REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Time for a National Sales Tax on Everything

POSTED BY: PIZMOBEACH
UPDATED: Thursday, November 26, 2009 08:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2337
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:41 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


5 cents on every dollar for every purchase.

Some suggest a rate of 10% would be enough to pay for health care for 90% of us and to reduce the deficit. Some even go 25%, saying that the latter would replace income tax altogether and reduce every individual's tax burden considerably + take care of health care and balance the budget. Sounds dreamy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009
052602909.html


"A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor."

Big Question: Do we have the will?

No surprise, no one wants to touch promoting a new tax, political suicide. How about we test the plan/math and start at 5%? It's better than a sugar or gas tax and it's obvious that the money has to come from somewhere - this seems like the least painful way and the fairest way to spread the burden (at least in my quick research over coffee).

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:22 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


As long as they don't create another bureaucracy to handle it I think it could work. The IRS is there for collecting national taxes already, and if fewer people would be paying income tax they would need to keep their employees busy with something else instead of having to lay them off.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:26 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I would favor a national sales tax to replace the income tax. I would favor it under two conditions:

1) That it not apply to groceries.
2) That it not apply to services, only to products.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:31 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Value Added Tax works real well in socialist countries. *F*R*A*N*C*E* loves it. So do England and Canada, and those Socialist Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. So does Germany. 'Nuff said...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:05 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I would favor a national sales tax to replace the income tax. I would favor it under two conditions:

1) That it not apply to groceries.
2) That it not apply to services, only to products.




I assume you make the first condition to protect lower income folks, so that it's not unfair to them, yes?

I am unclear why you wish to exempt services.

It's a rat's nest for sure to try and figure out what is a fair and equitable tax system, let alone a new one. My concern in making any exemptions (on the face of it) is that it leads to interest groups and then to more gridlock. I almost wish we could put in a benevolent dictator for 6 months to get some things done.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:06 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Value Added Tax works real well in socialist countries. *F*R*A*N*C*E* loves it. So do England and Canada, and those Socialist Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. So does Germany. 'Nuff said...



So it's been tested by a lot of intelligent people and they love it - what are we waiting for?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:38 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Mainly I prefer not to tax services because we have (to my knowledge) a service based economy, and I wouldn't want to negatively impact that.

So yes, groceries to protect the low income folks, and services to protect most working folks. Meanwhile we tax the products which are mostly made elsewhere.

This should produce a nice shift in culture too, towards buying things that last forever, as opposed to investing in disposable technology.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


The bottom 50% of 'taxpayers', by income, pay little or no income tax right now (2.89% of total individual income tax in 2007) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html . A straight 25% VAT would cut their ability to purchase goods and services by a quarter. That ain't gonna fly. What's usually not mentioned in these articles about VAT is the pretty universal concept of a rebate for folks earning below a certain income. So in addition to the IRS having to deal with income taxes, they, or someone, would have to administer a system to compute and pay these VAT rebates.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 12:42 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
The bottom 50% of 'taxpayers', by income, pay little or no income tax right now (2.89% of total individual income tax in 2007) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html . A straight 25% VAT would cut their ability to purchase goods and services by a quarter. That ain't gonna fly.



I'm not sure we're reading that the same way: the bottom 50% as a group pay little or no income tax with respect to the total income tax paid by all citizens, but in terms of what they pay of their own income it's still a healthy percent (not 2.89% as I think you are suggesting).
The few articles I've read suggest that a 25% Vat - 25% of goods purchased - would amount to less for lower income groups than their current income tax rate.

"So in addition to the IRS having to deal with income taxes, they, or someone, would have to administer a system to compute and pay these VAT rebates."

I sense skepticism and I totally agree - if the system is planned well enough initially then it takes care of itself.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:05 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


End the income tax which is illegal, unconstititional, never ratified, and only funds foreign jew banksters not the fed govt.

Ban on sales tax, property tax and gas tax, replaced by existing funds from $70-trillion annual govt profits confessed in 50,000 CAFR reports.

Give all members of the "Fed" a fair trial, find them guilty of treason, and hang them from the neck until dead (or their heads pop off).


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:01 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I'm not sure we're reading that the same way: the bottom 50% as a group pay little or no income tax with respect to the total income tax paid by all citizens, but in terms of what they pay of their own income it's still a healthy percent (not 2.89% as I think you are suggesting).



Well, per the same table in the Tax Foundation report, the average tax rate for the bottom 50% is 2.99%. So, on average, they're paying three cents on the dollar income tax. Quite a bit less than 25 cents on the dollar VAT. I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the bottom 40% don't pay income tax at all, and instead often get Earned Income Tax credit - in effect, a negative income tax.

Quote:

I sense skepticism and I totally agree - if the system is planned well enough initially then it takes care of itself.
The current tax system has been entirely designed and planned by the Congress, complete with loopholes, credits, deductions, etc. for their constituants and buddies. Pretty much everything folks blame the IRS for is due to a law the Congress passed, or a mandate some committee chairman imposed. I don't expect that the planning of a VAT system by Congress would be any better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:22 PM

DREAMTROVE


This is a horrendous idea.

1) It would reduce commerce in america
2) govt. never gives up a tax, so this would be proposed as an income tax replacement, and would pass under that supposition, but income tax repeal would then fail as the next bill.
3) It would be a tax on the poor and middle class. The % of income spend on taxable goods for the lower income groups is far higher than that of the upper income, who spend their money mostly on investments, or stash their earnings away, here, overseas, or in some tax shelter.

