Thread: Taxes?

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

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

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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!