in return for flattening the rate structure permanently. Do away with targeted tax subsidies like those for ethanol while reducing/eliminating the rate on investment income permanently.

A flat tax, with fewer deductions (like the WI job creation act), with 0% tax rate on investment income would really piss a lot of people off. Not only would that put an unfair portion of the tax liability on the poor, it would also hurt small businesses that make money, by not having deductions to protect it from tax. Worst of both worlds, everybody gets screwed. However, I'm not even sure social programs are the real evil here.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

They're a drop in the bucket compared to social security, national defense, and health care. What if we quit starting wars, and the gov't got out of the retirement game altogether. That would help a lot, in my opinion, based on various definitions of words that I know.


edit-I can finally post links! Today was a good day...

Simplex3
03-12-2011, 05:55 PM
It's evasion and there's nothing honorable about it. Just because congress has been bought and paid for, that doesn't change the fact that he is specifically look to evade taxes.

How is someone evading a tax that, by law, he isn't required to pay? The government uses the tax code to manipulate our behavior. All he's doing (and I do the same) is to change his behavior the way the government is asking. By your definition it would be tax evasion to take a mortgage interest deduction.

Does he not drive on the roads provided by our government? Does he not benefit from a legal system that enforces the contracts he engages in? Does he not benefit from police services that keep people from walking in and taking his shit.

A rich person pays far more for the same amount of service even with the loopholes.

With all that said I am for a complete, no BS redo on the tax system. I'm personally a Fair Tax guy, but I'll take anything that doesn't require me to keep every receipt for seven years and pay a small fortune to my tax guy to try and figure out what I owe.

mlyonsd
03-12-2011, 05:56 PM
A flat tax, with fewer deductions (like the WI job creation act), with 0% tax rate on investment income would really piss a lot of people off. Not only would that put an unfair portion of the tax liability on the poor, it would also hurt small businesses that make money, by not having deductions to protect it from tax. Worst of both worlds, everybody gets screwed. However, I'm not even sure social programs are the real evil here.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

They're a drop in the bucket compared to social security, national defense, and health care. What if we quit starting wars, and the gov't got out of the retirement game altogether. That would help a lot, in my opinion, based on various definitions of words that I know.


edit-I can finally post links! Today was a good day...

Some people not paying income tax is unfair if they use any other service provided by those that do pay taxes.

Simplex3
03-12-2011, 06:01 PM
Last statement, if you can't see that there was no legitimate purpose for his purchase of the office building other than to evade taxes on other income then you are blind. Comparing that with individual deductions is asinine.

He's definitely using the laws that are in place to reduce his tax burden. However nobody would do it just for the tax write off. He will still need to complete the work and sell or lease that space at a profit or he'll be in a world of hurt.

It also meets with your "public good" viewpoint. The city gets a building being occupied and renovated that otherwise would have just been dilapidated. He'll wind up paying property taxes, if he sells it at a profit he'll pay then too. Any tenants who move in there will pay corporate taxes, payroll taxes, etc.

Frankie
03-12-2011, 06:04 PM
Typical Andrew.....liberal fluff.

Andrew Sullivan is a political CONSERVATIVE.

chopper
03-12-2011, 06:06 PM
How is someone evading a tax that, by law, he isn't required to pay? The government uses the tax code to manipulate our behavior. All he's doing (and I do the same) is to change his behavior the way the government is asking. By your definition it would be tax evasion to take a mortgage interest deduction.



A rich person pays far more for the same amount of service even with the loopholes.

With all that said I am for a complete, no BS redo on the tax system. I'm personally a Fair Tax guy, but I'll take anything that doesn't require me to keep every receipt for seven years and pay a small fortune to my tax guy to try and figure out what I owe.

http://geekpolitics.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-the-fair-tax/

FairTax sounds nice, but look at Con #6, our economy is driven by consumers. I know I would concentrate on debt elimination for a while and reduce spending. It could be painful for a while, and not very revenue neutral. However, the abolition of the IRS would be met by me with much excitement.

Frankie
03-12-2011, 06:07 PM
Exactly.

Also, that chart is bullshit. Tax cuts don't COST anything.

:eek:

:shake:

Simplex3
03-12-2011, 06:10 PM
Some people not paying income tax is unfair if they use any other service provided by those that do pay taxes.

I've never heard a convincing argument for a fair way to apply taxes other than a straight use tax, but everyone would kick and scream about how that would hurt the poor.

Other than taxing for:

* every mile you drive, on which roads, and by the weight of your vehicle
* every time you use any emergency service
* by the hour when you're at the DMV, etc

...how do you ensure that everyone is paying their fair share? And let's be honest, the collection process on that would be abysmal. I wouldn't want any part of that system.

chopper
03-12-2011, 06:12 PM
Some people not paying income tax is unfair if they use any other service provided by those that do pay taxes.

I get your point, but I'm also happy with my family's quality of life, compared to others that get to experience the sheer joy of not paying income tax on their $12,000 a year income.

Simplex3
03-12-2011, 06:21 PM
http://geekpolitics.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-the-fair-tax/

FairTax sounds nice, but look at Con #6, our economy is driven by consumers. I know I would concentrate on debt elimination for a while and reduce spending. It could be painful for a while, and not very revenue neutral. However, the abolition of the IRS would be met by me with much excitement.

I'll take a crack at that. :)

#1: Love it.

#2: Needing fewer federal employees to enforce the law is a con?

#3: Love it.

#4: There is a 23%-30% embedded cost in everything you buy to cover the corporate taxes of the manufacturer, shipper, retailer, etc. The national retail sales tax is (generally) a wash because those costs all go away.

#5: With no investment taxes or corporate taxes we'd all have to work two jobs just to keep all the open jobs filled. Every company in the world would be looking toward America.

#6: We've already determined the out-the-door price of goods won't change by much if at all, and those people will suddenly have their entire paycheck and not be worrying if they need to save because they'll owe taxes at the end of the year. All that money that isn't being spent because we've decimated the tax industry will wind up back in the hands of those who earned it. People would buy more than ever. I have five figures sitting in a bank account right now, not being spent or invested, because my tax guy hasn't told me how much I owe yet.

#7: Amen.

#8: All this is doing is ensuring that people below the poverty line aren't being taxed. Frankly it's not a new entitlement, it's a way to continue the tax freeloading that the poor already do, but now they get it in the form of a check every month.

#9: Kick butt.

#10: It's a silly argument. You have a black market today to avoid taxes. Nothing changes.

chopper
03-12-2011, 06:30 PM
I'll take a crack at that. :)

#1: Love it.

#2: Needing fewer federal employees to enforce the law is a con?

#3: Love it.

#4: There is a 23%-30% embedded cost in everything you buy to cover the corporate taxes of the manufacturer, shipper, retailer, etc. The national retail sales tax is (generally) a wash because those costs all go away.

#5: With no investment taxes or corporate taxes we'd all have to work two jobs just to keep all the open jobs filled. Every company in the world would be looking toward America.

#6: We've already determined the out-the-door price of goods won't change by much if at all, and those people will suddenly have their entire paycheck and not be worrying if they need to save because they'll owe taxes at the end of the year. All that money that isn't being spent because we've decimated the tax industry will wind up back in the hands of those who earned it. People would buy more than ever. I have five figures sitting in a bank account right now, not being spent or invested, because my tax guy hasn't told me how much I owe yet.

#7: Amen.

#8: All this is doing is ensuring that people below the poverty line aren't being taxed. Frankly it's not a new entitlement, it's a way to continue the tax freeloading that the poor already do, but now they get it in the form of a check every month.

#9: Kick butt.

#10: It's a silly argument. You have a black market today to avoid taxes. Nothing changes.

I'm with you on most of this, I don't agree with #4. I don't see prices coming down, jmo though. Also #6, doesn't your first sentence contradict with what you say in #4? Contradictions aside, you and I disagree on behavior. I'm debt averse and dislike taxes, so I would take whatever opportunities I could to increase my balance sheet and reduce my taxes by only buying necessities.