We're headed for an 85% tax system cumulatively. Don't push for 90%

Unless it would prompt a revolution, in which case, go ahead.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:41 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Value Added Tax works real well in socialist countries. *F*R*A*N*C*E* loves it. So do England and Canada, and those Socialist Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. So does Germany. 'Nuff said...



So it's been tested by a lot of intelligent people and they love it - what are we waiting for?


You're not listening!

FRANCE ! ! ! ,

remember them? The cheese eating, frog sucking, surrender monkeys? The SOCIALISTS , the arrogant, wine-swilling, cigarette puffing guys who invented freedom fries and freedom toast, but who wouldn't join the coalation of the willing?
And the Brits, with their Queen and defective national Health System, and the Canadians whose health care is so bad, they have to come to America to get flu shots?
If they think this tax is a good idea, doesn't that automatically make it a bad idea?

And never mind the Germans ...

;,)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 4:41 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is a horrendous idea.

1) It would reduce commerce in america
2) govt. never gives up a tax, so this would be proposed as an income tax replacement, and would pass under that supposition, but income tax repeal would then fail as the next bill.
3) It would be a tax on the poor and middle class. The % of income spend on taxable goods for the lower income groups is far higher than that of the upper income, who spend their money mostly on investments, or stash their earnings away, here, overseas, or in some tax shelter.

We're headed for an 85% tax system cumulatively. Don't push for 90%

Unless it would prompt a revolution, in which case, go ahead.



Well, when you paint it with an ugly brush...

There were a couple ideas floated, or the same idea with different amounts. I'm not a fan of the 25% VAT that supposedly replaces income tax and fixes all debt - that just sounds too much like an infomercial.

"Harder on the middle class and poor." I've seen that and it doesn't completely compute for me. I assume that the wealthy buy more high ticket items, buy larger homes, fancier cars, and use legal services more, etc. It seems that they would then pay more than the lower incomes. Can't get blood from a stone, so I understand the need to not tax the poor anymore, for both ethical reasons and math reasons.

Fact is we need money and it has to come from somewhere, and it has to be politically doable - I think a discussion starting with a 5% national tax is a good starting point. Maybe some things/services become exempt, maybe a range of income brackets become exempt, but adding 2-5% onto purchases seem like the easiest, least painful way to raise funds.

Love to hear other suggestions.


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 4:47 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Value Added Tax works real well in socialist countries. *F*R*A*N*C*E* loves it. So do England and Canada, and those Socialist Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. So does Germany. 'Nuff said...



So it's been tested by a lot of intelligent people and they love it - what are we waiting for?


You're not listening!

FRANCE ! ! ! ,

remember them? The cheese eating, frog sucking, surrender monkeys? The SOCIALISTS , the arrogant, wine-swilling, cigarette puffing guys who invented freedom fries and freedom toast, but who wouldn't join the coalation of the willing?
And the Brits, with their Queen and defective national Health System, and the Canadians whose health care is so bad, they have to come to America to get flu shots?
If they think this tax is a good idea, doesn't that automatically make it a bad idea?

And never mind the Germans ...

;,)



Oh, F R A N C E , t h e p l a c e y o u d o n ' t k n o w m u c h a b o u t... hey, we invented "Freedom Fries" bub, let's not give up one of the greatest ideas from the Bush administration so quickly.

Here's my suggestion: let's look and see where these people have succeeded with VAT AND where they have failed, so we don't have to reinvent failure, and then design our own system, d'accord?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 4:54 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I'm not sure we're reading that the same way: the bottom 50% as a group pay little or no income tax with respect to the total income tax paid by all citizens, but in terms of what they pay of their own income it's still a healthy percent (not 2.89% as I think you are suggesting).



Well, per the same table in the Tax Foundation report, the average tax rate for the bottom 50% is 2.99%. So, on average, they're paying three cents on the dollar income tax. Quite a bit less than 25 cents on the dollar VAT. I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the bottom 40% don't pay income tax at all, and instead often get Earned Income Tax credit - in effect, a negative income tax.

Quote:

I sense skepticism and I totally agree - if the system is planned well enough initially then it takes care of itself.
The current tax system has been entirely designed and planned by the Congress, complete with loopholes, credits, deductions, etc. for their constituants and buddies. Pretty much everything folks blame the IRS for is due to a law the Congress passed, or a mandate some committee chairman imposed. I don't expect that the planning of a VAT system by Congress would be any better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



I know from my days in the under fiddy it felt like I was being taxed a hell of a lot more than 2.99% - I take your point though, there are a lot more in the under 50% that made even less than I did or the $32,000 and under deviding line.

Ok - thread retitled - money has to come from somewhere, "doing nothing" is not an option - any ideas?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:24 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Actually, I'm under the impression that if we spend less, then we don't need to earn more.

I note with interest that I have never seen a foreign military base in the United States.

How many US troops do we have stationed in foreign countries friendly to us? How much does it cost to maintain them overseas? How much money are they spending overseas, in foreign markets?

According to a glance at the US Navy website, we have some 10 active aircraft carriers in service. Any one of those carriers and its associated escort and support ships is capable of achieving air and naval superiority over any country likely to tango with us.

What if we cut that number in half, to 5 carriers and their support ships? I hear an Aircraft Carrier costs 180 million dollars to operate each year. Decommissioning the older half of the fleet should free up some 900 million dollars, not including the costs of their support ships and escorts.

I think that by eliminating overseas operations in friendly countries and reducing the size of our military in general, we could build a more efficient military capable of carrying out its primary mandate (Defense of the US.) Reducing the size of our military would also let us focus on retaining the best trained and best experienced personnel, so that the average skill and competence of remaining servicemen are much improved.

And if we reclaim several billion dollars that we can put towards principal payments on the national debt, so much the better.

