- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
So you think a system which disallows losses and costs to sell something is a good one?
I don't see how many businesses can survive a high gross tax.
I have to disagree after reading the Fair Tax book, normally I would have balked at that idea as well but when the breakdown of it is in front of you it starts to make sense. The catch though is that the income tax has to be repealed and no flat tax with the NST replacing it, the idea being that when hidden taxes are taken out of everything profits start to inch up and competitiveness then would demand that companies would get into a price slashing war for consumer dollars.That's never work, but who cares, right?
A loophole is any deduction that people don't think should be allowed.
So you think a system which disallows losses and costs to sell something is a good one?
I don't see how many businesses can survive a high gross tax.
IMO, the ONLY reason to tax is to raise the revenues needed to run the government (unless you include such things as protective tarrifs). If you accept that premise, this should be axiomatic: taxes should be imposed in the manner that is most cost-efficient. (Tax evasion is a form of "cost".)
I'd eliminate the system of income taxation we have now -- which is used at local, county and state levels, BTW, not just at the federal level. I'd tax every single human being or entity with income of its own. Yes, I mean churches, too. I would tax every accretion to wealth -- proceeds of life insurance policies, social security income, retirement funds, education funds, municipal bonds.....EVERYTHING.
I don't favor a tax on consumption -- though I see its appeal -- as an alternative to a tax on income. I don't think you can achieve the same level of third party reporting with it, and I don't think you can avoid complexity. For example, what to do with money spent that is the proceeds of a loan, and therefore, not income?
No person or business would pay tax on its gross income.....by definition, gross income is income plus the cost of production or sales. But I don't think allowing this one adjustment is fatal to the simplicity that'd make my system achieve the goals I hope for.
When government wants me to have more kids, or adopt some, or buy energy efficient appliances, or just wants to reward me for drawing breath, IMO, taxation is the LEAST EFFECTIVE and MOST EXPENSIVE manner of getting me motivated to do so. There should be no deduction for mortgage interest; home ownership should be a choice people make without any inducements from the government.
I feel the same way about sin taxes. Don't want me to smoke, drink, etc.? IMO, it'd be far better to offer me smoking cessation aids....and government wouldn't be so dependent on my continuing to smoke.
I don't agree with Fluffy about taxing food stamps, etc. I get his point, but it is very costly to do what he's suggesting....and COST EFFECTIVE taxation is my goal.
The thing with taxing lots of different things is it's easy to start double taxing. IMO, it's better to tax a couple things a lot than a bunch of things a little. I would have a big income tax and a small business tax. I would also have sin taxes, but that's because I'm in favor of universal health care, so people who intentionally do bad things to themselves should have to pay a little extra.
Well, this is a bit philosophical.....entities (corporations, trust funds, partnerships, etc.) are all legal fictions created for the benefit of humans, and so I can see the POV that taxing them is a form of "double taxation".
However.
If you don't tax them, tax evasion will skyrocket.
Federal revenues (forget state, county and local for now) will fall about 40%.
Americans are not equal in their investments and interests in entities. Taxing them at a lower rate or not at all would be a form of regressive taxation on the poor.
I suppose you could work at making all business/entity income flow through to the humans who ultimately benefit, but these people cannot always be identified with any certainty. And what would you do with churches, charities, political organizations, etc.?
No, IMO, all humans and all entities with income must be taxed, and at the same rate. If not, the golden charm of simplicity is lost and we may as well not have bothered.
Well, like I said, I'm in favor of taxing businesses. I'm talking about property taxes and estate taxes and all those things. An income tax is enough, assuming it's progressive and of a decent size.
Not without massive spending cuts, beginning with the elimination of Obama'Care and TARP.
There's no way a business could survive a gross tax.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?