I agree on #8, it just keeps the status quo for poor people which will give fortunate spenders even more reason to bitch than they have now, because all their tax plays are gone.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:34 PM
:eek:

:shake:

They don't. :shrug:

Taxes are a source of income. If you take in less income, that is not the same as a cost. Spending more money is a increase on cost. Cutting taxes is not. It's a reduction in "income." (if you can call it that)

Simplex3
03-12-2011, 06:53 PM
I'm with you on most of this, I don't agree with #4. I don't see prices coming down, jmo though. Also #6, doesn't your first sentence contradict with what you say in #4? Contradictions aside, you and I disagree on behavior. I'm debt averse and dislike taxes, so I would take whatever opportunities I could to increase my balance sheet and reduce my taxes by only buying necessities.

I agree on #8, it just keeps the status quo for poor people which will give fortunate spenders even more reason to bitch than they have now, because all their tax plays are gone.

I probably explain it poorly.

Let's say you go to the store and buy a $100 item today. Between $23 and $30 of the cost of that item are actually dollars that are paid to Uncle Sam by the people that made the item and its constituent parts. You've also paid, let's say, 20% of your income to Uncle Sam before you spent a dime.

It's reasonable to believe that under the Fair Tax those prices will go down to reflect the removal of the embedded tax costs and/or companies will keep some of that as profit. If we assume the first scenario, that they cut the price to match, the item would then sit on the shelf at $70 - $77. Add the 23%-30% Fair Tax and you're paying the same or less to walk out the door with that product. You also have 20% more right off the bat because you aren't paying income taxes.

If you assume the worst, and no company realizes they can increase market share by lowering prices, then corporate profits will go way up because they will no longer be paying any taxes and still selling their goods at the same price they were before. Stocks would soar, companies would flood into the US to join in the profits, unemployment would be at record lows, and wages would go up as people tried to attract employees.

In all likelihood it will wind up being some combination of the two, but I don't see a downside to either.

As for behavior, I think only thing you can count on is that everyone will do the thing that is in their own best interest. That doesn't mean I think companies will raise prices, though. Look at Walmart. They're massively profitable for the exact opposite reason.

chopper
03-12-2011, 07:15 PM
I probably explain it poorly.

Let's say you go to the store and buy a $100 item today. Between $23 and $30 of the cost of that item are actually dollars that are paid to Uncle Sam by the people that made the item and its constituent parts. You've also paid, let's say, 20% of your income to Uncle Sam before you spent a dime.

It's reasonable to believe that under the Fair Tax those prices will go down to reflect the removal of the embedded tax costs and/or companies will keep some of that as profit. If we assume the first scenario, that they cut the price to match, the item would then sit on the shelf at $70 - $77. Add the 23%-30% Fair Tax and you're paying the same or less to walk out the door with that product. You also have 20% more right off the bat because you aren't paying income taxes.

If you assume the worst, and no company realizes they can increase market share by lowering prices, then corporate profits will go way up because they will no longer be paying any taxes and still selling their goods at the same price they were before. Stocks would soar, companies would flood into the US to join in the profits, unemployment would be at record lows, and wages would go up as people tried to attract employees.

In all likelihood it will wind up being some combination of the two, but I don't see a downside to either.



Good points, and my thoughts about prices not coming down came mostly from a cynical viewpoint (why would they lower prices if they got us to pay this much for it in the past?). Upon further reflection, wouldn't all goods manufactured in the US have the embedded sales tax on all the inputs, therefore, the same amount of tax would still be embedded in the final product (assuming the tax is revenue neutral). I wonder how imports work under the fair tax (and I'm not going to research it tonight and don't expect you to either). If you can buy Chinese goods, free of this new sales tax would that put American goods at a disadvantage?

I guess I'm not sure about the specifics of the FairTax, which is probably a little deeper than we need to go. I'm wondering if it is like Europe's VAT tax, where certain items are exempt, and there ends up being just as many tax plays as we currently have.

mlyonsd
03-12-2011, 07:18 PM
I've never heard a convincing argument for a fair way to apply taxes other than a straight use tax, but everyone would kick and scream about how that would hurt the poor.

Other than taxing for:

* every mile you drive, on which roads, and by the weight of your vehicle
* every time you use any emergency service
* by the hour when you're at the DMV, etc

...how do you ensure that everyone is paying their fair share? And let's be honest, the collection process on that would be abysmal. I wouldn't want any part of that system.

In a use tax how do you pay for the military?

Simplex3
03-12-2011, 07:20 PM
In a use tax how do you pay for the military?

I have no idea. That's one of the myriad problems it has and a reason I don't like it.

Simplex3
03-12-2011, 07:22 PM
Good points, and my thoughts about prices not coming down came mostly from a cynical viewpoint (why would they lower prices if they got us to pay this much for it in the past?). Upon further reflection, wouldn't all goods manufactured in the US have the embedded sales tax on all the inputs, therefore, the same amount of tax would still be embedded in the final product (assuming the tax is revenue neutral). I wonder how imports work under the fair tax (and I'm not going to research it tonight and don't expect you to either). If you can buy Chinese goods, free of this new sales tax would that put American goods at a disadvantage?

I guess I'm not sure about the specifics of the FairTax, which is probably a little deeper than we need to go. I'm wondering if it is like Europe's VAT tax, where certain items are exempt, and there ends up being just as many tax plays as we currently have.

The national sales tax is only applied at retail sale. So if I bought a dozen foos and a dozen bars to build a dozen widgets, I wouldn't pay any tax. I could then sell those widgets to Target and the 12 people that bought them would pay sales tax.

The cascading taxes are eliminated because my widget company doesn't pay taxes, therefor I can sell for less to Target. My suppliers of foos and bars don't pay taxes, so they can sell them to me for less, on into infinity.

Frankie
03-12-2011, 09:05 PM
They don't. :shrug:

Taxes are a source of income. If you take in less income, that is not the same as a cost. Spending more money is a increase on cost. Cutting taxes is not. It's a reduction in "income." (if you can call it that)

A penny not gained is a penny lost.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 09:50 PM
A flat tax, with fewer deductions (like the WI job creation act), with 0% tax rate on investment income would really piss a lot of people off. Not only would that put an unfair portion of the tax liability on the poor, it would also hurt small businesses that make money, by not having deductions to protect it from tax. Worst of both worlds, everybody gets screwed. However, I'm not even sure social programs are the real evil here.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

They're a drop in the bucket compared to social security, national defense, and health care. What if we quit starting wars, and the gov't got out of the retirement game altogether. That would help a lot, in my opinion, based on various definitions of words that I know.


edit-I can finally post links! Today was a good day...

Don't talk to me about fairness. That just another definition war.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 09:55 PM
http://geekpolitics.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-the-fair-tax/

FairTax sounds nice, but look at Con #6, our economy is driven by consumers. I know I would concentrate on debt elimination for a while and reduce spending. It could be painful for a while, and not very revenue neutral. However, the abolition of the IRS would be met by me with much excitement.

We need to transition our economy from a consumption driven one to one driven by productivity and exports if we want to do well in the global economy. We need to align our tax code with that in mind. It's time to stop seeing the world as it was 30 or 50 years ago and start seeing it as it will be 30 or 50 years from now.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 09:58 PM
Good points, and my thoughts about prices not coming down came mostly from a cynical viewpoint (why would they lower prices if they got us to pay this much for it in the past?). Upon further reflection, wouldn't all goods manufactured in the US have the embedded sales tax on all the inputs, therefore, the same amount of tax would still be embedded in the final product (assuming the tax is revenue neutral). I wonder how imports work under the fair tax (and I'm not going to research it tonight and don't expect you to either). If you can buy Chinese goods, free of this new sales tax would that put American goods at a disadvantage?

I guess I'm not sure about the specifics of the FairTax, which is probably a little deeper than we need to go. I'm wondering if it is like Europe's VAT tax, where certain items are exempt, and there ends up being just as many tax plays as we currently have.

The sales tax would never be applied to exports so our exports would compete one an apples to apples basis with foreign domestic products with whatever taxes that foreign taxing authority applies to both.