--Anthony







"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Just to stick it in here, because so much discussion has occurred about the poor and middle class and how much taxes they pay that it seems to have been missed:

Whatever tax tables SAY, whatever almost anyone SAYS, the fact is that the rich have so many loopholes and off-shore crap that they almost NEVER pay anything close to their actual taxes. So there can be no comparison, no matter how many "big ticket items" they may buy.

I'm definitely against a VAT, for many of the reasons elucidated here, but mostly because any across-the-board tax hurts the poor and middle class, who don't have any way of ducking the system the way the rich do.

Uhhh, sorry Anthony, but trying to cut the military budget? Good luck; harder even than trying to get Single Payer...y'know? We does love our military...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Pizmo: sounds like a good way to get a hell of a lot of inflation to me, and to end up with a lot more poor and hungry people.

Now let me read the rest of the comments and see that everyone has said the exact same thing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:41 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Uhhh, sorry Anthony, but trying to cut the military budget? Good luck; harder even than trying to get Single Payer...y'know? We does love our military..."

Hello,

It does seem like people have a kneejerk protectiveness over the military. I mean, I love the idea of our nation's might, our proudly serving, highly trained military personnel, our massive ships and whizbang planes...

But even I realize that we could lose half of them and still defend ourselves against any power on the planet. What are we arming against? Extra-Terrestrials?

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:47 AM

BYTEMITE


No, we're paying our military and armaments contractors. It's a scam, kind of like the real-estate/development/construction industry. Our politicians create reasons and opportunities for their business friends to have work, even if there's really no demand for the product (and in the case of real-estate development, zero growth).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:52 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Pizmo: sounds like a good way to get a hell of a lot of inflation to me, and to end up with a lot more poor and hungry people.

Now let me read the rest of the comments and see that everyone has said the exact same thing.



more poor hungry people = bad. Let's not do that.

inflation? I'm an obvious newb on world economics, so how? If you are taxing individuals and not producers then the motivation might be to spend less for sure, but I don't think that it would make producers inflate the price of their goods and services. In fact, it might actually motivate them to reduce prices to stimulate sales.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

No, we're paying our military and armaments contractors. It's a scam, kind of like the real-estate/development/construction industry. Our politicians create reasons and opportunities for their business friends to have work, even if there's really no demand for the product
Bingo.

Given that and the, yes, knee-jerk reaction (especially by politicians, who fearmonger to keep the above, and the people's ability to be fearmongered into compliance), I don't see much hope of reducing the military. Look at that stupid plane they went right on building, despite the Pentago AND military saying it was useless. Not a lone example, by far.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 8:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Will the materials required to produce goods ALSO be taxed?

Higher production costs = high product costs = inflation. Simple.

The only time a company will LOWER their price is if there's competition and they're trying to undercut them. A company isn't going to lower prices so that a target demographic can afford it better, that cuts into the all-important profit. They'll just market to a different demographic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:06 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Will the materials required to produce goods ALSO be taxed?

Higher production costs = high product costs = inflation. Simple.

The only time a company will LOWER their price is if there's competition and they're trying to undercut them. A company isn't going to lower prices so that a target demographic can afford it better, that cuts into the all-important profit. They'll just market to a different demographic.



In the spirit of speculation...

"Will the materials required to produce goods ALSO be taxed?

No, taxes are only collected on consumer goods bought by individuals, not materials purchased by companies.



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:59 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"No, taxes are only collected on consumer goods bought by individuals, not materials purchased by companies."

Hello,

I'm not sure I like making companies tax-exempt.

Everybody pays or nobody pays.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Whatever tax tables SAY, whatever almost anyone SAYS, the fact is that the rich have so many loopholes and off-shore crap that they almost NEVER pay anything close to their actual taxes. So there can be no comparison, no matter how many "big ticket items" they may buy.



Any data to back this up?

Most tax 'loopholes' are perfectly legal and were included in the IR Code due to legislation (write your Congressperson). Folks who are using those legal 'loopholes' are paying all the taxes that they are required to pay by law. If you got info on people who are actually violating the tax laws, the IRS would love to hear it.

BTW, 'loopholes' extend pretty much to all points of the income spectrum: mortgage deductions, medical expenses, child care credits, energy-efficiency credits, Earned Income Tax Credit, and a ton more.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:06 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"No, taxes are only collected on consumer goods bought by individuals, not materials purchased by companies."

Hello,

I'm not sure I like making companies tax-exempt.

Everybody pays or nobody pays.




The theory is everybody does pay, just as individuals - the manager when he's out buying clothing for his family, etc... taxing businesses could stifle production.



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:21 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

If we are not going to treat corporations just like individuals, then we need to do away with all laws involving corporate personhood.

And then I'll be on board.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Geezer: Sure, they're "legal", bought and paid for--like writing to our reps would make any difference!--but that doesn't make them right, and it does mean that any across-the-board tax weighs far heavier on poor and middle class than it does on corporations or the rich, which ws my point. But to give you a comprehensive cite:

Quote:

[There are] hundreds of billions of dollars in "hidden entitlements." buried deep in the federal tax code. Functionally equivalent to direct spending programs, far too many of these "tax expenditures" shower benefits on corporations and the rich at the expense of America's hard-working, taxpaying families.
Many of the new leaders in Congress like to pretend that tax loopholes for the well-heeled and the well-lobbied don't hurt the rest of us. But they're dead wrong.

In this new report, Citizens for Tax Justice details and analyzes the hundreds of government spending programs hidden in the tax code ­ programs that will cost $3.7 trillion over the next 7 years. It shows how some are targeted to industries with lots of political clout. How others are designed to give their biggest subsidies to people with the highest incomes. And how many send the wrong signals to businesses, investors and consumers, and thereby cost jobs and impede economic growth.

