Tea Party
perseus
Active member
So your simply saying that you don't agree with the form of taxation? Ultimately you can only either shift it from income to purchases or rich to poor. I suppose you can shift it from tax to 'health insurance' but whether this is simply a different form of tax is debatable since we need to stay alive.
Of course you can reduce taxes by reducing government expenditure but we soon get on sticky ground here. Yes I know governments are accused of inefficient services, but what could be less efficient than Trident missiles, F22s ($361 million per aircraft) and Typhoons in a post cold war era? The Government Military contractors are amongst the most inefficient and corrupt in the western world in my opinion. This seems to contradict what I said earlier but its about the right sort of military expenditure more appropriate for insurgent, asymmetrical warfare and avoidance of conflict in the first place.
Of course you can reduce taxes by reducing government expenditure but we soon get on sticky ground here. Yes I know governments are accused of inefficient services, but what could be less efficient than Trident missiles, F22s ($361 million per aircraft) and Typhoons in a post cold war era? The Government Military contractors are amongst the most inefficient and corrupt in the western world in my opinion. This seems to contradict what I said earlier but its about the right sort of military expenditure more appropriate for insurgent, asymmetrical warfare and avoidance of conflict in the first place.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Absolutely.
The procurement process needs a huge overhaul. They're costing too much, the missions of the platforms are questionable (like that stealth destroyer!!) and in the end, things that cost less but are far more in need are being given the back seat.
How much would you give to have a completely rain proof set of cammies that are well ventilated? How about completely rain proof boots?
And why is it that we need THAT many aircraft carriers?
Just saying, if it's inefficiency, expense and questionable need that is the problem, unfortunately the military starts to stick out like a sore thumb. Not that the military shouldn't be properly funded, but the money seems to be going to all the weird places.
Things that are considered a waste of money like health care, education etc., cost only a FRACTION of the amount. The cost of one F-22 would go really far in either of those fields.
The procurement process needs a huge overhaul. They're costing too much, the missions of the platforms are questionable (like that stealth destroyer!!) and in the end, things that cost less but are far more in need are being given the back seat.
How much would you give to have a completely rain proof set of cammies that are well ventilated? How about completely rain proof boots?
And why is it that we need THAT many aircraft carriers?
Just saying, if it's inefficiency, expense and questionable need that is the problem, unfortunately the military starts to stick out like a sore thumb. Not that the military shouldn't be properly funded, but the money seems to be going to all the weird places.
Things that are considered a waste of money like health care, education etc., cost only a FRACTION of the amount. The cost of one F-22 would go really far in either of those fields.
mmarsh
Active member
A retail sales is hardly a "Fair" tax. I absolutely guerentee you you'll be paying MORE under such a system...unless your're a millionaire.
Its a very simple equation.
Do you know who moves the Economy? The Middle Class. They are the ones when they have a bit of extra cash go out to SEARS or WALMART and buy refridgerators, TVs and pickup truck etc. They are the lynch pin of how everything works. Its been that way since FDR.
Because they are at the bottom of the foodchain, the lower classes rarely have spare change, so right off the bat you wont be getting much tax revenue from them. If you create a Federal retail tax life becomes even MORE expensive for them, as the little they currently pay in Federal income tax will be offset by a massive tax increase at the supermarket cash register. These people have a tough time as it is, you really want to make life even more difficult for them? I dont buy the 23% tax rate, I am certain that in order to balance to books it would HAVE be more than that. But suppose someone in NYC is buying a $300 TV. That means $300+8.25% (state Tax)+23%(Federal). That means your bill is $399. A $300 TV just got $100 more expensive. Do you think people on mininum wage (who pays little tax right now) can afford such a massive hike?
The Rich dont spent money, they scurry it away in investments or under a mattress, and thanks the the Bush Administration reduction on Capital Gains that money is only minimally taxed.
So if we do away with the income tax (which is fair because everyone pays based on their ability to pay, ergo: the poor pay less the rich pay more) and institute a Retail Sales Tax the real losers will be the poor and middle class as they will be paying more taxes at the register. The Rich will pay little to no tax at all.
This is a bad, bad, idea.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yeah but people will accept it as a good idea becuase the guys proposing it like to show up waving a flag.
Over here when the price tag says $2.00, you pay $2.00 at the counter. You don't pay extra for tax. My groceries are affordable that way.
Over here when the price tag says $2.00, you pay $2.00 at the counter. You don't pay extra for tax. My groceries are affordable that way.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Not strictly true as the rich still eat and food costs money, the reality is that technically a Goods and Services Tax is fair but it places the poor in an undesirable position.
There is nothing fair about systems based on peoples ability to pay, it is in fact pretty close to arguing that it is only worth robbing banks because they have all the money, I am a far greater fan of flat tax rates where everyone a certain percentage whether they earn one dollar or 100,000,000 dollars if you want to help out the poor you then you exempt the first 10,000 dollars (or what ever number you come up with).
I am also very opposed to progressive tax systems as they penalise people for doing well and that is counter productive.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Some folks I know who make a lot of money fork out ridiculous sums for tax.
To tax them any more wouldn't make a whole lot of sense actually.
