Thread: Hey!! Who's pulling the Bandwagon????

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Its the wealthy who oversee the tax laws that are being written and instituted, those of us who have to work don't have the time and cannot afford the lobbyists, we do not have the influence.

Wealthy politicians

Originally Posted by gugi

OK, I think you probably have somewhat different definition of fundamentals than I do, but for the sake of having a rational argument, let's not rely on postulates (framers had it right) and false substitutions (the desired results with the actual framework).

As far as I can tell especially nowadays it is extremely rare that people are denied their right to vote (and of course that's different than it once was, but it was changed within the proscribed process of doing it).
And the different branches of the government still function as prescribed, so there are various 'checks and balances' in place.

If you would to convince me everything is set up properly, but somehow somebody didn't do it as it was meant to be done you will have to point out who, when and what was done wrong and then you'll have to answer my first question, why wasn't that (self)corrected, if the system is really set up well.

From what I can see the current result is just a natural outcome of the way the political system is designed to work. And I have thought about this for several years now, it's not something I decided to post because it just occurred to me.

I'm not sure why you believe there is a false substitution in my statement, but if you want to take this offline, I would be happy to teach you about Metaphysics, Epistomology, Logic, Ethics/Politics and Esthetics. I can show you exactly where your metaphysics is incorrect, and therefore you are making illegal epistomological substitutions in your logic statements.

PM me if you want to take this deeper, otherwise, I'm afraid we will be batting a birdie over the net for too many hours in this thread.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

One of the strengths of the Fair Tax is that the price of goods wouldn't really go up all that much because of the embedded costs of taxes in the goods we buy. So, the incentive to not consume would be lesser than you might fear. Combined with prices staying pretty much the same, the increased buying power by removing the payroll taxes would really stimulate the economy.

However, the problem with this is that the government loses the ability to influence behavior to the extent that the current tax code allows them to... That's why it'll never happen

I beg to differ. The price of goods would go up considerably, since we'd have to replace all the revenue generated by taxing income by taxing all consumer goods. This wouldn't be a nominal 1% or 2% tax. And all the folks at the poverty level or near the poverty level or struggling to get by, who don't pay income taxes under the present system, would lose heavily under a flat tax system--which makes little sense. Unless you want to subsidize them, but that essentially negates the point of a flat tax. This is exactly why the flat tax idea hasn't taken off, despite it's superficial appeal of being equitable. And again, if you tax consumption instead of income, you'd end up with a wildly fluctuating, highly unpredictable revenue stream which would severely hamstring the government. A downturn in consumer spending due to a recession like we're currently experiencing would sharply curtail tax revenue. You can't operate a government with that type of economic uncertainty. Perhaps this explains why so few countries have adopted this idea. Finally-while I agree with the general idea that the wealthy would typically spend more than the less wealthy, a flat tax would be an economic windfall to the rich and the very rich-their tax liability would be far, far less compared to what they pay under an income tax system. But hey--if you want to pay more taxes so the rich and the very rich can keep more of their money, go to it.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

I beg to differ. The price of goods would go up considerably, since we'd have to replace all the revenue generated by taxing income by taxing all consumer goods. This wouldn't be a nominal 1% or 2% tax. And all the folks at the poverty level or near the poverty level or struggling to get by, who don't pay income taxes under the present system, would lose heavily under a flat tax system--which makes little sense. Unless you want to subsidize them, but that essentially negates the point of a flat tax. This is exactly why the flat tax idea hasn't taken off, despite it's superficial appeal of being equitable. And again, if you tax consumption instead of income, you'd end up with a wildly fluctuating, highly unpredictable revenue stream which would severely hamstring the government. A downturn in consumer spending due to a recession like we're currently experiencing would sharply curtail tax revenue. You can't operate a government with that type of economic uncertainty. Perhaps this explains why so few countries have adopted this idea. Finally-while I agree with the general idea that the wealthy would typically spend more than the less wealthy, a flat tax would be an economic windfall to the rich and the very rich-their tax liability would be far, far less compared to what they pay under an income tax system. But hey--if you want to pay more taxes so the rich and the very rich can keep more of their money, go to it.

I'm not surprised that you disagree because you've not taken the time to study the proposal. There's a very real difference in a "flat tax" and the "Fair Tax" (which is a very specific proposal). I'd recommend reading up on it instead of making assumptions.

Commiecat and I agree on this one

It's all 6 & 1/2 dozen of the other, but non of this has to do with metaphysics, maybe ontology lol. Let's ask Mr. Popper.

At the end of the day two mindsets still exist:

Those who feel sharing the burden to those making more is justifiable so those of the verge of poverty can survive.

Those who believe that everything can be fixed by "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps."

The later ideology does not take into account the fact that not all of us are created equal, despite what modern political correctness tells everyone and unless you can sleep well at night knowing, people are going hungry, going homeless, etc... then your set with this viewpoint.

I've made over 100k over 250k. The first being someone's employee and got taxed out the "uknowwhat," and the later I was able with the help of an account and my corporation avoid a good deal of taxes.

So imho it isn't the individually wealthier upper middle class that needs the taxation, it's the large corporations that make huge sums of money but alas their more slippery then a greased pig when it comes to paying true taxes for the amount earned.

At the end of the day it's got to come with clarity, and transparency, but if Enron taught us anything it's that with the right accountant a set of cooked books can go a long way. lol


Now I'm one of those sad sacks without a real job, barely getting by, doing whatever I can to get through and take care of my family.

So I guess my viewpoints have changed since becoming a havenot. Oh well I'll be back ontop again, but for now I'll take my tax credit.