The special interests love their tax entitlements because they know full well that many could never survive the scrutiny that applies to the regular federal budget. Yet because they are embedded in the tax code, these programs go on spending our tax dollars, year in and year out, without serious review.

If America is serious about cutting the federal budget deficit, curbing waste and simplifying our tax laws, then it's time to bring the hidden entitlements, the corporate tax welfare and the upside-down subsidies out into the open.



It's pretty comprehensive, and the whole book is online. Check it out: http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/contents/content.htm





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:42 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If we are not going to treat corporations just like individuals, then we need to do away with all laws involving corporate personhood.

And then I'll be on board.




http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249055/septembe
r-15-2009/the-word---let-freedom-ka-ching


welcome! Mess is in 10!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 2:08 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer: Sure, they're "legal", bought and paid for--like writing to our reps would make any difference!--but that doesn't make them right...


Okay. So we're going from "fact" to "my opinion of what's right".
Quote:

...and it does mean that any across-the-board tax weighs far heavier on poor and middle class than it does on corporations or the rich, which ws my point.

But there isn't any "across-the-board" income tax. Income tax is graduated based on income. Tens of millions of lower income folk pay no income tax whatever. True, an across-the-board VAT would impact the poor and lower middle class more than the rich, but that has nothing to do with income tax 'loopholes' for the rich. Besides, most VAT plans have, hidden in the small print, a rebate of VAT for those with lower incomes.

Quote:

But to give you a comprehensive cite...It's pretty comprehensive, and the whole book is online. Check it out: http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/contents/content.htm



Okay, when they start talking about the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions, medical deductions, casualty losses - and loads of other deductions, credits, etc., that are overwhelmingly used by the middle class - as "Hidden Entitlements" of the rich, they sorta lose credibility. Not paying tax on Social Security benefits is a "hidden entitlement"? Come on.

I understand that you think the rich are evil because they're rich, and that they should be punished (Don't deny it, you know that's how you feel). You want to use the tax system to punish them. You're falling into the same trap that has caused the current complexity in the tax code. Everyone wants to use the income tax as a tool for social engineering, rather than a method of gathering revenue to pay for government.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:41 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But even I realize that we could lose half of them and still defend ourselves against any power on the planet. What are we arming against? Extra-Terrestrials?


Besides the obvious cycle scam of politicians feeding the mil-industry complex, and the mil-industry complex using the profits to buy more politicians, repeat ad nauseum ?

Simple, those massive military forces are not there to defend us against foreign enemies who don't have a tenth of that...

They're there to defend the powers that be, against US.

That's been true ever since George Washington ignored the document he was supposed to uphold and marched one states militia into another to crush the Whiskey Rebellion.

It's been true since the New York Draft Riots, and rounding up citizens at gunpoint to slaughter their own countrymen.

It's been true since the Battle of Blair Mountain, and every other military action in defense of a corporations profit.

And it's never been more true than when they assigned the dirty 3rd's 1st BCT to american soil, on active duty, with a riot control package and a mission involving potential suppression of "unrest".

Our military is not our protectors, it is the enforcement arm of our oppressors, who we allow to rob us blind because of the idiotic belief that without their leash on us, we would be unable to function as a society.

Until we wise up and cast off that moronic belief, things aren't going to change.

And yes, Corporate Personhood is the root of many evils and should be eliminated, but it's just one more facet of a systematic corruption that can only be addressed by attacking the root cause, rather than the symptoms.

Support the troops my ass, so long as they are willing to take even the most inexcusable orders from people who do not have the best interests of our people in mind, so long as they are willing to regard the citizens they are supposed to be protecting as a potential OpFors to be engaged...

They're just tyrannys gunmen, and I have no respect for that.

-Frem
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:19 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is a horrendous idea.

1) It would reduce commerce in america
2) govt. never gives up a tax, so this would be proposed as an income tax replacement, and would pass under that supposition, but income tax repeal would then fail as the next bill.
3) It would be a tax on the poor and middle class. The % of income spend on taxable goods for the lower income groups is far higher than that of the upper income, who spend their money mostly on investments, or stash their earnings away, here, overseas, or in some tax shelter.

We're headed for an 85% tax system cumulatively. Don't push for 90%

Unless it would prompt a revolution, in which case, go ahead.



'nuff said

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:33 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Maybe at this point it's not about fairness, but rather about swiftness? (I'd prefer fair, but can any tax be fair?)

I have no idea from where the previous and current admins. are pulling this recent DEBT from (I assume future debt), or what the limits of those resources are, but we're looking at:

$1,200,000,000 deficit + more billions in stimulus coming and a $700,000,000 Health Care plan in the works.

Health Care is broken, it has to be fixed. We need a tax.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:39 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Maybe at this point it's not about fairness, but rather about swiftness? (I'd prefer fair, but can any tax be fair?)

I have no idea from where the previous and current admins. are pulling this recent DEBT from (I assume future debt), or what the limits of those resources are, but we're looking at:

$1,200,000,000 deficit + more billions in stimulus coming and a $700,000,000 Health Care plan in the works.

Health Care is broken, it has to be fixed. We need a tax.



nuff said.....2?




I know it's broke man...

Too many poor lazy people getting money for nothing and their checks for free.

Think about it though.


60 years ago, only men were expected to have paying jobs. This is not taking away at all from a Mother's job of rearing the children, keeping the house clean and cooking. They probably worked harder than their husbands all day as often as not. It's just that when you add women to the work pool, you've got twice as many people who need jobs and salaries for everyone went down as a result. For what a dollar is worth today compared to 60 years ago it really takes at least two incomes to make what just a man made alone.