On the other end, here in our markets, the sales tax would be applied to both domestically produced goods and foreign imports so they'd compete on an apples to apples basis here, too.

healthpellets
03-12-2011, 10:03 PM
http://geekpolitics.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-the-fair-tax/

FairTax sounds nice, but look at Con #6, our economy is driven by consumers. I know I would concentrate on debt elimination for a while and reduce spending. It could be painful for a while, and not very revenue neutral. However, the abolition of the IRS would be met by me with much excitement.

so i'm not sure what your (and the author's) point is here. under the Fair Tax as proposed by Linder, the Fair Tax would apply only to new goods.

so if you're willing to buy used goods (obviously, some things like mattresses aren't very good options to buy used), you save.

healthpellets
03-12-2011, 10:09 PM
In a use tax how do you pay for the military?

huh? how do you pay for anything else? appropriations.

you're appropriating the same amount of money, so i'm confused as to why you're confused.

maybe i'm not clear on your question.

chopper
03-12-2011, 10:13 PM
The sales tax would never be applied to exports so our exports would compete one an apples to apples basis with foreign domestic products with whatever taxes that foreign taxing authority applies to both.

On the other end, here in our markets, the sales tax would be applied to both domestically produced goods and foreign imports so they'd compete on an apples to apples basis here, too.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf

There it is on the first page, you guys were right about exports and inputs, no tax whatsoever (also see page 8 for further discussion). This is different from VAT tax, which is what I assumed the Fairtax was modeled on. How can this Fairtax be revenue neutral, while eliminating all Federal Tax liability for American producers of "inputs" and exporters? By shifting 100% of the Federal Tax burden to consumers of end products, right? Explain to me how this doesn't mean my Federal Tax bill doubles or triples. I am waffling on this idea now. I thought we almost had this figured out.

chopper
03-12-2011, 10:16 PM
so i'm not sure what your (and the author's) point is here. under the Fair Tax as proposed by Linder, the Fair Tax would apply only to new goods.

so if you're willing to buy used goods (obviously, some things like mattresses aren't very good options to buy used), you save.

I don't have a point about the Fairtax, yet. I was just educating myself, and attempted to provide some information in case anyone else wanted to read it. I'm not sure that the author had a point either, I think it was just 10 pros and cons of the Fairtax. Trust me, I would consider buying a used mattress if it meant tax avoidance.

Bewbies
03-12-2011, 10:42 PM
I don't have a point about the Fairtax, yet. I was just educating myself, and attempted to provide some information in case anyone else wanted to read it. I'm not sure that the author had a point either, I think it was just 10 pros and cons of the Fairtax. Trust me, I would consider buying a used mattress if it meant tax avoidance.

Almost 10 years ago my wife and I were moving into the duplex we had purchased as our first home. We had to wait after we were married to move in because I had to let the dope that was in there out of her lease. She was kind enough to trash the place leaving everything from an old crock pot full of meat and cabbage to a used mattress behind for us.

The mattress looked like the piss olympics had taken place on it, dark golden rings everywhere. Nobody would take it outside because we all refused to touch that nasty ass thing.

Anyway, my brother decides to see if someone will take it off my hands for free. He took it outside and propped it up, piss ring side out, against a telephone pole and waited.

It wasn't 10 minutes and a dude showed up, asked permission, then took it off our hands. LMAO

Anyway, back to the fairtax discussion!

chopper
03-12-2011, 10:53 PM
If you'd have told me there was a crock pot full of meat and cabbage I would have taken that too!

mlyonsd
03-13-2011, 07:09 AM
huh? how do you pay for anything else? appropriations.

you're appropriating the same amount of money, so i'm confused as to why you're confused.

maybe i'm not clear on your question.
It's probably me more confused about a use/Fair tax.

So let me try again. In that type of system are all government expenditures paid for by the revenue accumulated with a use/Fairtax? i.e, the military, SS, Medicare, new roads, food stamps, etc, etc?

Is all tax on income eliminated?

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 08:07 AM
It's probably me more confused about a use/Fair tax.

So let me try again. In that type of system are all government expenditures paid for by the revenue accumulated with a use/Fairtax? i.e, the military, SS, Medicare, new roads, food stamps, etc, etc?

Is all tax on income eliminated?

Yes and yes.

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 09:29 AM
A penny not gained is a penny lost.

My house didn't appreciate by $100 trillion last year. Did I lose that money?

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 09:33 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf

There it is on the first page, you guys were right about exports and inputs, no tax whatsoever (also see page 8 for further discussion). This is different from VAT tax, which is what I assumed the Fairtax was modeled on. How can this Fairtax be revenue neutral, while eliminating all Federal Tax liability for American producers of "inputs" and exporters? By shifting 100% of the Federal Tax burden to consumers of end products, right? Explain to me how this doesn't mean my Federal Tax bill doubles or triples. I am waffling on this idea now. I thought we almost had this figured out.

It's a lot easier to grasp when you realize that people already pay 100% of federal taxes. Companies don't really own anything because every company is owned completely by people (shareholders, outright owners, etc). Every penny of federal taxes paid by any corporation is actually paid by the consumers of that company's product.

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 09:37 AM
It's probably me more confused about a use/Fair tax.

So let me try again. In that type of system are all government expenditures paid for by the revenue accumulated with a use/Fairtax? i.e, the military, SS, Medicare, new roads, food stamps, etc, etc?

Is all tax on income eliminated?

The only remaining federal tax is the national retail sales tax. If they want to start some new massive federal program they're going to have to be honest about the costs because we're all going to see it at the cash register.

HonestChieffan
03-13-2011, 10:14 AM
My house didn't appreciate by $100 trillion last year. Did I lose that money?

Yes but you should still pay Capital Gains you slacker POS

Frankie
03-13-2011, 10:53 AM
My house didn't appreciate by $100 trillion last year. Did I lose that money?

Your house needed it's wiring fixed or your family was in danger of house fire. You didn't budget for it because you spent a lot of money for that big screen TV you bought for your rich buddy. Did you gain anything?

mlyonsd
03-13-2011, 11:01 AM
The only remaining federal tax is the national retail sales tax. If they want to start some new massive federal program they're going to have to be honest about the costs because we're all going to see it at the cash register.

So are you and hp talking different things?

He indicates the Fair tax would eliminate income tax. You're saying a national retail sales tax would be a new thing that doesn't replace our old system. Correct?

mlyonsd
03-13-2011, 11:08 AM
Yes and yes.

So in a Fair tax scenario could someone making a million dollars a year working from home pretty much avoid payng much in tax if he doesn't go out and purchase much? He doesn't buy a car, eats canned food, etc?

Would it be possible for him to pay less tax than say a family of 4 whose gross income is say $100,000?

patteeu
03-13-2011, 11:41 AM
So are you and hp talking different things?

He indicates the Fair tax would eliminate income tax. You're saying a national retail sales tax would be a new thing that doesn't replace our old system. Correct?

No, the Fair Tax (a form of retail sales tax) would completely replace the income tax.

So in a Fair tax scenario could someone making a million dollars a year working from home pretty much avoid payng much in tax if he doesn't go out and purchase much? He doesn't buy a car, eats canned food, etc?

Would it be possible for him to pay less tax than say a family of 4 whose gross income is say $100,000?

Yes. If he stacks his money in the corner instead of spending it, he won't pay taxes on it. But instead of looking at this like a high income guy paying less tax than a low income guy, look at it as a low consumption (low standard of living) guy paying less tax than a high consumption (high standard of living) guy. If the high income guy ever decides to go out and splurge on a yacht or a rolex, he gets hit with the tax.

chopper
03-13-2011, 11:50 AM
High consumption with 4 kids does not equal (high standard of living).
Posted via Mobile Device

mlyonsd
03-13-2011, 11:57 AM
Yes. If he stacks his money in the corner instead of spending it, he won't pay taxes on it. But instead of looking at this like a high income guy paying less tax than a low income guy, look at it as a low consumption (low standard of living) guy paying less tax than a high consumption (high standard of living) guy. If the high income guy ever decides to go out and splurge on a yacht or a rolex, he gets hit with the tax.

Sounds like an economy killer to me.

patteeu
03-13-2011, 12:41 PM
High consumption with 4 kids does not equal (high standard of living).
Posted via Mobile Device

A family of four consuming a $100,000 income is living at a higher standard of living than a guy making $1 million who doesn't purchase much, doesn't have a car and eats out of cans (assuming he's not receiving his income in the form of consumed goods and services, e.g. a company car). For all practical purposes, consumption is standard of living. There are a lot of high standard of living families with four kids, but the important thing here is the comparison, not some absolute, chopper-defined standard of living that qualifies as "high".

patteeu
03-13-2011, 12:42 PM
Sounds like an economy killer to me.

