Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mgod]

RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37

If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.

Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers.

DS

[CCC]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:22

I do suspect that if they simplified and made taxation more consistent, and passed the savings made on the government side through simpler administration back to the taxpayers, then we could all be better off.

I do think, however, that words like "simplified" and "consistent" are not useful in the context of tax law. Not only that, but "simplifying" or streamlining the law may very well result in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I tend to think that if we threw out our tax codes and started again we'd probably end up with the same thing in no time flat.

Why?

When a government somehow eventually gets around to implementing fiscal policy they will tend to do so through the tax system. To promote certain behaviours they create incentives. To discourage other behaviours they make those behaviours more costly, or they legislate them into oblivion.

Research and development are worthwhile things to incentivize, so we get R&D tax credits. The purchase of new whizzy high tech equipment may be incentivized by way of accelerated depreciation. Hey, we all like people and companies to "go green," so we could incentivize that by giving credits and accelerated depreciation on "green" stuff.

The government worries about how people will support themselves in their old age. Tah dah, they allow for people to put money into tax-deferred vehicles like retirement savings plans. The government likes education, hence tuition deductions or credits.

We like small business people - rah rah rah. We get lower tax rates for small business - hooray! We recognize that certain reasonable business expenses should be allowed as part of the income earning equations - ta dah we get lots of deductions related to business. But, wait - some clever boys and girls will structure their affairs so they they own 10 small businesses instead of one large one. So we need rules to deal with associated and related corporations to prevent people from beating that system.

Businesses need to raise money, so they sell shares. Some people borrow money to buy the shares so that they can earn dividend income, and get a deduction for interest expense because they borrowed money to earn income. But wait - if the corporation pays tax on its income, and then it pays a dividend, and the dividend is taxed in the hands of the recipient, the same income is taxed twice. Uh oh. We need a dividend tax credit.

There are business realities to contend with. Companies are formed, companies are financed, companies are refinanced, companies amalgamate, companies acquire others, companies go bankrupt, companies are wound up. Tax issues are inevitable, so tax rules are inevitable.

International trade is a reality. There are lots of opportunities  for domestic growth, and governments will tend to encourage foreign investment. At the same time, governments tend to recognize problems with the use of off-shore investment vehicles so we get into a morass of rules designed to control investments in tax haven countries etc.  Along the same lines, international mobility of people is an issue as much as international mobility of capital. What happens when you live in one country and work in another country? It becomes more complicated when you contribute to a tax-efficient retirement savings vehicle in one or the other country. We need rules for that.

I could go on and on. Basically, for a modern government to govern effectively, tax policy is a desireable tool. The minute they create an opportunity, there is a potential for abuse, and so anti-abuse rules get enacted. Tax systems have to recognize business realities, domestically and internationally.

So, I dunno, I tend to find flat-taxers and such folks a bit peculiar because their views are not really informed by any real in-depth knowledge of commercial realities or tax policy. Tax isn't complicated because the people behind the system are stupid I think?

[ih2005]

While many who are invested in the current income tax system seek to demagog the well-researched FairTax plan (1), FairTax's theoretical underpinnings have been professionally reviewed (2), and its acceptance in the professional / academic community continues to grow (3).

Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown (4) because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. Tom Frey, of the DiVinci Institute, foresees the coming collapse of the income tax system (5).

Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It's:

• SIMPLE, easy to understand
• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
• FAIR, loophole free and everyone pays their share
• LOW TAX RATE, achieved by broad base with no exclusions
• PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible
• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
• PRODUCTIVE, rewards, rather than penalizes, work and productivity

Its benefits are as follows:

For INDIVIDUALS:
• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
• You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"
• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
• Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30%
• Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels
• FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices
• Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate"
• "Prebate" is "advance payback" for taxes payable on monthly consumption to poverty level
• FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection
• Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
• Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry
• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals
• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates

For BUSINESSES:
• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
• Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"
• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
• No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
• Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S
• No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers
• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
• Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition
• US exports increase their share of foreign markets

For the COUNTRY:
• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
• Jobs return to the U.S.
• Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.
• Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"
• Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"
• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie"
increases
• No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business
• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow

(1) http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted (.pdf)
(2) http://snipurl.com/taxnotes_galerebut (.pdf)
(3) http://snipurl.com/econsopenletter (.pdf)
(4) http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress
(5) http://snipurl.com/incometaxcollapse

It's well past time to scrap the tax code ( http://snipr.com/scrapthecode ) and pay for government the way that America's working men and women are paid - when something is sold.

Also, register for the FairTax presentation at the webcast American Solutions seminar: http://americansolutions.com

The FairTax will be presented this Saturday during the seminar.