Could you own a house and raise a family with 5 children on a grocery store manager's wage like my Grandfather did?

No...

I couldn't either.

Let's not forget the illegals we give jobs to and all the millions of jobs we've been sending south or overseas the last 40 years.






For the first time in my life I have some money...

But at the rate we're going, my IRA isn't going to be able to afford a roll of toilet paper in retirement.



I'm not blaming Obama for everything. He certainly didn't start the fire. I hated Bush for how much his administration was exponentializing the National Debt. Two wrongs don't make a right though and spending debt in half a year what the previous president took years to do is not excusable.


Where was my impeachment of Bush in 2006?

Where is my pullout of troops from our unconstitutional war?

Why are stores trying to scan my Driver's license when I buy a pack of smokes under Obama's watch?

Why, instead of relinquishing Presidential and Governmental rights that the corrupt Bush Administration assembled is Obama increasing these powers today?


Serioulsy dude... hope you brouht your K-Y Jelly for the buggering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Geezer, don't tell me what I think; it's offensive and I resent it. I don't hate the rich, by any means, nor want to punish them. I'm just aware that TPTB are heavily run by them and big business, and as such both are given many breaks to make them richer, so I resent the breaks they get and I'd like to see things more fair to the rest of us. I don't see taxes as a tool for social engineering, I would just like to see everyone taxed according to what they have and can afford. They're not presently, and if you believe it's all fair and equal, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I disagree. And if you believe people making less than (what is it, $6,000 a year?) don't pay taxes and should, or that this situation is at all fair, try living on that, or even $12,000 a year, then tell me it should be taxed.

The discrepancy between rich and poor gets larger every year. And yes, I DO think the CEOs and others on Wall Street don't deserve their many-times-larger salaries and bonuses while the people who clean their offices struggle...in that case, they didn't earn it, it's horrible unequal, and I'd like to see it more evenly distributed. I might suppose you feel that's "social engineering", but to me the discrepancy is totally insane, and I don't think either they making less or the janitor making more would change the scheme of things.

You truly believe all the tax breaks enacted by people like Dumbya are "right"? Then yes, it comes down to opinion.

I never spoke of "across-the-board" INCOME tax; I was responding to the suggestion of a VAT, which would impact the rich less than anyone else, given they can afford to pay it better than people who are scraping by. The argument was that, because they ARE more able to pay a VAT, it puts further burden on the other "classes", which you admitted yourself.
Quote:

mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions, medical deductions, casualty losses
.You truly believe that those benefit the middle class more than the rich? No, they're not hidden. I note you didn't point to the tax breaks to which I was referring, just dismissed the information based on those.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure what's considered "middle class" these days, but many in what I see as the middle class nowadays are renters and never can afford a house or mortgage; you have to give a helluvalot of charity to gain anything from charitable deductions--how many of the middle class, much less poor, can afford to, and how many rich create things which save them taxes JUST because they save them taxes?

The same holds true for medical deductions, casualty losses, etc. It just doesn't wash...in my OPINION...given the rich are able to take so many deductions none of the rest of us can afford to take. If you truly believe the tax system is set up to be equal for all classes, then we are at opposite sides of the spectrum and will have to agree to disagree.

I wouldn't mind if you found it possible to omit the personal nastiness in debating me. It's unnecessary and rude, but I can only ask and be responsible for my own posts.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:58 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Posted by Geezer:


I understand that you think the rich are evil because they're rich, and that they should be punished (Don't deny it, you know that's how you feel).



Aren't you one of the people who constantly assails others for assigning feelings to you that you dont' have, and assigning views to you that you don't share?

Strikes me as odd that you'd make such a statement as you did above, given that.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:



I know it's broke man...

Too many poor lazy people getting money for nothing and their checks for free.

Think about it though.




You do realize that 66 cents out of every welfare dollar goes to corporations and farmers, yes? I think there are probably about 66% fewer "lazy people" than you think there are.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:36 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:


$1,200,000,000 deficit + more billions in stimulus coming and a $700,000,000 Health Care plan in the works.




Check that - add some more millions for the next Afghanistan surge.

"For the first time, Peter R. Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, joined the group of advisers in the White House Situation Room on Monday evening — a strong indication that the president’s address would allude to the enormous costs of the military effort."


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

But at the rate we're going, my IRA isn't going to be able to afford a roll of toilet paper in retirement.
You and me both, mistah! My husband's still working at 71, mostly JUST for our health insurance (which costs his employer $850 A MONTH!) and because our what-we-thought-were-pretty-good IRAs look like nothing now (and they didn't even suffer much from the recent debacle). Scary.

I FINALLY convinced him to drop back to four days a week, once we paid off all our credit cards (which we will never, EVER, have again, fer shore!), but getting him back to three days a week (since he claims he'll never retire completely, wouldn't know what to do with himself) is going to be a fight; he keeps saying "yeah, we've got enough to get by, but what about major things that will pop up, like re-roofing the house or the car that dies?" He's got a valid point, but it breaks my heart to see him still commuting into the City and working 4 days a week...

Nonetheless, not counting the Afghan war, I'm willing to accept the debt if it means decent healthcare--not for us, I've got Medicare and he's eligible--and (hopefully?) some help for the infrastructure and education. Wall Street can go take a long walk off a short pier, however...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:18 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, don't tell me what I think; it's offensive and I resent it. I don't hate the rich, by any means, nor want to punish them.


I can only go by what you post here.

"Whatever tax tables SAY, whatever almost anyone SAYS, the fact is that the rich have so many loopholes and off-shore crap that they almost NEVER pay anything close to their actual taxes."