Why?

chopper
03-13-2011, 01:13 PM
A family of four consuming a $100,000 income is living at a higher standard of living than a guy making $1 million who doesn't purchase much, doesn't have a car and eats out of cans (assuming he's not receiving his income in the form of consumed goods and services, e.g. a company car).

...not some absolute, chopper-defined standard of living that qualifies as "high".

If I'm not entitled to my definitions of various words, than neither are you. Your first sentence is invalid.

Chopper fact: people who are required to spend more to LIVE, taking all considerations about whatever their quality of life may be (defined by whoever), will be adversely affected by a consumption tax.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 01:27 PM
High consumption with 4 kids does not equal (high standard of living).
Posted via Mobile Device

the prebate helps cover those necessity items.

$100k at this point is pretty much middle class. when you decide to have kids, you make a commitment to decrease your potential standard of living in exchange for raising your offspring.

patteeu
03-13-2011, 01:33 PM
If I'm not entitled to my definitions of various words, than neither are you. Your first sentence is invalid.

That's fair. We'll say it's my opinion. I don't care what yours is.

Chopper fact: people who are required to spend more to LIVE, taking all considerations about whatever their quality of life may be (defined by whoever), will be adversely affected by a consumption tax.

This has nothing at all to do with the comparison described by mlyonsd.

If you want to have kids, that's great. I have them myself. Don't whine about it and act like everyone else owes it to you to subsidize them though.

chopper
03-13-2011, 01:36 PM
the prebate helps cover those necessity items.

$100k at this point is pretty much middle class. when you decide to have kids, you make a commitment to decrease your potential standard of living in exchange for raising your offspring.

I don't disagree at all with the trade off of kids for standard of living. In a way, that is the point I was making to patt. I will have to look into the prebate to see how it really works.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 01:37 PM
So in a Fair tax scenario could someone making a million dollars a year working from home pretty much avoid payng much in tax if he doesn't go out and purchase much? He doesn't buy a car, eats canned food, etc?

Would it be possible for him to pay less tax than say a family of 4 whose gross income is say $100,000?

well ya. the prebate covers food, etc so he could eat normal food if he wanted.

but let's think about all the people we know that make $1m a year (ok, i don't actually know any, so i'll pretend). how many of them do you know that choose to live in the middle class part of down, drive a 10 year old car, and eat food out of a can?

these aren't things people that make $1m+ a year do. now, it's what people that are worth millions do, but not people that bring in that kind of money every year.

and if we're going to nullify an idea simply because one really rich guy hordes his cash and lives like a pauper, well then let's call the whole thing off.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 01:39 PM
Don't whine about it and act like everyone else owes it to you to subsidize them though.

i was just thinking about the tax credit that comes with having kids...i need more credits.

patteeu
03-13-2011, 01:48 PM
i was just thinking about the tax credit that comes with having kids...i need more credits.

Yeah, it's nice for those of us who have kids having them subsidized the way they are, but I don't think we ought to feel entitled to it.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 01:49 PM
Yeah, it's nice for those of us who have kids having them subsidized the way they are, but I don't think we ought to feel entitled to it.

agreed. if the gubment wants to give me a little tax break for having a kid, i'll happily take it.

however, that's the last reason i'll have kids.

chopper
03-13-2011, 01:51 PM
That's fair. We'll say it's my opinion. I don't care what yours is.



Good, I can finally get on with my life. FTR, I never whined about my kids and wanted everyone to subsidize them. I never in my original post implied that I thought the gov't was entitled to anything. You twist words and put words in people's mouths that they never said. Good tactics, as it ensures that person stays around for 2 days bickering over stupid shit with you, that no matter how much you cry and bitch about it, will have absolutely no effect on anything, ever, period.

patteeu
03-13-2011, 02:23 PM
Good, I can finally get on with my life. FTR, I never whined about my kids and wanted everyone to subsidize them. I never in my original post implied that I thought the gov't was entitled to anything. You twist words and put words in people's mouths that they never said. Good tactics, as it ensures that person stays around for 2 days bickering over stupid shit with you, that no matter how much you cry and bitch about it, will have absolutely no effect on anything, ever, period.

Sorry if I held you here against your will. You're free to go.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 02:47 PM
If you want to have kids, that's great. I have them myself. Don't whine about it and act like everyone else owes it to you to subsidize them though.

This is a point I agree with you on. I know people who get income tax returns every year that are actually in excess of the total amount that they paid in because of these stupid credits. Meaning the income tax system is actually a source of income for them. Talk about screwed up. Having kids and raising a family is great if thats the route you choose in life but having kids is a personal decision that should be tax neutral instead of generating these stupid credits and deductions. Why should single people(like me) who work and make a good living get pushed into a higher tax bracket(like I do every year) while a guy making the same coin as I do that CHOOSES to get married and have kids skates off paying WAY less? Maybe I'm just griping because I'm the one getting bit here but it doesn't seem fair to me that two people making the EXACT same coin should be getting taxed at drastically different rates due merely to personal decisions in how the two individuals choose to live their personal lives.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 03:00 PM
This is a point I agree with you on. I know people who get income tax returns every year that are actually in excess of the total amount that they paid in because of these stupid credits. Meaning the income tax system is actually a source of income for them. Talk about screwed up. Having kids and raising a family is great if thats the route you choose in life but having kids is a personal decision that should be tax neutral instead of generating these stupid credits and deductions. Why should single people(like me) who work and make a good living get pushed into a higher tax bracket(like I do every year) while a guy making the same coin as I do that CHOOSES to get married and have kids skates off paying WAY less? Maybe I'm just griping because I'm the one getting bit here but it doesn't seem fair to me that two people making the EXACT same coin should be getting taxed at drastically different rates due merely to personal decisions in how the two individuals choose to live their personal lives.

this i can understand. i got married in January 2010 and bought a house shortly prior.

the difference between 2009 taxes and 2010 taxes is simply incredible.

and like i said prior, we don't have any kids yet.

mlyonsd
03-13-2011, 03:22 PM
Why?

I think I would end up consuming less, thus hurting the economy.

You know I believe everyone should have a stake in paying for government but I also believe a person making $1m should pay more than a family of 4 who bring home $100,000. With a Fair tax I can see that scenario happening.

I always keep coming back to a flat tax on income. To me that's what is really 'Fair'.

Ugly Duck
03-13-2011, 03:40 PM
Folks gotta realize that TrickleDown economics won't work cuz its now TrickleAcross (the oceans). Redistributing wealth to the upper crust just funds their outsourcing these days. Time to face it - we are not in their investment plans. India, China, yes. America, no. There's trillions sitting there on Wall Street, only way to stem the upward redistribution is through collective bargaining & voting out the Republican corporatists.

We. Are. Not. In. Their. Investment. Plans.

mlyonsd
03-13-2011, 04:05 PM
Folks gotta realize that TrickleDown economics won't work cuz its now TrickleAcross (the oceans). Redistributing wealth to the upper crust just funds their outsourcing these days. Time to face it - we are not in their investment plans. India, China, yes. America, no. There's trillions sitting there on Wall Street, only way to stem the upward redistribution is through collective bargaining & voting out the Republican corporatists.

We. Are. Not. In. Their. Investment. Plans.

The TrickleAcross thing you're talking about can partially be blamed on American consumers. Their flocking to the Wal-Marts of the world has forced chitloads of American companies to push work to cheaper labor markets.

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 04:48 PM
Sounds like an economy killer to me.

I think you over-value a giant pile of cash. If you never spend it on anything then why have it?

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 04:51 PM
High consumption with 4 kids does not equal (high standard of living).
Posted via Mobile Device

Keep in mind that every man, woman, and child in the US gets a check every month for the amount of sales tax they pay for the necessities. Every person's check is the same dollar amount. If you want to live a poverty level lifestyle then you will essentially pay no taxes, regardless of how much you make.

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 04:57 PM
I think I would end up consuming less, thus hurting the economy.

