Taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Theoretically, the government spends money on things that benefit everyone, for the common good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Ah, you're talking about how taxes are spent ... I thought the discussion was about how they should be collected.

---

It seems that you were talking about how taxes are spent too!

"So you'd rather have a tax on people for their hard work than for their toy purchases?"

Well, that's part of my point. Those opposed to the inheritance tax favor taxing one's income earned through labor over taxing one's income earned through nothing other than being the offspring of the rich. That's why I'm not opposed to inheritance taxes as a part of the global tax-raising scheme. Why tax the wage earner but not the inheritor?
But leaving that subject aside for the moment, on the question of whether it is a better tax system to tax wages versus a federal sales tax, again my concern is that if wages aren't taxed and only spending is, the very wealthy could end up paying very little taxes at all even though they are the largest wage earners, resulting in the tax burden falling more heavily on the middle and lower classes, who are the least able to afford paying taxes to begin with, and who fell the economic pinch of taxes far more acutely than the wealthy.

Any kind of system involving voluntary compliance will mean people will cheat and be dishonest. The best way is a federal tax on everything that way the more you buy the more you pay. No more cheating the tax collector. No more phony tax shelters or phony business claims and all the other rubbish that goes on now. It would also eliminate the IRS in one fell swoop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Why tax the wage earner but not the inheritor?

---

That's unfair to the wage earner. Better to tax neither :)

Well, for the government to function it needs to either collect money from the citizens, or/and pillage foreign countries. The way I see it is that no matter what tax code system you have if it's left long enough in place the economy will readjust itself to match it.
I find the viewpoint "it's my money, keep your hand out of it" rather silly. I would speculate the government will stop collecting taxes at all and collect revenue by some other means some salaries will increase, others will decrease, and the net result may be pretty much the same. Or if it's not the same, after the readjustment you really have no idea whether you'll come ahead or not.
Under this hypothesis, certainly no reason not to choose the simplest solution. The only problem is transitions can be much worse than the initial or the final state...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I find the viewpoint "it's my money, keep your hand out of it" rather silly.

---

Well then send it to me, I'll govern your life for you if it makes you feel better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Any kind of system involving voluntary compliance will mean people will cheat and be dishonest. The best way is a federal tax on everything that way the more you buy the more you pay. No more cheating the tax collector. No more phony tax shelters or phony business claims and all the other rubbish that goes on now. It would also eliminate the IRS in one fell swoop.

---

You will still need someone to check that merchants are collecting and paying the tax. Unless, you have auditors visiting stores on a regular basis, you still have a voluntary system, so you haven't eliminated anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaja

Neither flat nor sales tax will be the same for everyone.
There're many people that don't report they income, those will continue paying no tax on that income.
Once the best solution is found, the harder problem will be enforcement

---

Not exactly...

One of the benefits of a flat, national sales tax is that instead of taxing income, comsumption is taxed. In such a system, no one reports income because it is no longer taxed. Instead all purchases are taxed at the point of sale. Thus anyone making purchases - including drug dealers buying Escalades - will pay tax. The sole way to avoid paying tax is to not purchase anything.

Some additional benefits of a national sales tax include that by removing the disincentives to produce, our economy would go into overdrive. It also would tax everyone equally. Which is why we will never see it happen. There are many in Congress and elsewhere who believe that taxation is not merely a source of revenue but also the first step of social engineering. Until these socialists - in fact if not name - understand the burdens of their failed policies, we are stuck with this system. Frankly, I don't think they want to see America excel and wealth redistribution is one way to put the brakes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Why tax the wage earner but not the inheritor?

---

Because that money has already been taxed once: when it was earned.

Early on in this thread, Jockeys made a point about the national sales tax being harder to implement than the flat tax. This is the only thing that bothers me about it. I could also see the retirement issue, (folks who have already paid taxes on their retirement savings all of a sudden getting taxed on their consumption and needing additional rebates, headache). But the implementation thing makes me think that we would wake up one day and the Government would say something like: "Well, we are going to do the national sales tax, and the income tax this year and we will gradually fade out the income tax..." Frankly, I don't trust them to stop any form of taxation that is already established if they start a new one at the same time. And yes, I vote in all the elections in which I am able.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Not exactly...