"Sure, they're "legal", bought and paid for--like writing to our reps would make any difference!--but that doesn't make them right, and it does mean that any across-the-board tax weighs far heavier on poor and middle class than it does on corporations or the rich, which ws my point."

"I'm just aware that TPTB are heavily run by them and big business, and as such both are given many breaks to make them richer, so I resent the breaks they get and I'd like to see things more fair to the rest of us."

"...any across-the-board tax hurts the poor and middle class, who don't have any way of ducking the system the way the rich do."

So can we assume at least that you're not in love with "The Rich".

Quote:

And if you believe people making less than (what is it, $6,000 a year?) don't pay taxes and should, or that this situation is at all fair, try living on that, or even $12,000 a year, then tell me it should be taxed.
But folks making that kind of money don't pay income tax. They often qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is money in their pocket from the Government. Sit down with any tax computation software and run the figures.

Quote:

You truly believe all the tax breaks enacted by people like Dumbya are "right"?
"Don't tell me what I think" I believe you said? I'd be perfectly happy to do away with lots of the tax code.
Quote:

I never spoke of "across-the-board" INCOME tax;

"I'm definitely against a VAT, for many of the reasons elucidated here, but mostly because any across-the-board tax hurts the poor and middle class, who don't have any way of ducking the system the way the rich do."

"Any across-the-board tax" would seem to include income tax.
Quote:

I was responding to the suggestion of a VAT, which would impact the rich less than anyone else, given they can afford to pay it better than people who are scraping by. The argument was that, because they ARE more able to pay a VAT, it puts further burden on the other "classes", which you admitted yourself.

And why I noted that most VAT plans include a method for providing a rebate of VAT payments to those with lower incomes.

Quote:

You truly believe that those (mortgage interest deduction, etc.) benefit the middle class more than the rich?

Hell yes. Itemized Deductions are limited based on income. The more you make, the less deductions you can claim.
Go here http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html#_g
rp2
and click on "Individual Income Tax Returns with Exemptions and Itemized Deductions" "Individual Income Tax Returns with Itemized Deductions: Sources of Income, Adjustments, Itemized Deductions by Type, Exemptions, and Tax Items" for 2007. You'll see that most itemized deductions are claimed by individuals or families with between $75,000 and $500,000 Adjusted Gross Income. So it ain't the Multimillion-dollar-a-year CEOs using the deductions, but the middle class.

Quote:

I note you didn't point to the tax breaks to which I was referring, just dismissed the information based on those.
Because you didn't specify any. Just generalizations.

Quote:

Nonetheless, I'm not sure what's considered "middle class" these days, but many in what I see as the middle class nowadays are renters and never can afford a house or mortgage;
But I'm surrounded by middle-class folks who own their homes. I'm middle-class and I own my home(although I suspect you'd class me with "The Rich" since I do).
Quote:

you have to give a helluvalot of charity to gain anything from charitable deductions--how many of the middle class, much less poor, can afford to, and how many rich create things which save them taxes JUST because they save them taxes?

I don't know. I give to charity to help folk, not for a tax deduction. And somehow I suspect that tax savings isn't the first concern of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet when they donate multi-billions.

Quote:

The same holds true for medical deductions, casualty losses, etc. It just doesn't wash...in my OPINION

Again, look at the IRS info above. They have plenty of breakdowns on their website.
Quote:

If you truly believe the tax system is set up to be equal for all classes, then we are at opposite sides of the spectrum and will have to agree to disagree.

I think that, in general, people who make more money pay more income taxes. IRS stats bear this out.

Do I think that some folk get paid a lot more than they're worth? Sure. But that's not what we're discussing.

Quote:

I wouldn't mind if you found it possible to omit the personal nastiness in debating me. It's unnecessary and rude, but I can only ask and be responsible for my own posts.


"Omygawd...you actually expect anyone to even bother to READ anything linked to "MichelleMalkin.com"? Poor Wulf...you are truly pathetic."

Let she who is without sin cast the first stone.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:43 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do realize that 66 cents out of every welfare dollar goes to corporations and farmers, yes? I think there are probably about 66% fewer "lazy people" than you think there are.



I'm not going to pretend I know the figures down to the exact percentage point, especially not without any links, but at the same time I wouldn't even try to argue this point. It wouldn't surprise me if it were more than that.


But the truth of the matter is, when your country is somewhere between 9 and 20 trillion in debt with plans to add another 1.5 trillion or so in debt from here to eternity, what do those numbers really matter at all when working people spend billions more every year than is paid in taxes to the lazy and "entitled"?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Geezer:

Nothing you quoted from me shows I "hate the rich" or "want to see them punished". That was an assumption and you put it on me. I don't care one way or another about them personally. I don't like the way the SYSTEM is set up because in my opinion it benefits the rich. And yes, I should have said "THAT's pathetic", not "you're pathetic"; mea culpa. I try not to be personal about things; I often fail.

What you cited as my assuming what you think were QUESTIONS, ASKING you if that's what you believe. Whole different thing from saying "this is what you think" flat out, I hope you can see that. I was asking for clarification, because I didn't think that's what you meant.

As to across-the-board including income tax, I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. I was speaking in general and didn't mean income tax; I kind of thought you'd understand that, since the discussion was about a VAT. My mistake.

It is my belief that the rebates provided by any VAT tax do not change the fact that proportionally, the poor suffer more from them.

I also don't believe deductions are as profitable for the middle class, and certainly not the poor, as they are for the rich.

As to the $6,000 remark, my point remains the same, whatever the tax system is, trying to live on $6,000, even with a bit of help, is inhuman and doesn't even come into the equation, for me.