I guess the solution is to make the spending smart... but what folks on this board tell me is that Americans are incapable of doing that.
Tell me it ain't so.
To tax them any more wouldn't make a whole lot of sense actually.
I guess the solution is to make the spending smart... but what folks on this board tell me is that Americans are incapable of doing that.
Tell me it ain't so.
mmarsh
Active member
The Rich have basic costs. But the point I am making is that they are NOT the ones that are turning th economy, their purchasing power contribution is too small, because there are fewer of them to make a difference on the national economy. People who make more than $1.6 Million only represent 1% of the population.
I strongly disagree. I think its absolutely fair to require people who make more to contribute more. The reason is as followed, the USA does alot of things to facilitate the making of big money. Its very, vary rare situation that someone can say they did it on their own, whether it was public school, a scholorship, a low interest government loan, a tax cut, a tax break, you name it somewhere the government has been there to help people on the road to financial success. Therefore requiring the wealthy to pay back into society, to allow others the same chance to succeed is more than fair.
To use your anology,Taxes (bank robbers) is like death, its unavoidable. Which would you prefer that the bank robbers rob? The bank (a very select few, who can afford it, and who can still live comfortably after the robbery)? Or the poor houses (to which a robbery would be a catastrophic event felt by Millions).
Secondly, its a method of preventing us descending into oligarchy. We have seen time and time again. When the Super rich are left to their own devices everybody else suffers because the Rich squeezed the poor into starvation. The fact that the rich were allowed to control without check led to the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and most recent turn of events in Russia. Heavily Taxing the rich is way of making sure that they dont get TOO powerful (as is the case in America today) and makes sure the playing field stays relatively equal, and I say relatively because even at the highest tax ratio (the 35%) people are still doing extremely well.
In America there are self made Billionaires like Warren Buffet who readily admit that a Flat Tax is a bad idea, and Warren isnt exactly in line at the soup kitchen...
"people (ed: the rich) in the U.S. ought to be very happy to pay a considerably higher percentage in taxes to take care of those without lucky tickets... [A flat tax represents] a warped view of society." -Warren Buffet
http://media.www.harbus.org/media/storage/paper343/news/2004/11/15/News/Warren.Buffett-806510.shtml
Now I am not saying your're warped Monty, but any idea of a non scaleable tax will hurt the poor and benefit the extermely wealthy as I demonstrated above. A scalable tax system might be annoying, but it does NOT hurt the rich.
One final point. There is a certain class of uber-rich (the true Oligarchs in the US) people like the Mars Family, the Helmley Family etc who loath the idea of paying taxes. As Leona Helmley famously remarked (before she was sent to prison) "Only Little People Pay taxes". These people are so vehmantly against taxes that they would rather pay millions to lawyers in order to either hide their income, or move their money overseas to places like Switzerland outside US Jurisdiction.
Redneck
We have to be clear that I am talking about the US. the highest Tax bracket current ly is 35% (which isnt that bad compared to other countries). To be in the 35% bracket you need to be making $375K a year total. Most people are in the 25% bracket, so its only a 10% increase between those making $40K and those making $400K.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
But that is the role of government, to create the conditions for national and by default individual success however they only create the conditions it is up to individuals to be successful.
To me the argument that because people have more they should contribute more is right up there with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and for as much as I may appear socialist I am not a fan of communism.
I have to admit I would prefer Goods and Services Tax (GST's) over an income tax any day of the week because at least I am paying tax on my consumption rather than the governments but GST's fail the poor badly which is why I lean toward a flat tax rate with a low end exemption.
As far as the wealthy paying more I am not a fan, my experience is that while the wealthy do not drive the economy they invest the money that does drive the economy, further to that they have the private health cares packages, they have the retirement earnings etc. and as such are not the same drain on national wealth that the poor are.
As for the middle class, I cannot see how a flat tax rate can affect them if done properly.
Over all I would support either of two systems:
1) A flat tax rate, the wealthy still pay more (20% of $250,000 is still more than 20% of $40,000), you cover the poor by exempting the first $10-15,000 which means that they effectively pay no tax and you remove a lot (if not all) of the claimable expenses and you have a fair system.
2) No Income tax and a higher GST with the essentials (food, gas etc.) exempted.
The Fair Tax ends personal & Coporate taxes. Corporations don't pay taxes, they are an expense that is passed on to the consumer, ask any accountant. So...the 300$ computer before the F.T. will still be 300$ after the price decliners by apx 23% as the hidden tax is removed from the price. F.T. includes a prebate equivelent to the amount of tax payed out by subsistance level food expenditures. This would effectivly make the very poor tax free. Everyone else would pay according to his spending, sounds fair to me. One Law taxes away 37% of all funds repatriate baack to the US by foriegn subsidieries. Elimination of this would mean trillions of $ back home helping out the US economy instead of other countries economies. Get the Lender/Boortz book on the subject, does a great job explaining the concept.
If there has to be an income tax a flat tax is fair, progressive tax rate is unfair, & punishes acomplishments.
Buffet seems to be suffering from "Rich man's guilt".
If there has to be an income tax a flat tax is fair, progressive tax rate is unfair, & punishes acomplishments.
Buffet seems to be suffering from "Rich man's guilt".
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
What guarantee is there that these savings will be passed on?
As we have seen with fuel companies making money takes precedence over social responsibility so if they are making more money by selling less at a higher price then that is what they will do also making less items will factor through into requiring less staff thus making more money.
Before you tell me that it is only natural they will want to lower the price to sell more I will tell you now it doesnt work that way, we have a 12.5% GST which was implemented along with a corresponding tax cut and not only did prices go up by the 12.5% they also went after that extra spending from the tax cuts as well.
Last edited:
rattler
Active member
Again, and sorry if I come over as offenisve - it is not straightforwardly intented - (I am diplomatically challenged, got that in writing): Could I get some of that stuff, please?
If I read you right, you think that if corporate taxes are nilled (actually the bigguns dont pay any anyway), you as the "little" man on the street are going to pay less in the end? I would think if there is less money to come in, the cost will be distributed or cancelled, simple maths, methinks-
Let´s see, last time I looked someone has to pay all that stuff like roads, schools, public swimming pools, politician/hero praising statues, tanks, F-22s, nuclear submarines, water filtration, environmental agencies, our beloved functionaries, etc...???
Care to comment?
Rattler
The F.T. is set up to be revenue neutral. Same total take, just in a fairer to everybody way. Boortz, half of the book team is a Libertarian radio talk show host. Lots of people call trying to down the F.T., he makes short work of them with logical answers. Being able to hear him answer questions is a real help on understanding the F.T. No doubt there will be a period of adjusment while the urge to keep the extra revenue clashes with the competitive spirit. Boortz.com is his site. A huge reaserch effort went into the project, he has said how much & how many intellectual types were involved, but I've forgotten the numbers. It would not only help US companies, but would make the US more attractive a host for foriegn ones as well.
perseus
Active member
The first paragraph makes a good point, a sales tax is simply a stealthy way of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. However, it the remainder seems to assume that earnings are deserved, this is quite a radical suggestion considering this is the era of large city bonuses and rewards for taking unacceptable short term risks that bankrupt the economies of the world.
However, this is fundamentally wrong since it assumes people earn what they deserve. A small businessman might sweat his guts off and work until the small hours for little gain, whilst someone who has chanced upon a decent business model or even inherited it from their parents, can earn millions whilst relaxing in a yacht somewhere. I doubt if there is little relation between business success and effort for those with the right connections and access to credit, essentially a member of the club.
Read Fooled by Randomness, by Nicholas Taleb. He is an exception in the business world, a clever man who has earned his position by ability rather than luck, which seems to be a reoccurring theme in his book.
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I suppose this is the multi trillion dollar question.
But I can immediately see how having corporations not pay any taxes would be an epic fail.
These may be good ideas for middle of nowhere islands or places like Monaco, but all these places pretty much waive their right to be a real country. Now lets see how many warships etc., these countries have. Right. None. They do however, have security teams of the companies that have important offices there that deal with dodgy work.
If your ideal image of the United States is that of a gigantic Cayman Islands, then I guess there's no point in discussing it much further as it is a difference in goals.
But I can immediately see how having corporations not pay any taxes would be an epic fail.
These may be good ideas for middle of nowhere islands or places like Monaco, but all these places pretty much waive their right to be a real country. Now lets see how many warships etc., these countries have. Right. None. They do however, have security teams of the companies that have important offices there that deal with dodgy work.
If your ideal image of the United States is that of a gigantic Cayman Islands, then I guess there's no point in discussing it much further as it is a difference in goals.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
It does not assume that people earn what they deserve at all, it assumes that people will earn what the market will pay for that particular job and it also accepts that people are promoted to their level of incompetence.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Hard to argue against that.
mmarsh
Active member
MontyB
It does not assume that people earn what they deserve at all, it assumes that people will earn what the market will pay for that particular job and it also accepts that people are promoted to their level of incompetence.
Monty I can testify from personal experiance a person can not earn what the market was willing to pay. I spent the past 4 years tearing my hair out because I was making significantly less what the market was willing to pay. And Perseus makes a fair point: it certain financial centers total morons are appointed to top jobs with obscene salaries simply they took enormous risks that happened to pay off. All too often dumb luck is mistaken for brilliance. Those that fail wind up on the frontpage like Jerome Kerviel or Nick Leeson.
It does not assume that people earn what they deserve at all, it assumes that people will earn what the market will pay for that particular job and it also accepts that people are promoted to their level of incompetence.
Monty I can testify from personal experiance a person can not earn what the market was willing to pay. I spent the past 4 years tearing my hair out because I was making significantly less what the market was willing to pay. And Perseus makes a fair point: it certain financial centers total morons are appointed to top jobs with obscene salaries simply they took enormous risks that happened to pay off. All too often dumb luck is mistaken for brilliance. Those that fail wind up on the frontpage like Jerome Kerviel or Nick Leeson.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Interesting point... if a Blackwater secruity person is making ten times as much as a soldier doing actually a more difficult task, isn't the soldier being ripped off big time?