One of the benefits of a flat, national sales tax is that instead of taxing income, comsumption is taxed. In such a system, no one reports income because it is no longer taxed. Instead all purchases are taxed at the point of sale. Thus anyone making purchases - including drug dealers buying Escalades - will pay tax. The sole way to avoid paying tax is to not purchase anything.

Some additional benefits of a national sales tax include that by removing the disincentives to produce, our economy would go into overdrive. It also would tax everyone equally. Which is why we will never see it happen. There are many in Congress and elsewhere who believe that taxation is not merely a source of revenue but also the first step of social engineering. Until these socialists - in fact if not name - understand the burdens of their failed policies, we are stuck with this system. Frankly, I don't think they want to see America excel and wealth redistribution is one way to put the brakes on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Not exactly...

One of the benefits of a flat, national sales tax is that instead of taxing income, comsumption is taxed. In such a system, no one reports income because it is no longer taxed. Instead all purchases are taxed at the point of sale. Thus anyone making purchases - including drug dealers buying Escalades - will pay tax. The sole way to avoid paying tax is to not purchase anything.

Some additional benefits of a national sales tax include that by removing the disincentives to produce, our economy would go into overdrive. It also would tax everyone equally. Which is why we will never see it happen. There are many in Congress and elsewhere who believe that taxation is not merely a source of revenue but also the first step of social engineering. Until these socialists - in fact if not name - understand the burdens of their failed policies, we are stuck with this system. Frankly, I don't think they want to see America excel and wealth redistribution is one way to put the brakes on.

---

The trouble with sales tax is that it is regressive and falls hardest on those least able to pay it.

What is the problem with everyone paying the same tax rate on income? Is it not right that those upon whom the blessings of liberty fall disproportionately hard should support that liberty in proportion to their blessings?

You should also note that social engineering cuts both ways. For the past seven years, we have seen a radical redistribution of America's wealth from the hands of the middle class into the hands of the wealthy.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Because that money has already been taxed once: when it was earned.

---

The people receiving the money in inheritance did not earn it. They did nothing for it other than choose the right parents. This is the very point that Warren Buffet makes in opposing the abolition of the estate tax: that it would turn control of the country over to those who did nothing to earn that power.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

The people receiving the money in inheritance did not earn it. They did nothing for it other than choose the right parents. This is the very point that Warren Buffet makes in opposing the abolition of the estate tax: that it would turn control of the country over to those who did nothing to earn that power.

j

---

As opposed to continuing to give power to the nameless, faceless parties who have given us nothing but feckless, insipid leaders? Those who have foisted upon us an environmental crisis, a healthcare crisis, a social security crisis, a massive debt, a disintegrating infrastructure, schools that cannot educate students, the weak dollar and numerous other dooms? Absolutely.

The concept of the government confiscating money simply because a son or daughter did nothing to earn it other than having the right parents is repugnant. Does the government have greater claim to that money? If the purpose of taxation is to provide the government with enough money to operate effectively, then it has no right to tax it twice. If on the other hand, the purpose of taxation is wealth redistribution and social engineering, also known as Socialism, then I guess it does. From where I sit, the first fits squarely in the American tradition and the second has been suffocating economies since conception. Recall, America did not have an income tax until we had to pay for the World Wars and the Depression. It was considered unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

What is the problem with everyone paying the same tax rate on income? Is it not right that those upon whom the blessings of liberty fall disproportionately hard should support that liberty in proportion to their blessings?

---

My primary problem with taxing income is that, as it stands today, it discourages production. There comes a point when it becomes counter-productive to continue moving up in the tax brackets. Of course this is better today than in the past, however there are those who still labor under the impression that higher marginal tax rates are good. I have only been working for 18 years or so, but my experience has been that my income is directly proportional to my employers income. The more it/he/she makes, the more I make. Why on Earth would I want to discourage that?