"tax breaks to which I was referring" referenced those in the link I provided; I didn't itemize them.

Your suspicion of what I consider middle class is totally fallacious. We own ours outright, but only because we bought in 1975 when we WERE middle class. I don't consider us same now, lower-middle class at best. I'm glad you're surrounded with people who own their homes; I'm not. I don't think either of us can generalize about that, as it depends on where you live. I have a suspicion I'm more correct currently, considering how many have lost their homes, but that's neither here nor there.

As to charity, I feel your remarks are disingenuous. I give to help, also, and it should be obvious I wasn't citing Gates or Buffet, but those who DO give enormous sums merely to get tax breaks. They are myriad, and I stand by my point.

I grant that perhaps "in general", people who make more money pay more income taxes, but I was talking proportionally for the most part, and I think a good number of them--and certainly those on Wall Street and CEOs of big corporations who make many times the salaries of the middle class and poor, find more ways to pay less proportionally through loopholes and exemptions, especially after Dumbya.

More than anything else, re-reading your responses, I believe you're nit picking and understood what I was saying far more than you indicated. Many rich people get away with far more than "their share" of income taxes via loopholes and exemptions; I stand by that and I think MOST people would agree.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:24 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Harder on the middle class and poor." I've seen that and it doesn't completely compute for me. I assume that the wealthy buy more high ticket items, buy larger homes, fancier cars, and use legal services more, etc.


Then things are not as they seem

The wealthy invest, they don't purchase. "Big ticket items" are overwhelmingly bought by the middle class, and bought on credit. New cars, new homes. 1/2 million dollar homes, are bought by working class families in black neighborhoods in cities.

That's where the difference comes in: Economies of scale. These city people aren't "rich" but their houses cost 3000 times what mine does, because they live in this credit economy. Most americans do.

But the "rich" those are people with large bank accounts and trust funds... they don't buy jack. They don't need to. They inherited their property, too.

And good for them. No issue there, but this is still a horrendous idea. The overwhelming portion of money spent on taxable goods are by the poor and middle class, because you can only buy so much, and past that, even if there were more to buy, you would have to be a moron to buy them, and it's hard to be a moron and stay rich, because there are so many people who want to take your money.

If you earn 10,000, you spend 10,000
If you earn 100,000, most of it goes to taxes, you probably spend 30,000, and end up with no savings
If you earn a million, you spend around 50,000.

Yeah, I know a fair number of rich people, I don't need to guess.

If you earn 10,000,000, you spend about 100,000
If you earn 100,000,000, you spend about 10,000

Because you still have to eat. People in this bracket already "own" they don't need to "buy."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:21 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I really can't agree with this statement.

Just buying a new car or occasional piece of jewelry or regularly buying nice clothes would exceed the 10,000 you pretend a hundred millionaire would choose to spend.

And vintage clothing, for instance, does not seem to be a fashion choice of the very rich. So inheriting your mother's wardrobe won't cut down expenses much.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:06 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't like the way the SYSTEM is set up because in my opinion it benefits the rich.


From what I've seen, working with taxes for 37 years, everybody gets some sort of benefits. Let's play with the IRS stats.

EITC, which I've mentioned before, gave 24.5 million individual taxpayers or taxpaying families with incomes under $35,000.00 an average of about $2,000.00 each in refundable credit. That's about $45.5 Billion (in 2007). Total income tax paid by that 24.5 million taxpayers was $470 million (Almost all by the folks making $25,000 or more). These folk are way ahead on the deal, tax-wise.

Almost all (about 95%) of the $3.5 Billion in Child Care Credit (2007) went to families with incomes under $200,000 (not what I'd call 'rich'). All of the $31.5 Billion Child Tax Credit went to the under-$200,000 group as well. $6.9 Billion Education credit, Credit for the Elderly, Retirement Savings Contribution Credit, Residential Energy Credits, Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit, etc. (say another $10-12 Billion total) all pretty much went entirely to the $200,000 or less crowd.

There are credits for the better off as well; Prior Year Minimum Tax Credit, Foreign Tax Credit, General Business Credit, Community Renewal and Work Opportunity Credits (totaling about $17 Billion) tend to go to higher income folks who have businesses or foreign holdings they're taxed on overseas (although the under-$200,000 crowd still gets a share).

Besides, there aren't that many folk making the really big money. Only about 30,000 returns a year are filed with incomes over $5 million dollars. Those 30,000 pay about 9% of the total income tax that 93 million filers pay (2006 figures).


Quote:

It is my belief that the rebates provided by any VAT tax do not change the fact that proportionally, the poor suffer more from them.
I agree. The poor have to spend a disproportionate amount of their income just to survive. Even with rebates, the money is out of their hands for quite a while, not buying the groceries. That's why I tend to prefer Income Tax, as screwed up as it is. If you don't make a good bit of money, you don't pay income tax.

Quote:

I also don't believe deductions are as profitable for the middle class, and certainly not the poor, as they are for the rich.
The IRS data says deductions and credits do benefit the poor and middle class a great deal (as noted above and below), putting tens of billions of dollars annually back in their pockets. Since they actually need this money to purchase goods and services, I think it's pretty meaningful.

Quote:

As to the $6,000 remark, my point remains the same, whatever the tax system is, trying to live on $6,000, even with a bit of help, is inhuman and doesn't even come into the equation, for me.

I agree. However, since I don't think wealth is a finite resource, I don't believe that because someone has more, others have to have less.
Quote:

...but those who DO give enormous sums merely to get tax breaks. They are myriad, and I stand by my point.

