Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
bookworm said - that's easy: 1)EVERYBODY pays the same rate
Why would you support a system that redistributes wealth like this?
6)promote investment
Our system already rewards investment far, far more than work. In fact the 15% "flat tax" rate is already at or above the capital gains tax rate.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
bookworm,
While i'm with you on a flat tax, it will neither eliminate the incentive to cheat nor eliminate the need for the IRS. Ask the California Board of Equalization if anyone cheats on sales or excise taxes here. Those taxes aren't nearly as high as any flat income tax rate I've seen. Reasonable marginal rates create a disincentive to invest in tax shelters (as shown in the 1980's), but as long as there is greed, we need the IRS.
Second, you still need to determine what constitutes income (as opposed to gross receipts). This means you need to deduct something from those gross receipts to determine income. Put differently, you will never be able to eliminate business deductions as long as you tax income. That requires accountants, even if the tax rate were, say 15% flat.
To me the real basis for a flat tax is to make sure that all citizens are in equally on the cost of government. The bill will be proportional to your income, but at least everyone will be paying the same percentage. The way things currently stand, there is a large -- and growing -- class who pay almost no tax, but have a full say in how (and how much) the government spends "their" money.
As for HDDJ's theory that we reward investment far more than work -- if that were true, how come there aren't more investors? In fact, until we index the bases of capital gains for inflation, they overstate any real gain. Of course, inflation is the answer to most budget problems under the current tax regime, because it not only reduces the true cost of a deficit, but it drives people into higher marginal rates when their real income remains unchanged or even declines.
John
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
1)i do believe that income tax is evil, and i don't use that word facetiously...it's like kicking a dog for barking...humans are inherently productive, so income tax essentially punishes us for being human
2)i think a consumption tax would be better, but i believe that's too radical of a shift; so the flat tax is the best solution
3)i do believe that government is necessary but should be minimal with strictly limited powers; so taxes are necessary to pay for national defense, infrastructure, and, yes, to help the those unable to work...HELP them, not adopt them
4)i absolutely oppose redistributing wealth; that's why #1 on my first list is EVERYBODY pays; bill gates pays the EXACT same rate i do on my teacher's salary
5)whatever the determined rate (i think laffer claims 17% is ideal), it will include the payroll tax
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
John said - As for HDDJ's theory that we reward investment far more than work -- if that were true, how come there aren't more investors?
Aren't more investors? What? Are you the kind of person who stands on top of Half Dome looking down at the Valley and wonders why there aren't more tourists?
The only tax you pay on a long term investment is capital gains. Work gets taxed by income tax, FICA and Medicare. Even if you're poor enough to pay 0 income tax your paycheck still gets a hefty chunk taken out of it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The way things currently stand, there is a large -- and growing -- class who pay almost no tax, but have a full say in how (and how much) the government spends "their" money. This group is usually known as the materially wealthy. They just love deciding how they'll be subsidized by the middle classes. The only significant redistribution of income in the US in the last 30 years has been from the middle class to the rich.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
"The only significant redistribution of income in the US in the last 30 years has been from the middle class to the rich"
if you refer to the increasing number of formerly middle class who became rich, you're correct
in fact, the top 50% of wage earners pay over 90% of the taxes; over 40% of wage earners pay no taxes at all--that is, they're not even taxed!
true, most "rich" do not pay as much as their tax rate demands; however, that's because of the tax code that permits so many deductions and other means to protect income
just do your history (jfk, reagan, and bush 2): lowering taxes INCREASES tax revenue because the more money you allow people to keep, the more they will spend/invest
of course, even with a flat tax there will be those who try to avoid paying their (now truly) fair share; however, a simplified tax code would make that exceedingly more difficult
i think "income" is easy to define: what ever money "comes into" your possession during the year; this would include capital gains rather than having a separate tax
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
lowering taxes INCREASES tax revenue because the more money you allow people to keep, the more they will spend/invest Sometimes. You won't find many economists who agree. If you believe that's always true, I have a bridge you may be interested in.
The fact that total spending by US governments, as a percentage of GDP, hasn't changed much since World War II speaks for itself. Always between 30 and 40%, usually in the mid to high 30s. Has to come from somewhere.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
over 40% of wage earners pay no taxes at all--that is, they're not even taxed!
And on top of that a significant portion of that 40% receive direct redistribution of wealth thru the operation of the earned income tax credit. (they get in effect, someone else's refund check for taxes they never paid)
60% of Americans are net recipients of government largess in one form or another and only 40% are net producers.
And they wonder why the deficit will be 19.5 trillion by 2015.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
The fact that total spending by US governments, as a percentage of GDP, hasn't changed much since World War II speaks for itself. Always between 30 and 40%, usually in the mid to high 30s. Has to come from somewhere.