Also, a national sales tax would not necessarially include food, clothing and other essentials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sicboater

Early on in this thread, Jockeys made a point about the national sales tax being harder to implement than the flat tax. This is the only thing that bothers me about it. I could also see the retirement issue, (folks who have already paid taxes on their retirement savings all of a sudden getting taxed on their consumption and needing additional rebates, headache). But the implementation thing makes me think that we would wake up one day and the Government would say something like: "Well, we are going to do the national sales tax, and the income tax this year and we will gradually fade out the income tax..." Frankly, I don't trust them to stop any form of taxation that is already established if they start a new one at the same time. And yes, I vote in all the elections in which I am able.

---

I wholeheartedly agree. No government has ever met a tax it did not like. That said, I am not entirely against a flat tax everyone pays equally. Rather if we are going to the pain of "starting over" I think we should do it in a manner which will benefit everyone best.

At this point I would like to note that the American promise is that everyone has an equal opportunity not equal success. Is it fair that the scion of wealthy are often better prepared for success? Not at all. Yet history is littered with stories of those who rose from nothing to greatness. Government cannot give or engineer success,the sole result is dependance and resentment. The best environment, the one ideally suited to success - both collectively and individually - is one in which the govenment is off of our backs, out of our pockets and heads.

GO PROFESSOR CHAOS GO!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

As opposed to continuing to give power to the nameless, faceless parties who have given us nothing but feckless, insipid leaders? Those who have foisted upon us an environmental crisis, a healthcare crisis, a social security crisis, a massive debt, a disintegrating infrastructure, schools that cannot educate students, the weak dollar and numerous other dooms? Absolutely.

---

Funny, you're complaining about the very people in office who are most anxious to abolish the estate tax. Seems counter-intuitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

The concept of the government confiscating money simply because a son or daughter did nothing to earn it other than having the right parents is repugnant. Does the government have greater claim to that money? If the purpose of taxation is to provide the government with enough money to operate effectively, then it has no right to tax it twice. If on the other hand, the purpose of taxation is wealth redistribution and social engineering, also know

---

The concept of the government taxing my every last penny just because I worked for it is similarly repugnant. If you insist on regarding someone receiving income from an estate not as income, we have a problem. Better minds than ours seem to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

My primary problem with taxing income is that, as it stands today, it discourages production. There comes a point when it becomes counter-productive to continue moving up in the tax brackets. Of course this is better today than in the past, however there are those who still labor under the impression that higher marginal tax rates are good. I have only been working for 18 years or so, but my experience has been that my income is directly proportional to my employers income. The more it/he/she makes, the more I make. Why on Earth would I want to discourage that?

---

Lack of income discourages production, because it depresses demand. Do you understand economics? There is also no evidence I know of that supports the notion that people stop trying to move up the economic ladder simply for economic reasons. Do you have a citation on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Also, a national sales tax would not necessarially include food, clothing and other essentials.

---

Then what would you tax? For middle income people, most of what we spend is "essential" in some way or other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

I wholeheartedly agree. No government has ever met a tax it did not like.

---

Actually, for political reasons, government has traditionally been highly reluctant to levy new taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

That said, I am not entirely against a flat tax everyone pays equally. Rather if we are going to the pain of "starting over" I think we should do it in a manner which will benefit everyone best.

At this point I would like to note that the American promise is that everyone has an equal opportunity not equal success. Is it fair that the scion of wealthy are often better prepared for success? Not at all. Yet history is littered with stories of those who rose from nothing to greatness. Government cannot give or engineer success,the sole result is dependance and resentment. The best environment, the one ideally suited to success - both collectively and individually - is one in which the govenment is off of our backs, out of our pockets and heads.

---

I think the issue here is what constitutes "Off our backs." Taking more from me so the wealthy don't have to contribute doesn't seem to quality.

j

A little more grist for the mill guys!
The figures are from 2000, but I believe they still hold true, at least in spirit!

"Lack of income discourages production, because it depresses demand. Do you understand economics? There is also no evidence I know of that supports the notion that people stop trying to move up the economic ladder simply for economic reasons. Do you have a citation on that?"