The bulk of the $1.3 Trillion Itemized Deductions claimed in 2007 ($962 Billion) were claimed by folk with AGI of less than $200,000. Charitable Contributions for the Over-$1 Million crowd are pretty high ($59 Billion out of $190 Billion or so). They do have a lot to give away over their living expenses, and it's probably better than just buying yachts with the extra. Remember too that every $100 of contributions only reduces their tax by 25-35 bucks, so it's a pretty expensive method of tax savings.

Quote:

I grant that perhaps "in general", people who make more money pay more income taxes, but I was talking proportionally for the most part, and I think a good number of them--and certainly those on Wall Street and CEOs of big corporations who make many times the salaries of the middle class and poor, find more ways to pay less proportionally through loopholes and exemptions, especially after Dumbya.

Even assuming the top 1% of earners are hiding some of their money(which isn't as easy as you seem to believe), they're making about 23% of the total reported income but paying 40% of total income tax collected. This is with all the legal tax breaks they can get. Not a great deal for them.

Quote:

Many rich people get away with far more than "their share" of income taxes via loopholes and exemptions; I stand by that and I think MOST people would agree.


Hey, you can think the Sun orbits the Earth if you want. It doesn't make it so. The IRS data seems to show pretty unambiguiously that "Rich People" in general pay taxes proportionate to their income. Since the tax rates go up as income goes up, they pay more of their income as taxes than the middle-class or poor people. Data also shows that credits and deductions are used by all income levels in differing proportions based on the type of credit or deduction.

I can also tell you from personal experience that middle-class and poor people try to get out of paying their taxes, by both legal and illegal means, just as much as rich folk do.






"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:41 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

Harder on the middle class and poor." I've seen that and it doesn't completely compute for me. I assume that the wealthy buy more high ticket items, buy larger homes, fancier cars, and use legal services more, etc.


Then things are not as they seem

The wealthy invest, they don't purchase. "Big ticket items" are overwhelmingly bought by the middle class, and bought on credit. New cars, new homes. 1/2 million dollar homes, are bought by working class families in black neighborhoods in cities.

That's where the difference comes in: Economies of scale. These city people aren't "rich" but their houses cost 3000 times what mine does, because they live in this credit economy. Most americans do.

But the "rich" those are people with large bank accounts and trust funds... they don't buy jack. They don't need to. They inherited their property, too.

And good for them. No issue there, but this is still a horrendous idea. The overwhelming portion of money spent on taxable goods are by the poor and middle class, because you can only buy so much, and past that, even if there were more to buy, you would have to be a moron to buy them, and it's hard to be a moron and stay rich, because there are so many people who want to take your money.

If you earn 10,000, you spend 10,000
If you earn 100,000, most of it goes to taxes, you probably spend 30,000, and end up with no savings
If you earn a million, you spend around 50,000.

Yeah, I know a fair number of rich people, I don't need to guess.

If you earn 10,000,000, you spend about 100,000
If you earn 100,000,000, you spend about 10,000

Because you still have to eat. People in this bracket already "own" they don't need to "buy."




I'm afraid your "rich" friends are not being honest with you.

This:
"1/2 million dollar homes, are bought by working class families in black neighborhoods in cities." is completely wtf?

"The wealthy invest, they don't purchase." is simply wrong, they do both.

Maybe we need to define "rich," because the notion that that always means trust funds and inheritance is richist.

"The overwhelming portion of money spent on taxable goods are by the poor and middle class," as a group, YES. Because there's an overwhelming percentage of poor versus rich.

"If you earn 10,000, you spend 10,000
If you earn 100,000, most of it goes to taxes, you probably spend 30,000, and end up with no savings
If you earn a million, you spend around 50,000.

Yeah, I know a fair number of rich people, I don't need to guess.

If you earn 10,000,000, you spend about 100,000
If you earn 100,000,000, you spend about 10,000

Because you still have to eat. People in this bracket already "own" they don't need to "buy.""

Not right. You don't have kids do you? Kids generate BUY NEW and COLLEGE.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:11 PM

DREAMTROVE


Pizmo,

I think your math is way off. Mine is a stab in the dark, but the figures for houses in inner city neighborhoods was real, from people i know. It's not uncommon.

I will lose this argument from a sheer lack of will to continue. Geezer knows far more about the tax system than I do.

I would not send kids to college, I think it's a degenerate institution that is more about drugs, alcohol and indoctrination than anything else, and their time is better spent online. I would encourage them to be students at large at university with some scientific or artistic merit like U of Utah, Brigham Young, Yale, Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, etc. as well as places like Berklee in Boston. I think that "normal college" is just a total wash. These guys are telling you less than you would learn online, and the paper degree is worth nothing but debt. Take it from a guy with a 5th grade education, anyone can learn anything without an institution. I never had a problem being first in my class at any classes I chose to take, and I don't think I had any advantages over my peers save one: I didn't have the psychological disadvantages that they had inherited from our education system

And yes, I have no respect for authority at all. I don't have kids, but I've taught highschool advance placement and special ed, adult ed, and college, I'm not shooting in the dark here.

The VAT tax harms the poor isn't an opinion, it's a mathematically obvious fact.

The majority of spending done in this country btw is on credit which why the average american is in debt. Peace out, I'm working and I mean no offense by saying I have no time for a partisan debate, I mean literally I have no time for a partisan debate.

I choose to lose and hand the reins to geezer, who knows a great deal more about it than I do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:43 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Maybe we need to define "rich," because the notion that that always means trust funds and inheritance is richist.



I'd be interested in seeing what the folks here consider "rich".

What annual income do you consider the threshhold for being rich? What net worth?

Any opinions?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elon Musk
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:33 - 28 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL