Thread: Taxes?

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!

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

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!

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.

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.

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.