[organica]

I'm at fan of that but here's  a downside ......

It does not reduce goverment income .

Also , it's inclusive  ( ? hmmm ). People should see how much tax they're paying I believe , so a few bugs would need to be worked out there .


I know that Ron Paul has essentially stated that he would vote in favor of Fair Tax if it's brought  to a vote in the house . He doesn't see it as the best solution however . That's worth noting IMHO  .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80

[Andy Peters]

ih2005 wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:26

For INDIVIDUALS: ? No more tax on income - make as much as you wish ? You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions

Of course the so-called FairTax applies only for Federal taxes (income, and presumably payroll/FICA/Medicare).

What about state and local income taxes?  How will the FairTax people convince the states that levy an income tax to convert over to the sales-tax system?  Don't forget that most states have a sales tax, and counties and cities also may impose a sales tax.

Quote:

? You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"

So will "Retail" include online and mail-order purchases?

Quote:

? Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS

I know what it is ... I see it on my paystub every two weeks.  Now how many people keep track of how much they pay in sales tax in a year?

Quote:

? Households have more disposable income to purchase goods

But imagine the sticker shock when they have to pay 38% tax on a new car.  Pay me now, pay me later.

Quote:

? Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates

I thought higher interest rates bolstered savings, and for two reasons: if you get more for your money in a savings account, it's a reasonable option, and higher interest rates means that credit is more expensive, and that keeps spending down.

Quote:

? 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax

Their crystal ball is as good as mine.  I can pull numbers out of my ass as well as they can.

Quote:

? Jobs return to the U.S.

What makes anyone think that by eliminating income taxes, all of a sudden overseas production will move back to the U.S.?  Why would that happen?  Why wouldn't the corporations just take they money saved from paying taxes and claim it as profit instead of paying higher wages for American workers?

Quote:

? Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.

They may set up sales and marketing arms here but certainly they won't add production jobs here.

Quote:

? No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business

Sure, like that'll happen.  Maybe not tax deals.  Look at the Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Ted Stevens deals.  Lotsa graft, nothing to do with taxes.

-a

[CCC]

ih2005 wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 00:26

While many who are invested in the current income tax system seek to demagog the well-researched FairTax plan (1), FairTax's theoretical underpinnings have been professionally reviewed (2), and its acceptance in the professional / academic community continues to grow (3). Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown (4) because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. Tom Frey, of the DiVinci Institute, foresees the coming collapse of the income tax system (5). Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It's: • SIMPLE, easy to understand • EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes • FAIR, loophole free and everyone pays their share • LOW TAX RATE, achieved by broad base with no exclusions • PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible • UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty • VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise • PRODUCTIVE, rewards, rather than penalizes, work and productivity Its benefits are as follows: For INDIVIDUALS: • No more tax on income - make as much as you wish • You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions • You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used" • No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains) • Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30% • Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels • FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices • Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate" • "Prebate" is "advance payback" for taxes payable on monthly consumption to poverty level • FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection • Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS • Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry • NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals • Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax • Households have more disposable income to purchase goods • Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates For BUSINESSES: • Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax • Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register" • No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls • No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices • Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices • Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S • No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers • Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes • Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition • US exports increase their share of foreign markets For the COUNTRY: • 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax • Jobs return to the U.S. • Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S. • Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie" • Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices" • Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie" increases • No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business • FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow (1) http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted (.pdf) (2) http://snipurl.com/taxnotes_galerebut (.pdf) (3) http://snipurl.com/econsopenletter (.pdf) (4) http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress (5) http://snipurl.com/incometaxcollapse It's well past time to scrap the tax code ( http://snipr.com/scrapthecode ) and pay for government the way that America's working men and women are paid - when something is sold. Also, register for the FairTax presentation at the webcast American Solutions seminar: http://americansolutions.com The FairTax will be presented this Saturday during the seminar.

This sales pitch for a seminar brought to you by the sockpuppet otherwise known as?

[rphilbeck]

mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15

RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37 If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.   Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers. DS

Sorry Schwartz.  This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of.  It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held.  

I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing.  No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link.  From here you can do your own search.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

Please pay very close attention to the article.  Read it twice, or three times if you need to.    

[Jon Hodgson]

RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:28

mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15 RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37 If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.   Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers. DS Sorry Schwartz.  This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of.  It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held.   I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing.  No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link.  From here you can do your own search. http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm Please pay very close attention to the article.  Read it twice, or three times if you need to.

The top 50% of income hardly qualifies as the rich, it's anybody who has above average income.

Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.