It's 93% now and it will be 105% by 2015
Where's that going to come from?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
From the Congressional Budget Office. Spending by your federal government.
Spending by all US governments.
This is simply spending as a percentage of GDP. Nothing directly to do with debt or deficits.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
MH, stats & graphs like that, no matter how rational or objective the source, do not register in the minds of ST Repubs. If they conflict with their 'government & taxes are always bad' mantra, they are refuted, rationalized, or just plain ignored.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
TGT wrote: It's 93% now and it will be 105% by 2015
Where's that going to come from?
Prove it!!!
I been saying this for a while...our deficit to GDP is low compared to what it was during WW2.
The republicans have a tendency to forgot that they started not one, but two wars and had no way to pay for them.
Some are vile little humans with no concern/compassion for their fellow citizens of the US and world.
They make me ill!!!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Also...thanks to the teabangers like Bookworn, Cornhead and TGT...you just gave Harry Reid six more years.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Dr F and Mighty Hiker always seem less lucid before they take their afternoon SSRI crazy pills. Pay attention guys.
Today's Liberal scandal is that one 'Alvin Greene' wins the Democratic primary in the South Carolina Senate race. (Who is this guy?)
Greene last year was indicted for allegedly showing obscene photos of his privates to a South Carolina college babe and suggesting they go to her dorm room.
United States Attorneys' Manual generally recommends against naming unindicted co-conspirators unless they are perverts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2500
cheers Libs.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09wed1.html?hp
Supreme court blocks matching funds from Arizona's Clean Election system in Governor's race.
In a burst of judicial activism, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upended the gubernatorial race in Arizona, cutting off matching funds to candidates participating in the state’s public campaign finance system. Suddenly, three candidates, including Gov. Jan Brewer, can no longer receive public funds they had counted on to run against a free-spending wealthy opponent.
I'm still waiting for the conservative pundocracy to start screaming "judicial activism" about Roberts. Goes to show that overturning precedent and established law is only activism if you disagree with the ruling.
Corniss - I don't really see how Republicans are in any position to paint sexual harassment as a partisan issue considering what your party has been through in the last decade. Is that really a can of worms you wanna open?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"Is that really a can of worms you wanna open?"
cchopper does not engage in dialogues- he/she is a troll who simply makes ridiculous, hyperbolic statements to get a reaction. He/she 'opens cans of worms', and then usually just runs away. Weak.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
There's no activism about that decision, HDDJ. Precedent already said Arizona's scheme was an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech, since it gave candidates taxpayer money based on how much money the candidate's opponent raised. The US District judge, based on that established precedent, ruled Arizona's law unconstitutional.
The activism came, as usual, with the Ninth Circuit. In an affront to precedent, the Constitution, and the SCOTUS, the Nefarious Ninth reversed the district court. The SCOTUS's ruling is simply an assertion of proper authority.
This has happened too many times already. In one memorable case quite a while back, a California prisoner had used up all appeals and stays of execution. The Ninth (not surprisingly, mainly Reinhardt) nonetheless issued a stay of execution. The SCOTUS dissolved the stay. The Ninth issued another stay. When the SCOTUS dissolved that second stay, it issued an order preventing the Ninth from issuing any further stays in the case without advance SCOTUS approval.
If you want judicial activism, follow the Ninth Circuit. What the SCOTUS has done is simply assert the rule of law.
John
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
A republican using a sex scandal in South Carolina as ammo against democrats.
Corniss...you would have better luck trying to stop a tank with a BB gun.
|
|
426
climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
"426 is apparently satisfied with schools that give credit for WRONG answers (i.e. 2 feet equals 48 inches); hey 426, why don't you hire some of those kids to put an addition on your house or do your accounting or something easy like babysit your kids?"
That's a ++mighty++ deductive fallacy (I'll let you sort which one, there are all kinds of books on the subject), but I have noticed this pattern in many of your posts and apologize that you cannot see it for yourself.
Still, is it not said that, " "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man."?
On a more serious tip...to not recognize or acknowledge that answers are correct such as 2+2=5 for *greater values of 2* is a dangerous (restricted) way of thinking indeed. Very rigid. I'd say you're more part of teh symptom of this rather than the cure...jmo.
I don't expect you to understand this obtuse point. Get it?
Disingenuously yours,
of course
PS-the kids are alright, especially one with that (2+2=5) level of thinking...shows a deeper understanding of math than your average joe, eh? That's the kind of kid that just might hammer out proofs to the Riemann hypothesis, know what I mean? It's worth a million bucks, too. Before taxes of course...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!