I don't have a "citation" but I do have a personal anecdote. My wife asked to give back, or delay a small raise she received until it could either be larger or combined with her next raise. Her employer found that she merited a thousand dollar a year raise, the problem came in that government decided that this put her into the next tax bracket so that thousand dollars a year would have cost her five percent of her income more in taxes, far in excess of the amount of the raise. Her employer took back the raise and she didn't see another one for over five years. The way the system worked it made it impossible for her employer to give her the kudos she had earned, thus harming his ability to motivate her. Also the thousand would have been easily spent, thus creating that much more business, instead it sat in the bosses bank account doing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Funny, you're complaining about the very people in office who are most anxious to abolish the estate tax. Seems counter-intuitive.

---

Hardly counter-intuitive; you mistook me. I condemn the lot of them, not just the current administration, but also Republicans, Democrats, Senators, Congressmen and all their concomitant functionaries. McCain or Obama, Bush or Kerry, Bush or Gore, Clinton or Dole, Clinton or Bush they are all insipid and feckless. I truely hope that those who vehemently don't want four more years of Bush, albeit in the name of McCain, understand that the alternative is four more years of Carter (or McGovern had he been elected). I am in no way endorsing McCain, by the way. Having to choose which one is least horrid really has me impaled upon the horns of a dilemma. After twenty years of lackluster candidates, McCain and Obama are evidence we still spiral down a vortex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

The concept of the government taxing my every last penny just because I worked for it is similarly repugnant. If you insist on regarding someone receiving income from an estate not as income, we have a problem. Better minds than ours seem to disagree.

---

I absolutely disagree that government should or even has the right to tax all income. It should only levy those taxes that are necessary for it to function effectively and efficiently. Can you name one thing the government does well and cheaply?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Lack of income discourages production, because it depresses demand. Do you understand economics? There is also no evidence I know of that supports the notion that people stop trying to move up the economic ladder simply for economic reasons. Do you have a citation on that?

---

I do understand basic and even some advanced economics and would ask the same question of you! A resonably unbiased mind has merely to look at economies of those nations who have implemented socialist economic policy to see that the results are less than desireable. What part of a lack of production, non-existent innovation, soaring unemployment, social stagnation and political ossification do you seek to emulate? I don't think any are too palatable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Then what would you tax? For middle income people, most of what we spend is "essential" in some way or other.

---

That depends on how you define essential, doesn't it? A fundamental premise of a national sales tax is that the government can do its job with far, far less money than it now spends. Part of the appeal is that with less money, our government would have to spend it more wisely and thus become more limited in scope. (Do you have a clue where your tax dollars go?) As such, it would require far less of a contribution from you and other middle income families. How do you find that offensive or even remotely undesireable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Actually, for political reasons, government has traditionally been highly reluctant to levy new taxes.

---

Thankfully. But that does not preclude the desire to levy new taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I think the issue here is what constitutes "Off our backs." Taking more from me so the wealthy don't have to contribute doesn't seem to quality.

---

I think I have addressed the fact that the goal isn't to take more from you but much less. Uncle Sam and Joe Muni need to learn how to make do, just like the rest of us. For further elucidation, take a look at the results of Colorado's tax payer's bill of rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Hardly counter-intuitive; you mistook me. I condemn the lot of them, not just the current administration, but also Republicans, Democrats, Senators, Congressmen and all their concomitant functionaries. McCain or Obama, Bush or Kerry, Bush or Gore, Clinton or Dole, Clinton or Bush they are all insipid and feckless. I truely hope that those who vehemently don't want four more years of Bush, albeit in the name of McCain, understand that the alternative is four more years of Carter (or McGovern had he been elected). I am in no way endorsing McCain, by the way. Having to choose which one is least horrid really has me impaled upon the horns of a dilemma. After twenty years of lackluster candidates, McCain and Obama are evidence we still spiral down a vortex.



I absolutely disagree that government should or even has the right to tax all income. It should only levy those taxes that are necessary for it to function effectively and efficiently. Can you name one thing the government does well and cheaply?



I do understand basic and even some advanced economics and would ask the same question of you! A resonably unbiased mind has merely to look at economies of those nations who have implemented socialist economic policy to see that the results are less than desireable. What part of a lack of production, non-existent innovation, soaring unemployment, social stagnation and political ossification do you seek to emulate? I don't think any are too palatable.