[mgod]

You know Philbeck, I seem to recall someone in here was very fond of the expression Dip Shit - I see why. What you're aware of is hardly what most people are aware of, since so far almost everything you've had to say doesn't exist. And how much easier is it to write a smarmy reply than do the work? (Income can and does include Capital gains, which do not qualify as work. And I've paid them.)

You're now on the ignore list (Congrats! You're #1!). So far you've contributed nothing but fantasy and hearsay, and a vivid and appreciated demonstration that you're the perfect receiver drone for manufactured fear mongering and bullshit. Oh, and counterproductive insult of course. Reply all you want, I won't see it. But look out - the world, and your neighbors, really are out to get you.

Kids today. The Atlanta school system should be ashamed, and your parents (assuming you knew them) even more so. Your allegation was that the "evil rich" pay 90% of taxes. That's an easy half-witted remark to make, since it requires no support and can't be supported. That Treasury table provides information about  proportions but it gives no break point in which we get any idea of how much the "top" income earners earn, as Jon pointed out. You're not very bright after all, are you? The conspiracy I see is the one in your mind in which poor people are out to screw you.

DS

[danickstr]

Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 02:23

Their crystal ball is as good as mine.  I can pull numbers out of my ass as well as they can. -a

Quote of the day, as picked by me

[danickstr]

mgod wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 10:12

you're the perfect receiver drone for manufactured fear mongering and bullshit. Oh, and counterproductive insult of course. Reply all you want, I won't see it. But look out - the world, and your neighbors, really are out to get you. DS

The quote of the day, as picked by me

(I can have as many as I want, read by by-laws)

[PookyNMR]

mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:15

RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37 If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.   Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers.

I'd like to see the source on that as well.  

I have a feeling that the stat would reflect upper-middle class, but not what I would consider "the wealthy".

When you have wealthy folks who are business owners and portfolio players, the rules change.  

Folks who are merely reasonably well paid executives don't fall into that category (though some of them are indeed financial savy).  

Many top executives often have it set up so that they are not necessarily employees but business owners who work in conjunction with their respective companies.  Doing it this way allows them to access a new set of tax rules and see their share of the load significantly lightened in comparision with everyone else.

[Andy Peters]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 06:48

RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:28 mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15 RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37 If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.   Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers. DS Sorry Schwartz.  This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of.  It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held.   I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing.  No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link.  From here you can do your own search. http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm Please pay very close attention to the article.  Read it twice, or three times if you need to.     The top 50% of income hardly qualifies as the rich, it's anybody who has above average income.

Indeed.  If Bill Gates walks into the room, suddenly the average income of the people in the room shoots up to millions of dollars.

Quote:

Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.

EXACTLY.

-a

[garret]

Arguing about who should pay taxes misses the larger issue... the federal budget is out of control.  Mostly because of defense spending, but interest on the debt doesn't help either.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2 007

Federal Spending, 2007:
(percentages indicate change from the previous year)  

$699 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
$1.1 billion (+47.6%) - Energy
TOTAL: $2.8 trillion

Federal receipts:

$1.1 trillion (+12.1%) - Individual income tax
$884.1 billion (+7.4%) - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$260.6 billion (+15.5%) - Corporate income tax
$74.6 billion (+1.3%) - Excise taxes
$28.1 billion (+0.7%) - Customs duties
$23.7 billion (+9.2%) - Estate and gift taxes
$48.4 billion (+14.0%) - Other
TOTAL: $2.4 trillion

What party is control of Congress doesn't matter... the fed govt just keeps growing and growing and growing...
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/ch arts_S/s1.cfm

What party has the presidency does matter..... and it's the opposite of "conventional wisdom.:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/ch arts_S/s4.cfm

Bottom line though... $21,000 per household... dang, that's a lot.

[rphilbeck]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 09:48

RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:28 mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15 RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37 If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year.   Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers. DS Sorry Schwartz.  This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of.  It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held.   I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing.  No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link.  From here you can do your own search. http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm Please pay very close attention to the article.  Read it twice, or three times if you need to.     The top 50% of income hardly qualifies as the rich, it's anybody who has above average income. Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary.

I am guessing you are not from the U.S.?  The numbers are from the Internal Revenue Service, where total gross income is reported by every American citizen once per year.  That's total gross from any and every form of income including stock sales to gambling wins!

Good points though.  It is a well known fact, and obvious from this report, that the top earners in this country pay the good majority of the taxes.  The rest of us pay dick in comparison, but it hurts a lot more because we have less discretionary funds available to us.  

But my ultimate point was and is, that if the evil rich (basically defined as anyone with an above average income based on the attitude of this forum)were really so influential than they'd be paying a lot less that the good majority of this nations expenses!