Thread: Taxes?

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.

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.

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