You know I believe everyone should have a stake in paying for government but I also believe a person making $1m should pay more than a family of 4 who bring home $100,000. With a Fair tax I can see that scenario happening.

I always keep coming back to a flat tax on income. To me that's what is really 'Fair'.

Define "income". That's the real sticking point. As soon as you attach taxes to income you require me to report on that income. Then you open the ability for me to say i spent a bunch on x, y, or z, and therefore lost money and lowered my income.

The fact that it is possible for a scenario to happen when spread out across 300 million people doesn't make it a bad idea.

Hell, it does a much better job of attacking generational wealth than almost any other system. The Kennedy clan isn't out earning much money, but they sure as the hell are spending it. Thus their taxes under the current system and under a flat tax are low. They would be paying far more under the Fair Tax.

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 04:59 PM
Folks gotta realize that TrickleDown economics won't work cuz its now TrickleAcross (the oceans). Redistributing wealth to the upper crust just funds their outsourcing these days. Time to face it - we are not in their investment plans. India, China, yes. America, no. There's trillions sitting there on Wall Street, only way to stem the upward redistribution is through collective bargaining & voting out the Republican corporatists.

We. Are. Not. In. Their. Investment. Plans.

You realize the uber-rich elites are almost all Democrats, right? I'm not going to try and convince you the Republicans aren't in the pockets of corporate interests, but to pretend the Democrats aren't also is kind of a stretch don't you think?

mlyonsd
03-13-2011, 05:05 PM
I think you over-value a giant pile of cash. If you never spend it on anything then why have it?

Probably the way I was brought up. Seriously, keep talking because I'm game for anything other than what we have.

Frankie
03-13-2011, 05:10 PM
You realize the uber-rich elites are almost all Democrats, right?

Do you have proof of this?

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 05:35 PM
Do you have proof of this?

I used to have a link to a list of families with generational wealth including anecdotal evidence, including campaign contributions, that show they were largely Democrat, but I can't find it. That post can be stricken from the record because I can no longer back it up at all.

Simplex3
03-13-2011, 05:45 PM
Probably the way I was brought up. Seriously, keep talking because I'm game for anything other than what we have.

I don't think a perfect system exists. There are ways to abuse the Fair Tax, but they require living well below your means, which very few people do.

It also does something that I like, which is to put your federal tax burden front and center every time you buy something. I think people need to know just how expensive the government is. I think they need to feel the pain of government spending and realize how much of their money is going to Washington.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 06:08 PM
Our tax system obviously needs reformed IMHO. But I'm not real sure on the best way to go about it to make it as close to 100% fair as possible.

I am intrigued by the Fair Tax (national sales tax) concept, but haven't really researched it enough to take a firm stance on it. One thing that I like about the "Fair Tax" is that income from illegal operations(like drug, prostitution, and illegal gambling operations) that evade taxes now would get taxed whenever the ill-acquired gains were spent. One possible concern to me with regards to the so called "Fair Tax" is that it applies to end users only. In my mind in order for this tax to be considered totally "fair" we would have to better define what would constitute a tax exempt business expense or a so called "end user" purchase. Don't get me wrong. I like the idea that legitimate business expenditures that are directly related to the business would be tax exempt. This would definately be advantageous to creating jobs. But one of my issues with the current system and possibly with the fair tax is that there are too many deductions or exemptions. For example, under the current system, If I decide to take a vacation to Vegas, my entire trip is paid out of my net pay after tax. If any white collar employee with access to the corporate expense account takes this same vacation, not only is it not out of their own taxed earnings, it is considered a business expense that is picked up by the company and is tax exempt. And this stuff goes on all the time in the business world. I view a number of these so called discretionary business expenses that allow individuals to exploit the corporate tax system to their own personal advantage in the same light as I view deductions for children and mortgage interest. They are ways of avoiding taxes on money that should in all honesty be getting taxed IMO. And it is my concern that this sort of behavior would still be prevalent under a "Fair Tax", if, for example, the government allowed expenditures on a corporate credit card account to be exempted from the "end user" tax. This would have to be addressed to make it totally "fair".

My same concern applies to the concept of maintaining a tax on income but at a flat rate. In my opinion, for a flat-rate income tax to be effective, alot of the loopholes that allow the wealthy and the poor alike to exploit the system would have to be closed. There are simply too many deductions, exemptions, or modifiers to income that allow true income to be manipulated and thus exempted from tax obligations.

mlyonsd
03-13-2011, 06:35 PM
I don't think a perfect system exists. There are ways to abuse the Fair Tax, but they require living well below your means, which very few people do.

It also does something that I like, which is to put your federal tax burden front and center every time you buy something. I think people need to know just how expensive the government is. I think they need to feel the pain of government spending and realize how much of their money is going to Washington.

We're on the same page in that we both want people to think about what the government spends.

The way I see it your solutiona is a right up in the face kind of thing.....I like that. Mine is making everyone pay the same percentage at income level which will not give 'rich' people a chance to dodge their fair share and everyone shares the burden equally.

In either case hopefully people will think about what our elected bozos are doing in Washington. Until that happens class warfare will continue to live.

Silock
03-13-2011, 06:52 PM
A penny not gained is a penny lost.

If I lose $5, it doesn't impact you. Why? Because that money wasn't yours to begin with. Similarly, if I don't give the government $5, it shouldn't impact them because it's not their money to begin with.

Silock
03-13-2011, 06:54 PM
Your house needed it's wiring fixed or your family was in danger of house fire. You didn't budget for it because you spent a lot of money for that big screen TV you bought for your rich buddy. Did you gain anything?

Lack of proper planning is also not a cost. That's just stupidity.

chris
03-13-2011, 06:58 PM
We're on the same page in that we both want people to think about what the government spends.

The way I see it your solutiona is a right up in the face kind of thing.....I like that. Mine is making everyone pay the same percentage at income level which will not give 'rich' people a chance to dodge their fair share and everyone shares the burden equally.

In either case hopefully people will think about what our elected bozos are doing in Washington. Until that happens class warfare will continue to live.

Nicely stated. Rep

johnny961
03-13-2011, 07:09 PM
The TrickleAcross thing you're talking about can partially be blamed on American consumers. Their flocking to the Wal-Marts of the world has forced chitloads of American companies to push work to cheaper labor markets.

This one is kind of straying from the tax discussion, but I just wanted to mention that you are 100% right IMO. People gripe and complain about those outsourced jobs. And then the very ones complaining rush right down to their local walmart to buy the cheaper imported merchandise, thus creating a demand for the very products that they bitch about.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 07:15 PM
Define "income". That's the real sticking point. As soon as you attach taxes to income you require me to report on that income. Then you open the ability for me to say i spent a bunch on x, y, or z, and therefore lost money and lowered my income.

I read this after entering my post. I think what your saying is along the same lines as the argument I made if I'm not mistaken.

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 07:16 PM
If moonbats really wanted to "tax the rich" just eliminate the income tax and up capital gains tax from 15% and put a tax on municipal bonds.

But then Democrats would lose half their campaign funding (the other half of course comes from unions).

And Hollywood would go absolutely ballistic.

Silock
03-13-2011, 08:30 PM
This one is kind of straying from the tax discussion, but I just wanted to mention that you are 100% right IMO. People gripe and complain about those outsourced jobs. And then the very ones complaining rush right down to their local walmart to buy the cheaper imported merchandise, thus creating a demand for the very products that they bitch about.

I don't mind that, really. They have competitive advantage there.

The real problem is the ridiculous subsidies we give out to prop up industries that would fail on a global market (like sugar growers). World sugar prices are far lower than what we can provide domestically, but we gotta keep doling out those subsidies to keep it alive! Bunch of horseshit. Paying people to not farm? Ridiculous. Ethanol? Even worse.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 08:46 PM
I don't mind that, really. They have competitive advantage there.

The real problem is the ridiculous subsidies we give out to prop up industries that would fail on a global market (like sugar growers). World sugar prices are far lower than what we can provide domestically, but we gotta keep doling out those subsidies to keep it alive! Bunch of horseshit. Paying people to not farm? Ridiculous. Ethanol? Even worse.

Just curious, you are talking about those CRP programs that allow landowners to sign government programs for say X amount of acres for Y number of years to basically do nothing with the land when you talk about paying farmers not to farm, right? I never fully understood or really supported these myself.

Frankie
03-13-2011, 08:48 PM
If I lose $5, it doesn't impact you. Why? Because that money wasn't yours to begin with. Similarly, if I don't give the government $5, it shouldn't impact them because it's not their money to begin with.

Meanwhile, in the last 30 years while the mega rich have become super-mega-uber-rich, our infrastructure has gone to crap. The philosophy you just posted has allowed it.

Here's shocking news: Countries need taxes to run, and some percentage of the money that allows the super-rich to have million dollar offices and mega-million dollar multiple mansions all over the world would be better used to be redirected in the maintenance of OUR luxuries in the form of fair taxes. You know, luxuries like roads, education, setting aside a bit of rain-day money etc.

Frankie
03-13-2011, 08:50 PM
Lack of proper planning is also not a cost. That's just stupidity.

Which is growing frighteningly fast through the teachings of prophets like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 09:07 PM
We're on the same page in that we both want people to think about what the government spends.

The way I see it your solutiona is a right up in the face kind of thing.....I like that. Mine is making everyone pay the same percentage at income level which will not give 'rich' people a chance to dodge their fair share and everyone shares the burden equally.

In either case hopefully people will think about what our elected bozos are doing in Washington. Until that happens class warfare will continue to live.

Now I haven't done the proper research on the Flat Tax, so educate me. Because it seems to me of all the tax solutions, that one disproportionately impacts the poor. No?

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 09:10 PM
The real problem is the ridiculous subsidies we give out to prop up industries that would fail on a global market (like sugar growers). World sugar prices are far lower than what we can provide domestically, but we gotta keep doling out those subsidies to keep it alive! Bunch of horseshit. Paying people to not farm? Ridiculous. Ethanol? Even worse.

Mutha. F*ckin. This.

Liquor laws that keep uncompetitive liquor stores open (see, Kansas). Subsidies for wheat, sugar, and corn production. A godd*mn waste.

But i'm open to convincing otherwise.

Saul Good
03-13-2011, 09:40 PM
Now I haven't done the proper research on the Flat Tax, so educate me. Because it seems to me of all the tax solutions, that one disproportionately impacts the poor. No?

The prebate solves this.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 09:42 PM
The prebate solves this.

so the Flat Tax has a prebate like the Fair Tax?

Saul Good
03-13-2011, 09:49 PM
so the Flat Tax has a prebate like the Fair Tax?

No. I mis-read your post.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 10:21 PM
No. I mis-read your post.

oh. damn.

petegz28
03-13-2011, 11:03 PM
Now I haven't done the proper research on the Flat Tax, so educate me. Because it seems to me of all the tax solutions, that one disproportionately impacts the poor. No?

By disproportionate do you mean they actually have to pay taxes?

Silock
03-13-2011, 11:40 PM
Meanwhile, in the last 30 years while the mega rich have become super-mega-uber-rich, our infrastructure has gone to crap. The philosophy you just posted has allowed it.

Here's shocking news: Countries need taxes to run, and some percentage of the money that allows the super-rich to have million dollar offices and mega-million dollar multiple mansions all over the world would be better used to be redirected in the maintenance of OUR luxuries in the form of fair taxes. You know, luxuries like roads, education, setting aside a bit of rain-day money etc.

And none of this has anything to do with tax cuts being a "cost." If you think the Federal government doesn't take in enough tax revenue to cover the basics, I don't know what to tell you. They take in PLENTY. It's the absurd spending that's the problem, and higher taxes are NOT the answer.

http://mercatus.org/publication/does-government-spending-stimulate-economies-0

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620502560925156.html

Silock
03-13-2011, 11:46 PM
Just curious, you are talking about those CRP programs that allow landowners to sign government programs for say X amount of acres for Y number of years to basically do nothing with the land when you talk about paying farmers not to farm, right? I never fully understood or really supported these myself.

I know this is from the Heritage foundation, but the data speaks for itself.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too

And the fucked up thing is that all these subsidies really HURT the poor. Tariffs and other barriers to lower global commodity prices keep prices of basic necessities higher than they need to be, limiting how much the poor can buy. Things like clothing and shoes are cheaper on the global market than we can even buy at Wal-Mart. It's astounding, and absurd.

And then we turn around and give them money and billions in tax breaks because they can't afford these things. It's fucked up.

johnny961
03-14-2011, 01:56 AM
I know this is from the Heritage foundation, but the data speaks for itself.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too

And the ****ed up thing is that all these subsidies really HURT the poor. Tariffs and other barriers to lower global commodity prices keep prices of basic necessities higher than they need to be, limiting how much the poor can buy. Things like clothing and shoes are cheaper on the global market than we can even buy at Wal-Mart. It's astounding, and absurd.

And then we turn around and give them money and billions in tax breaks because they can't afford these things. It's ****ed up.

Different program, I see. The one I was referring to was the program that pays a landowner X amount of dollars per acre to basically do nothing with the land for a set period of time. Hell even so called "hobby farmers" that actually do not rely on farming as a significant source of income get considerable payments by placing tracts of unused land in CRP. If I remember right this was supposed to be some type of soil conservation effort but the way I see it it is just another handout. BTW, interesting read on those subsidies. If half of the facts presented in this article are true these subsidies are at best a poorly managed program that creates as many problems as it solves.

Silock
03-14-2011, 02:38 AM
Sure, those still exist.

johnny961
03-14-2011, 03:04 AM
Sure, those still exist.

According to hpj.com, around 31 million acres of farmland are in CRP for 2011 at a cost of around 1.7 bil. I had to look it up as I'm not really up to speed on alot of these programs the last several years.

Simplex3
03-14-2011, 07:00 AM
Meanwhile, in the last 30 years while the mega rich have become super-mega-uber-rich, our infrastructure has gone to crap. The philosophy you just posted has allowed it.

Here's shocking news: Countries need taxes to run, and some percentage of the money that allows the super-rich to have million dollar offices and mega-million dollar multiple mansions all over the world would be better used to be redirected in the maintenance of OUR luxuries in the form of fair taxes. You know, luxuries like roads, education, setting aside a bit of rain-day money etc.

We could tax the rich at 100% and not be able to afford the programs we have in place today. At some point the 47% who aren't paying in and are getting checks instead are going to have to contribute.

healthpellets
03-14-2011, 07:07 AM
By disproportionate do you mean they actually have to pay taxes?

no, of course not.

eh, just looked up some flat tax stuff. seems that Forbes would have allowed exemptions (i.e. 42000 for a family of four, and that was in 1996). so it might not matter.

mlyonsd
03-14-2011, 07:25 AM
Now I haven't done the proper research on the Flat Tax, so educate me. Because it seems to me of all the tax solutions, that one disproportionately impacts the poor. No?

You don't think a 30-35% sales tax on most goods would imact them?

Amnorix
03-14-2011, 07:37 AM
You realize the uber-rich elites are almost all Democrats, right? I'm not going to try and convince you the Republicans aren't in the pockets of corporate interests, but to pretend the Democrats aren't also is kind of a stretch don't you think?


Umm...what?

I suppose we can argue what uber-rich means, but outside of Hollywood moguls and a few odd ducks here and there like Warren Buffett, this definitley isn't true. There is just no way that "almost all" people making above what -- a million a year -- are Democrats. That statement is flat out absurd.

patteeu
03-14-2011, 08:48 AM
I think I would end up consuming less, thus hurting the economy.

You know I believe everyone should have a stake in paying for government but I also believe a person making $1m should pay more than a family of 4 who bring home $100,000. With a Fair tax I can see that scenario happening.

I always keep coming back to a flat tax on income. To me that's what is really 'Fair'.

I think it would lead to a reduction in consumption too, but I think that's an important transition for our country to make. We need to stop depending so much on domestic consumption as the engine of our economy and start focusing on competitiveness in the global market. The US consumer market is shrinking as a share of the global market and we need to get out in front of that change or we'll be increasingly left behind selling overpriced goods to the shrinking number of Americans who can afford to continue to buy American. The Fair Tax (or a flat tax that excludes income from investment) is a way of refocusing our tax policy on production rather than consumption.

I just don't think the rare case of a high income earner living a very low consumption life should distract us from the overwhelmingly more common situation where the more you make the more you consume.

patteeu
03-14-2011, 08:59 AM
Our tax system obviously needs reformed IMHO. But I'm not real sure on the best way to go about it to make it as close to 100% fair as possible.

I am intrigued by the Fair Tax (national sales tax) concept, but haven't really researched it enough to take a firm stance on it. One thing that I like about the "Fair Tax" is that income from illegal operations(like drug, prostitution, and illegal gambling operations) that evade taxes now would get taxed whenever the ill-acquired gains were spent. One possible concern to me with regards to the so called "Fair Tax" is that it applies to end users only. In my mind in order for this tax to be considered totally "fair" we would have to better define what would constitute a tax exempt business expense or a so called "end user" purchase. Don't get me wrong. I like the idea that legitimate business expenditures that are directly related to the business would be tax exempt. This would definately be advantageous to creating jobs. But one of my issues with the current system and possibly with the fair tax is that there are too many deductions or exemptions. For example, under the current system, If I decide to take a vacation to Vegas, my entire trip is paid out of my net pay after tax. If any white collar employee with access to the corporate expense account takes this same vacation, not only is it not out of their own taxed earnings, it is considered a business expense that is picked up by the company and is tax exempt. And this stuff goes on all the time in the business world. I view a number of these so called discretionary business expenses that allow individuals to exploit the corporate tax system to their own personal advantage in the same light as I view deductions for children and mortgage interest. They are ways of avoiding taxes on money that should in all honesty be getting taxed IMO. And it is my concern that this sort of behavior would still be prevalent under a "Fair Tax", if, for example, the government allowed expenditures on a corporate credit card account to be exempted from the "end user" tax. This would have to be addressed to make it totally "fair".

My same concern applies to the concept of maintaining a tax on income but at a flat rate. In my opinion, for a flat-rate income tax to be effective, alot of the loopholes that allow the wealthy and the poor alike to exploit the system would have to be closed. There are simply too many deductions, exemptions, or modifiers to income that allow true income to be manipulated and thus exempted from tax obligations.

One general concept that would help minimize these things that concern you would be to keep the base of the tax code as broad as possible so that rates can be kept as low as possible. The lower the rate, the less incentive there is to creatively avoid the tax. Progressive taxation works against this idea by excluding a bunch of income at low income levels (shrinking the tax base) and trying to make up for it at higher income levels (higher rates).

The President's commission on the deficit made some pretty bold proposals that seem to have largely fallen on deaf ears at the white house and in many quarters of Congress. One of the themes of their recommendations was to reform the tax code to significantly broaden the base (eliminating/reducing deductions including popular ones like the one on home mortgage interest) and lower the rates (both corporate and individual).

Saul Good
03-14-2011, 09:05 AM
One general concept that would help minimize these things that concern you would be to keep the base of the tax code as broad as possible so that rates can be kept as low as possible. The lower the rate, the less incentive there is to creatively avoid the tax. Progressive taxation works against this idea by excluding a bunch of income at low income levels (shrinking the tax base) and trying to make up for it at higher income levels (higher rates).

The President's commission on the deficit made some pretty bold proposals that seem to have largely fallen on deaf ears at the white house and in many quarters of Congress. One of the themes of their recommendations was to reform the tax code to significantly broaden the base (eliminating/reducing deductions including popular ones like the one on home mortgage interest) and lower the rates (both corporate and individual).

I would think that the mortgage interest deduction would have to be grandfathered. That's a pretty big pill for people to swallow without advanced notice.

patteeu
03-14-2011, 09:08 AM
Now I haven't done the proper research on the Flat Tax, so educate me. Because it seems to me of all the tax solutions, that one disproportionately impacts the poor. No?

There are lots of different possible flat tax ideas. Unlike the Fair Tax, there isn't one major flat tax idea floating around out there right now. The most recent significant flat tax proposal was probably the flat tax plan that Steve Forbes supported when he ran for President. Like the Fair Tax, his plan would have exempted the first $30,000 or more of income from taxation, although instead of sending a check to everyone, his plan would have used a more traditional tax form deduction method. After that exemption, all income would have been taxed at 17% (or maybe 20%, I forget exactly what it was).

My personal opinion is that a flat tax should be applied to every dollar of income, even the first, so that the rate can be cut even further (maybe as low as 12 or 13%), but this would be politically dead on arrival because of our fascination with letting poor people get away with paying no income tax. It's safe to say that just about any real flat tax proposal would include a generous exemption at the bottom to counter the argument that it hammers the poor.

mlyonsd
03-14-2011, 09:54 AM
I think it would lead to a reduction in consumption too, but I think that's an important transition for our country to make. We need to stop depending so much on domestic consumption as the engine of our economy and start focusing on competitiveness in the global market. The US consumer market is shrinking as a share of the global market and we need to get out in front of that change or we'll be increasingly left behind selling overpriced goods to the shrinking number of Americans who can afford to continue to buy American. The Fair Tax (or a flat tax that excludes income from investment) is a way of refocusing our tax policy on production rather than consumption.

Give me an example of your last sentence. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

I just don't think the rare case of a high income earner living a very low consumption life should distract us from the overwhelmingly more common situation where the more you make the more you consume.
I know my scenario was extreme but if we're going to change the tax code I would look for the fairest possible solution and for me right now a flat tax is the 'fairer' of the two.

patteeu
03-14-2011, 10:11 AM
Give me an example of your last sentence. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

I know my scenario was extreme but if we're going to change the tax code I would look for the fairest possible solution and for me right now a flat tax is the 'fairer' of the two.

An income tax like the one we have taxes both wage income and investment income (although lately, investment income has been taxed at a lower rate than "ordinary" income).

The Fair Tax shifts this tax base to consumption only. The same would be the case under an income tax or a flat tax if capital gains, dividend, and other investment income were exempt from tax. As you noted earlier, this means that consumption is relatively discouraged. The flip side of this is that investment is relatively encouraged. The cost of capital goes down because capital is no longer being taxed.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2011, 11:01 AM
An income tax like the one we have taxes both wage income and investment income (although lately, investment income has been taxed at a lower rate than "ordinary" income).

The Fair Tax shifts this tax base to consumption only. The same would be the case under an income tax or a flat tax if capital gains, dividend, and other investment income were exempt from tax. As you noted earlier, this means that consumption is relatively discouraged. The flip side of this is that investment is relatively encouraged. The cost of capital goes down because capital is no longer being taxed.

Neal Boortz, is that you? :hmmm:

:p

Saul Good
03-14-2011, 11:08 AM
I know my scenario was extreme but if we're going to change the tax code I would look for the fairest possible solution and for me right now a flat tax is the 'fairer' of the two.

The person you described in your scenario is still going to leave an estate to someone. At that point, the money will be spent and taxed. As it stands, you can amass a fortune, and it's never subject to income taxes.

Ugly Duck
03-14-2011, 03:27 PM
I suppose we can argue what uber-rich means, but outside of Hollywood moguls and a few odd ducks here and there like Warren Buffett, this definitley isn't true. There is just no way that "almost all" people making above what -- a million a year -- are Democrats. That statement is flat out absurd.

Dude, where have you been? Its another mantra that working class "conservatives" have been trained to repeat. Their philosophy of economics is pointing their butts at the upper crust, bending over low, reaching back, spreading their cheeks & squealing "Thank you Sir, may I have another? Thank you Sir, may I have another?" All the while praying that hopefully, possibly, maybe when something finally begins to trickle down, it will trickle on them. Hope springs eternal without regard to precedent.

Frankie
03-14-2011, 03:35 PM
We could tax the rich at 100% and not be able to afford the programs we have in place today.

:D

Nobody is asking for 100%. Just 39%.

Frankie
03-14-2011, 03:40 PM
Dude, where have you been? Its another mantra that working class "conservatives" have been trained to repeat. Their philosophy of economics is pointing their butts at the upper crust, bending over low, reaching back, spreading their cheeks & squealing "Thank you Sir, may I have another? Thank you Sir, may I have another?" All the while praying that hopefully, possibly, maybe when something finally begins to trickle down, it will trickle on them. Hope springs eternal without regard to precedent.