Cheers
David

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I'm not surprised that you disagree because you've not taken the time to study the proposal. There's a very real difference in a "flat tax" and the "Fair Tax" (which is a very specific proposal). I'd recommend reading up on it instead of making assumptions.

Commiecat and I agree on this one

You are correct-they are two different concepts. And they are both unworkable. That's why there hasn't been serious consideration given to either proposal. They would both negatively impact the middle and lower class earners, and would greatly benefit the rich and the very rich. I suggest you take the time to read up on both.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

You are correct-they are two different concepts. And they are both unworkable. That's why there hasn't been serious consideration given to either proposal. They would both negatively impact the middle and lower class earners, and would greatly benefit the rich and the very rich. I suggest you take the time to read up on both.

I've done it. In fact, I've read two books on them. What you are saying is just not factually correct. There hasn't been serious consideration to it because it would limit the government's ability to influence behavior. FWIW, I have an Accounting degree and worked in public accounting preparing taxes for high income earners and businesses. I'm pretty familiar with how it all works.

EDIT: Did you really just tell me to read up on it after I suggested you read up on it and not make assumptions?

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Where are you getting your info?

Personal observation and my basic intellegence.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I've done it. In fact, I've read two books on them. What you are saying is just not factually correct. There hasn't been serious consideration to it because it would limit the government's ability to influence behavior. FWIW, I have an Accounting degree and worked in public accounting preparing taxes for high income earners and businesses. I'm pretty familiar with how it all works.

EDIT: Did you really just tell me to read up on it after I suggested you read up on it and not make assumptions?

Ok. I'll presume you're more knowledgeable than I. So you tell me, under either a flat tax or a fair tax, do the wealthy and very wealthy make out better, the same, or worse than under the current system. And what I'd like to steer clear of is inserting into the discussion arguments about getting government spending under control, since that's a separate issue. So, if we assume that, as a nation, we need to raise x-amount of dollars to operate the government, under which scenario do the middle and lower income earners do better, and why?
My take is that under a flat tax, the wealthy and very wealthy would pay considerably less than what they pay now, and the middle and lower classes would pay more, unless you subsidize them, which then converts the flat tax into a tiered tax system anyway. Otherwise, that 47% of the population that doesn't pay federal income tax under the current system would be worse off then they are now. And under a fair tax system-if you look at the countries that have implemented that model, some of the tax rates are in the 25% range. So although there wouldn't be an income tax, we'd be paying considerably more for basic living necessities-again, not good for the middle and lower income levels. And what about the unfairness involving all the folks who've put money into 401k plans? They were able to put their money away without having to pay taxes on it, and they'd be able to withdraw the money tax free as well? How is that fair to the rest of the folks who paid full taxes on their earnings because they couldn't afford to sock money away into a 401K plan?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Ok. I'll presume you're more knowledgeable than I. So you tell me, under either a flat tax or a fair tax, do the wealthy and very wealthy make out better, the same, or worse than under the current system. And what I'd like to steer clear of is inserting into the discussion arguments about getting government spending under control, since that's a separate issue. So, if we assume that, as a nation, we need to raise x-amount of dollars to operate the government, under which scenario do the middle and lower income earners do better, and why?
My take is that under a flat tax, the wealthy and very wealthy would pay considerably less than what they pay now, and the middle and lower classes would pay more, unless you subsidize them, which then converts the flat tax into a tiered tax system anyway. Otherwise, that 47% of the population that doesn't pay federal income tax under the current system would be worse off then they are now. And under a fair tax system-if you look at the countries that have implemented that model, some of the tax rates are in the 25% range. So although there wouldn't be an income tax, we'd be paying considerably more for basic living necessities-again, not good for the middle and lower income levels. And what about the unfairness involving all the folks who've put money into 401k plans? They were able to put their money away without having to pay taxes on it, and they'd be able to withdraw the money tax free as well? How is that fair to the rest of the folks who paid full taxes on their earnings because they couldn't afford to sock money away into a 401K plan?

Everyone makes out better under the Fair Tax model. So, yes, the wealthy and very wealthy are better off.

Under the current system, prices reflect the cost of doing business and a desired profit. There are LOTS of tax costs built into prices that we pay. This might be hard to understand, but businesses don't pay taxes (of course they cut the checks) because that cost is transferred to the end user. This drives production costs and final costs up. Under the Fair Tax system, many of those costs would go down (tax rates, compliance costs, etc.) and the end result price would be very similar to what we are currently paying. The kicker is that our income would increase by the cost of our payroll taxes. That means the lower and middle classes would actually be better off under the Fair Tax model.

Under a flat tax, the wealthier get more benefit. However, under the Fair Tax, there is a prebate given cover the cost of living up to a certain point (can't remember what it is), making it essentially become "income" neutral. So, I guess they get more "benefit" because they are getting the shaft now. Remember the way income taxes have always been sold to the public from its inception (tax the rich), but I don't know many people who consider themselves rich. Almost all of them pay lots in taxes, though.

Regarding the question about driving the economy to black market products: did the VAT in the EU do that? I'm not familiar with any discussion of that, I'm asking.

Regarding the 401K stuff: There's nothing fair about that. However, I'm not going to advocate staying with a system that would be better because it wouldn't be "fair" to those who had to suffer through the old system. Our job is to make things better for the future, not leave them with the same crappy system that we have.

Again, instead of talking about this on SRP, it would be significantly better for you to read the books about them that I've asked you to look at. All of your questions are answered by them, plus many more.

Considering the delay that you had in replying to this, I hoped you had done that. There really is too much information to pack into a string of posts. I'm pretty well done discussing it because it's not fruitful. At a certain point, you either have to have enough interest to read through the arguments and proposals, or you can make assumptions and feign understanding. The choice is yours, and I'm not concerned either way