That depends on how you define essential, doesn't it? A fundamental premise of a national sales tax is that the government can do its job with far, far less money than it now spends. Part of the appeal is that with less money, our government would have to spend it more wisely and thus become more limited in scope. (Do you have a clue where your tax dollars go?) As such, it would require far less of a contribution from you and other middle income families. How do you find that offensive or even remotely undesireable?



Thankfully. But that does not preclude the desire to levy new taxes.



I think I have addressed the fact that the goal isn't to take more from you but much less. Uncle Sam and Joe Muni need to learn how to make do, just like the rest of us. For further elucidation, take a look at the results of Colorado's tax payer's bill of rights.

---

An "unbiased mind" would find it easy to turn up things that government does well. Think Coast Guard, Park Service, Forest Service, Waterways, NOAA -- the list goes on. How about the Justice Department, which does just fine when the politicians leave it alone?

Because of my job, I know very well where our tax dollars go. I'll throw the issue back at you. You seem to believe that "the government can do its job with far, far less money than it now spends."

What would you cut? Remember that so-called "earmarks" constitute a drop in the bucket.

So where?

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

An "unbiased mind" would find it easy to turn up things that government does well. Think Coast Guard, Park Service, Forest Service, Waterways, NOAA -- the list goes on. How about the Justice Department, which does just fine when the politicians leave it alone?

Because of my job, I know very well where our tax dollars go. I'll throw the issue back at you. You seem to believe that "the government can do its job with far, far less money than it now spends."

What would you cut? Remember that so-called "earmarks" constitute a drop in the bucket.

So where?

j

---

I vaguely remember sometime back a controversy about the government purchasing ashtrays for the military at some god awful astronomical cost (over 100 dollars per ashtray if I recall correctly)! And this is just one example of the efficiency and thoughtfulness that our government uses while spending our money! a study on average nose sizes of flight attendants is another example in the long list of abuses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

An "unbiased mind" would find it easy to turn up things that government does well. Think Coast Guard, Park Service, Forest Service, Waterways, NOAA -- the list goes on. How about the Justice Department, which does just fine when the politicians leave it alone?

Because of my job, I know very well where our tax dollars go. I'll throw the issue back at you. You seem to believe that "the government can do its job with far, far less money than it now spends."

What would you cut? Remember that so-called "earmarks" constitute a drop in the bucket.

So where?

j

---

Oh boy, this is going to be FUN!

1. All pork and pork related projects. Now.
2. All foreign aid (~241 billion). While I am not opposed to it in principle, I don't think forgein aid should have become a habit. Once we have fixed what is wrong at home, whatever leftovers remain can be considered for foreign aid.
3. The DEA (~1146 million). The War on Drugs has failed. Not only has it enriched drug dealers it has made otherwise honest citizens criminals. Perhaps most importantly, what I choose to do to my body is of no one else's concern and especially not Uncle Sam's. If I want to smoke crack, get high, shoot smack, go on a week long coke bende or do none of the above it is my choice, and my choice alone, to do so.
4. The Department of Education (~70 billion). Education in America has been an embarassment since the Feds got involved. The more we spend, the worse we do. Let the states and the private sector take over, it really cannot get any worse.

I could go on and on and on and on. Shall I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

I could go on and on and on and on. Shall I?

---

let's go ahead and add welfare, medicare, mediaid, etc to that list. corporate welfare, too. bad enough when the gov't take money from those who are good at life, but it's downright infuriating when they turn around and give it to those who totally suck at life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

I vaguely remember sometime back a controversy about the government purchasing ashtrays for the military at some god awful astronomical cost (over 100 dollars per ashtray if I recall correctly)! And this is just one example of the efficiency and thoughtfulness that our government uses while spending our money! a study on average nose sizes of flight attendants is another example in the long list of abuses!

---

Where did you get these? Citations?

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Oh boy, this is going to be FUN!

1. All pork and pork related projects. Now.
2. All foreign aid (~241 billion). While I am not opposed to it in principle, I don't think forgein aid should have become a habit. Once we have fixed what is wrong at home, whatever leftovers remain can be considered for foreign aid.
3. The DEA (~1146 million). The War on Drugs has failed. Not only has it enriched drug dealers it has made otherwise honest citizens criminals. Perhaps most importantly, what I choose to do to my body is of no one else's concern and especially not Uncle Sam's. If I want to smoke crack, get high, shoot smack, go on a week long coke bende or do none of the above it is my choice, and my choice alone, to do so.
4. The Department of Education (~70 billion). Education in America has been an embarassment since the Feds got involved. The more we spend, the worse we do. Let the states and the private sector take over, it really cannot get any worse.

I could go on and on and on and on. Shall I?

---

Sure. By all means. So far, we've eliminated a major tool of foreign policy, placed the responsibility for education (and, not coincidentally, our competitiveness in the global marketplace) on states like Mississippi, saved a nickel or two in drug enforcement -- and we still have a huge deficit.

Keep going. You're doing fine.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

let's go ahead and add welfare, medicare, mediaid, etc to that list. corporate welfare, too. bad enough when the gov't take money from those who are good at life, but it's downright infuriating when they turn around and give it to those who totally suck at life.

---

Ah, yeah. Those senior citizens! They really suck at life, don't they.

Do you know the average time a person stays on welfare?

I agree with you on corporate welfare (unless you're talking about market-based incentives, which I do believe in), but you have about as much chance of getting that one past the lobbyists as I have of growing a second whatever.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

... an item costs say 100 dollars. We have 10% GST, so $10 is charged in tax. To a person earning 100K a year, that's 0.01% of their income. To a person earning 30K a year, it's 0.033% of their income.

James.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Not exactly...

...

Some additional benefits of a national sales tax include that by removing the disincentives to produce, our economy would go into overdrive. It also would tax everyone equally. Which is why we will never see it happen. ....

---

Perhaps I'm wrong about what you mean by a flat national sales tax. But if it is anything like ours, can you explain, in light of my previous post (quoted), how it "would tax everyone equally"?

James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Perhaps I'm wrong about what you mean by a flat national sales tax. But if it is anything like ours, can you explain, in light of my previous post (quoted), how it "would tax everyone equally"?

James.

---

Income is irrelevant in the calculation. Everyone pays 10.00 in tax on your 100.00 item. Since all esstential items such as food and clothing have been excluded from the tax, ideally anyway, your item is wanted but not needed. Every day we all have to decide if we afford something we want, but don't need, or not. That a doctor can possibly bid more for a Puma Gold than I can is neither fair nor unfair. Its just a fact of life.

Despite some emotional counter-arguements to a limiited federal government, made in some cases by those with a vested interest in big government, the fact remains that the Federal government has grown far, far beyond what is necessary. In so doing it has usurped rights reserved for American citizens and the states they populate. I refer you to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which say powers that are not delegated to the U.S. government by the U.S. Constitution are "reserved to the states, or to the people." As it stands today, there is no functional difference between living in Massachusetts or Mississippi besides the weather and the accent. The roads stink, public education is shameful and drugs are everywhere. It is well past the time for the Federal government to get out of the way.

As for foreign aid, why on God's green Earth should we buy friends? Simply pathetic. If we have to pay someone to support or agree with us, then that friendship is not worth one cent. Frankly, I care very little whether or not the world likes us. America is far from perfect, but on the whole we are as good as any and better than most. If that is not enough to engender good will and friendship, neither begging nor bribery will make a scintilla of difference.

Now I am off to the other forums for the original reason I first came to SRP. Shave geekery.

Interesting thread y'all.

As for taxes, I feel that progressive flat tax is the most efficient and fair method of taxation. the first $20,000 of your income is tax free. After that, every dollar is taxed at 15%, whether from wages, investments, or inheritance. Easy and simple. For someone making $20k or less, they have no tax burden, but again, their income is going to be gone just buying the necessities. some one making $30k per year is going to pay t$1,500 on that $30k, or 5% income tax. for someone making $50,000, he will pay $4,500 in taxes on the $30,000 which is taxable, or a total tax on his income of 9%. The more income you make, the more the percentage of tax approaches 15% of your total income. This holds true for estates (except when the estate passes to the surviving spouse). I would even go along with a 20% progressive flat tax.

Matt

I would say on the foreign aid topic that I don't see it as 'buying friends'. It's buying services. I don't think there are inherent friends or enemies, even though people like to make fluffy speeches on the subject. There is money and what you get for it. I'd qualify this in the same 'facts of life' category :)

The Israelis or the Palestinians, or the Saudis, or Pakistanis, or various African countries, etc. won't love US any more or less because of the US foreign aid they get, but their government will certainly do some things in exchange for it. I can imagine that often it's much cheaper to get them to do these things by giving them free stuff, than any alternative ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Income is irrelevant in the calculation. Everyone pays 10.00 in tax on your 100.00 item. Since all esstential items such as food and clothing have been excluded from the tax, ideally anyway, your item is wanted but not needed. Every day we all have to decide if we afford something we want, but don't need, or not. That a doctor can possibly bid more for a Puma Gold than I can is neither fair nor unfair. Its just a fact of life.

...

Now I am off to the other forums for the original reason I first came to SRP. Shave geekery.

---

I see your point. But that's where the fun begins. What's exempt? What's a need and what's a want? I agree that a Puma is (probably, but I might argue the point) a want, and that food, clothing, and shelter are needs. But only to a point - caviar, Armani suits, and MacMansions are not needs - who decides the basic minimum requirements for these things to change from need to want? What about brake pads? Petrol? Pens and stationary for children's schooling?

We've had these debates already in Aust.. We had our parliament discussing the world's important issues - what is the taxation status of a chicken? Turns out if it's bought frozen it's exempt, but if it's bought prepared it's not. If it's bought alive for the purpose of laying eggs, it gets hit by tax because you are getting a fringe benefit from it. (that last one is a joke, but only just).

Rebates, exemptions, compensations, special exemptions....the "simple" flat tax ends up doing just the same thing as a graduated tax system in the end, IMO, and ends up just as complicated.

James.

One thing nobody is considering, though, is that governments, like investors, need a certain amount of diversification of revenue. It's not a good idea to get all our income from one source, because when that source suffers, your options are few.

As an example, if the federal government -- just as a for instance -- only taxed income, then when unemployment was high, federal revenues would be down -- just at a time when more revenue was needed to stimulate the economy.

Just a caution.

j

I absolutely must have an Armani suit. It's a necessity.

I believe that Hamilton mentioned it in one of the Federalist Papers, so it should be considered a right under framers' intent.

So under any calculation, Armani suits must be exempt. Otherwise, no deal.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I absolutely must have an Armani suit. It's a necessity.

I believe that Hamilton mentioned it in one of the Federalist Papers, so it should be considered a right under framers' intent.

So under any calculation, Armani suits must be exempt. Otherwise, no deal.

j

---

:D Yes, I think we can all agree that an Armani suit is a necessity.

James.

guys, I hate to say it, but in some professions an Armani (or other brand) suit is a necessity. Imagine a lawyer walking into a courtroom in painted-on jeans, and t-shirt. No, a suit is a necessity.

However, the progressive flat tax takes into consideration the necessities of survival. living on $20k a year, you would only spend on the necessities of survival. after that your necessities are covered, and the rest can be subject to tax.

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

We've had these debates already in Aust.. We had our parliament discussing the world's important issues - what is the taxation status of a chicken? Turns out if it's bought frozen it's exempt, but if it's bought prepared it's not. If it's bought alive for the purpose of laying eggs, it gets hit by tax because you are getting a fringe benefit from it. (that last one is a joke, but only just).

Rebates, exemptions, compensations, special exemptions....the "simple" flat tax ends up doing just the same thing as a graduated tax system in the end, IMO, and ends up just as complicated.

James.

---

And how easily I can see that happening here :cry:. Perhaps when it comes to politicians and taxes, the devil you know is better than the one you don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

And how easily I can see that happening here :cry:. Perhaps when it comes to politicians and taxes, the devil you know is better than the one you don't?

---

I don't know. Sounds like tax reform is needed everywhere. In Australia, the taxation system is kinda like the Microsoft coding ethos - don't fix the problem, just patch it. After a while it ends up heavy and unwieldy, no-one really knows all of it, there's more exemptions from rules than there are actual rules, and the whole thing is a mess. We need a Taxation XP, or maybe an open-source Lin-tax system. :hmmm:

James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I don't know. Sounds like tax reform is needed everywhere. In Australia, the taxation system is kinda like the Microsoft coding ethos - don't fix the problem, just patch it. After a while it ends up heavy and unwieldy, no-one really knows all of it, there's more exemptions from rules than there are actual rules, and the whole thing is a mess. We need a Taxation XP, or maybe an open-source Lin-tax system. :hmmm:

James.

---

To right Jimbo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottS

The wealthy abuse the tax system every day, too, only the amount of money they hide/steal/unfairly trade for dwarfs the social programs you're so rabid about ending. One might argue that the more successful people that "get away with it", the more poor people there will be because of the crimes of the wealthy.

---

Then take away the loopholes.
I read statistically that the wealthiest 10% pay on average between 5 and 15% of their income in taxes. I make a very good wage when work is available to me, and the government takes between 25% and 35% of every one of my pay checks.
I'm single with no kids... enough said.

The Church only asks for 10%, why should the government get more?

Frankly I would whole heartedly support a 15% or even 20% flat income tax across the board. No deductions, no loopholes, everybody pays the same percentage.

The problem here comes when you own a small business... How much of my profits are income? If I reinvest into my business, I'm still going to end up doing tons of tax paperwork to avoid Uncle Sam Taxing me out of business.

Right now, everything I'm making is going towards school, so will be tax deductable, I'm paying all shipping out of my regular paychecks as a way of saving more in my business account, and all of that will be a business loss, and when I stock up heavily on razors at the end of the year, I will have a huge net business loss.
I might actually have enough deductions this year to avoid getting raped by the IRS. :shrug:

I don't mind paying taxes, but people who use or abuse the system need to pay back into it. If you are collecting Welfare, you should be required to work to earn it.
Welfare should have an absolute limit to how long you can collect. Just like unemployment, you get it for so long, and you'd better be working on something else for income, because when it runs out, you're done. and NO, you don't get a bonus for getting pregnant.

If it was a flat tax taken out of your paycheck, we would all feel equally.
The only deductions are investments. If you invest in stocks, bonds, education, government approved charities, etc... the taxes you paid on that income is refunded.
When you get returns from your investments, you get taxed on the income then. No exceptions. The only way to avoid paying the same % of taxes as everybody else is to continually invest your money, and take no income from it.
If you put the money in your bank account, it get taxed. If you spend it, it gets taxed.

The invested money is helping the economy, it doesn't need to be taxed. It helps us all. When the investor takes it out, they pay taxes on it. Collected right then and there by the investment broker/bank. If they re-invest it they get a document from the new investor to take to the old, and the taxes that were taken out get electronically transferred to the new investment, or can be refunded as income, and appropriatly taxed.
This is equal and fair. Billionaires can remain rich, but they would start living off their savings, and putting their profits in investments that help our economy. The average Joe would get taxed a little less, and wouldn't have to deal with the IRS at all, no tax forms to file, you paid 15% yes, then you're good. Did you invest anything? no fine, yes, then the Bank sends the documents and Uncle Sam sends you a check.

Small business owners would still do profit loss statements, and if they had a loss they wouldn't pay taxes, if they profit, then they pay on their profits. The same as everyone else.

Also IMHO preventative medicine should be the only medical bills that are deductable. Medical insurance is an investment, you pay your deductible for getting sick, it's not a deduction, you pay the same deductable to stay healthy, you get to write it off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Where did you get these? Citations?

j

---

They were things I learned about while in the military some 20 years ago!
I did a little searching before I had to leave this morning but couldn't find anything!
Now that I am home I will make a more thorough search!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff

The Church only asks for 10%, why should the government get more?

---

Because the government has the guns and various pain inflicting means which the church doesn't anymore (or they say they don't) :)

Closing loopholes is fine, but once you start what is an investment - education, healthcare, razor collection....
I also don't see a reason for charitable donations to be tax exempt, or education, insurance, health care etc. expenditures. If you'll be making flat tax make it truly flat (why not a flat sum too - everybody chips in 10000 a year and call it a day). I'm thinking that if you are going to let people have as much freedom and responsibility as you can give them, well then don't penalize them for picking a BMW over a year at Harvard.

I think we can all see how a general statement seems all neat and easy, but once you start looking at the details things are not all that clear cut.