ROFL

It actually has gone BEYOND "Thank you Sir, may I have another!"

It's now "Thank you Sir, may I have another, ... and I will actively defend your right to butt-rape me, because Sean Limbeck has shown me the way."

Ugly Duck
03-14-2011, 03:47 PM
ROFL

It actually has gone BEYOND "Thank you Sir, may I have another!"

It's now "Thank you Sir, may I have another, ... and I will actively defend your right to but-rape me, because Sean Limbeck has shown me the way."

There's no call for you to be so cynical. Teabaggers say our Founding Fathers wanted moguls to butt-rape us into bolivian.

Simplex3
03-14-2011, 05:31 PM
:D

Nobody is asking for 100%. Just 39%.

What problem does taking 39% solve? The country would still be wildly insolvent.

SNR
03-14-2011, 05:43 PM
What problem does taking 39% solve? The country would still be wildly insolvent.And that's IF they take 39%.

KCNative had kind of a good response to this, but all the "tax the rich!" folks should start thinking of ways to enforce this progressive tax that's going to solve all of our problems. Try thinking of ways to tax their international income and savings. The amount and severity of laws that would have to be added to the tax code in order to make sure the super rich* pay all that money would get kind of scary.



*I'm talking super-super rich. People who earn $250K-$500K aren't the problem, yet that's all I hear from the Democrats. Like 250K is the magical number where you stop being middle class and start being a rich asshole who wants all the money to yourself and nothing for Little Susie Derkins whose parents can't afford to feed her every night of the week

Jaric
03-14-2011, 06:06 PM
You know what would be interesting? A discussion of tax burden distribution that didn't degenerate into class warfare.

The Mad Crapper
03-14-2011, 06:11 PM
ROFL

It actually has gone BEYOND "Thank you Sir, may I have another!"

It's now "Thank you Sir, may I have another, ... and I will actively defend your right to butt-rape me, because Sean Limbeck has shown me the way."

There's no call for you to be so cynical. Teabaggers say our Founding Fathers wanted moguls to butt-rape us into bolivian.

http://fapit.net/imgs/1121/shortbus.jpg

healthpellets
03-14-2011, 06:36 PM
You know what would be interesting? A discussion of tax burden distribution that didn't degenerate into class warfare.

ok. go.

Frankie
03-14-2011, 10:07 PM
What problem does taking 39% solve? The country would still be wildly insolvent.

Did you see the chart in the topic?

Simplex3
03-15-2011, 06:52 AM
$44B doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the deficit. You're talking about an estimated 1/4 of the problem. Just to get to break even. And you still have $14T to pay down. The "problem" isn't trying to figure out how to still provide a bunch of free crap to people who already have mobile phones and flat screens.

Even if we canned all those programs *and* increased all those taxes (and didn't see declines in claimed income, which we probably would) you're still barely halfway to solving the immediate problem. It's way better than where we are, but still stupid.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 06:59 AM
My personal opinion is that a flat tax should be applied to every dollar of income, even the first, so that the rate can be cut even further (maybe as low as 12 or 13%), but this would be politically dead on arrival because of our fascination with letting poor people eat, clothe and shelter themselves. It's safe to say that just about any real flat tax proposal would include a generous exemption at the bottom to counter the argument that it hammers the poor.


FYP

Jaric
03-15-2011, 07:43 AM
ok. go.

Well, I suppose the first place to start would be what defines "fair." Is it ability to pay? Or is it equality in amounts or % paid?

EDIT: Or something I've left out.

mlyonsd
03-15-2011, 07:59 AM
Well, I suppose the first place to start would be what defines "fair." Is it ability to pay? Or is it equality in amounts or % paid?

EDIT: Or something I've left out.

You mean place to start and end. It won't get past there but I'm rooting for you! :thumb:

Jaric
03-15-2011, 08:20 AM
You mean place to start and end. It won't get past there but I'm rooting for you! :thumb:

Who knows, maybe we can rise above the compelling arguments of "poor people are lazy!" and "rich people are greedy!"

patteeu
03-15-2011, 08:26 AM
Well, I suppose the first place to start would be what defines "fair." Is it ability to pay? Or is it equality in amounts or % paid?

EDIT: Or something I've left out.

I'll go with the middle ground. Equality of percentage based on standard of living as represented by consumption.

Jaric
03-15-2011, 08:48 AM
I'll go with the middle ground. Equality of percentage based on standard of living as represented by consumption.

That sounds like a complicated way of suggesting replacing income tax with a national sales tax.

Is that an accurate deduction? (hah! Deduction! Talking about taxes... oh nevermind...)

patteeu
03-15-2011, 09:03 AM
That sounds like a complicated way of suggesting replacing income tax with a national sales tax.

Is that an accurate deduction? (hah! Deduction! Talking about taxes... oh nevermind...)

More or less. It doesn't have to be a sales tax though. It could also be a flat tax that excludes investment and savings income. Or it could be a flat tax on the difference between total income and total new savings/investment.

Saul Good
03-15-2011, 09:03 AM
Who knows, maybe we can rise above the compelling arguments of "poor people are lazy!" and "rich people are greedy!"

I can rise above them: Poor people are lazy and greedy.

patteeu
03-15-2011, 09:08 AM
I can rise above them: Poor people are lazy and greedy.

:LOL:

Jaric
03-15-2011, 09:08 AM
I can rise above them: Poor people are lazy and greedy.

Try switching out "slothful" for lazy next. It invokes a religious aspect that paints them not just as lazy, but as sinners as well.

Simplex3
03-15-2011, 09:27 AM
I won't categorize all poor people as lazy. I will, however, disagree completely with out definition of poor. If you have two cars you aren't poor. If you have a TV you aren't poor. If you have a mobile phone you aren't poor. Wii? XBox? Cable TV? 6 pack? Smokes? If you can find a way to buy those things you can find a way to buy food.

For every rich guy using every tax shelter in the book there is at least one "poor" person who's being paid cash under the table and bleeding the feds dry on assistance programs. And both of them are clamoring for more. Hell, the middle class isn't immune to that either.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Frankie
03-15-2011, 10:47 AM
FYP

LOL.

It's amazing how some of the Right's ideology destroys their hearts, while they also claim ownership of Christianity.

Cave Johnson
03-15-2011, 10:54 AM
I won't categorize all poor people as lazy. I will, however, disagree completely with out definition of poor. If you have two cars you aren't poor. If you have a TV you aren't poor. If you have a mobile phone you aren't poor.

You can get a TV for $25 on Craigslist. A prepaid cell phone for $30, with plans as low as $8/month.

Are people who can afford those "luxuries" middle-class?

Saul Good
03-15-2011, 10:56 AM
You can get a TV for $25 on Craigslist. A prepaid cell phone for $30, with plans as low as $8/month.

Are people who can afford those "luxuries" middle-class?

Americans are broke. They aren't poor.

Saul Good
03-15-2011, 10:59 AM
You can get a TV for $25 on Craigslist. A prepaid cell phone for $30, with plans as low as $8/month.

Are people who can afford those "luxuries" middle-class?

How are "poor people" able to access Craigslist? I guess they have access to a computer, the internet, and transportation in order to pick up the tv. Need to call for directions first, right? Guess they have a phone. They must have somewhere to plug in the television as well. Must have a house or an apartment.

Broke does not equal poor. I understand that people go through some bad times that can cause them to be broke through minimal fault of their own. You have no excuse for being permanently dependent upon the government, though.

Chief Henry
03-15-2011, 11:02 AM
Well, I suppose the first place to start would be what defines "fair." Is it ability to pay? Or is it equality in amounts or % paid?

EDIT: Or something I've left out.



The definition you are seeking will be determined by the number of people who are NOT paying taxes in the next 5 to 25 years. If memory serves me correctly we have about 43% to 48% of Americans not paying taxes. When that figure reaches 52% and higher, the those of us paying taxes will be screwed.

healthpellets
03-15-2011, 12:35 PM
You can get a TV for $25 on Craigslist. A prepaid cell phone for $30, with plans as low as $8/month.

Are people who can afford those "luxuries" middle-class?

or, you can get a FreePaid cell phone.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212019667595.htm