Taxation Poll

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Right, and said families will be able to collect off of this same retirement plan when their grandchildren are paying in. If the idiots in Washington would stop borrowing off the fund, perhaps it'll still be solvent when that time comes. Oh, and if there ever is a Libertarian president, good luck eliminating SS. The system was created so that the elderly wouldn't have to spend their golden years begging on the streets for a handout. Also so that those who are infirm and unable to work have at least some meager means of support.

Socialist Security will never go away. I'm under no illusions.

But if the goal of Socialist Security is merely to establish a baseline minimum income for retirees, why isn't it means tested so limited resources could be used more wisely? I know of at least a dozen retirees drawing Socialist Security, funds taken from my check at gunpoint, who make two or even three trips to Europe or Asia a year.

Also, participation in the scam should be voluntary. Persons who lack the confidence in themselves to plan for their own future can cannibalize each other, and the adults can keep their own money and take their own risks. And, when those people consuming Socialist Security funds die, ALL their assets should be confiscated and the proceeds taken by the fund. When people who declined Socialist Security die, all their assets are, well, theirs, and thus their kids, and the estate taxes should be eliminated, also.

Funny thing about all governments. Politicians convince voters that just because someone has money it doesn't mean the government cant invent creative ways to take it away from them, and dead people are the easiest targets of all.

I'm very glad that the VAST majority of Americans don't share your views about public assistance. The crime rate would go through the roof if you had your way. Have enough people starving and desperate enough and I don't think any of us would be safe.

Really? What a stupid statement. Before all this social welfare nanny state crapola foisted on us by an unending series of liberal presidents, crime rates were lower. It's probably because people then thought stealing was wrong, now stealing is merely a way of establishing entitlements.

I work for a living, too, and abuses of the system by low-life scum tick me off as much as they do you. However, there are some people that use it as it is meant, which is a hand up so that they CAN get out there and take care of themselves.

Get the government out of the handout business and the useful needy, ie those that have some hope of reform, will find the volunteer charities that exist to help them. Not only that, they'll have more incentive to improve themselves.

Explain why it's my or anyone else's responsibility to house, feed, and train them. It's clearly not in my personal interest to do so, and I clearly haven't volunteered for any such position.

Tell a single mom with two jobs that still can't make ends meet that you're going to take away her only means of feeding her kids (food stamps) and I guarantee you that you'll have a hell of a fight on your hands.

Perhaps if the hammock hadn't existed in the first place said woman would have been far more careful about who she shared bodily fluids with? It's amazing how that works, when it's tried. And, again, there's private charities, and the truly needy mostly won't be left behind.

But the drug addicts, the drunks, and the useless might have problems. They'll wind up migrating from city to city until the charities learn to reject them. Again, those people made their choices to become useless, and it's not my problem to feed and house them.

You're certainly free to use as much of your very own personal money to care for all these people that you deem worthy. Public assistance financed by gun-point isn't a proper condition for an allegedly free country.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Following your line of reason then ALL US corporations should set up shop in tax haven countries, outsource ALL American Jobs to a dollar a day worker; all to help the shareholders. Uh huh:roll:

If they find it profitable to do so, why not? It's not my money. It's not your money. It's THEIR money.

It's the difference between profit and greed. What we have in your scenario is the ultimate in corporate greed.

Well...no. Profit is the amount of money a business earns from revenues after all expenses are subtracted.

Greed is your desire to take money you haven't earned from profitable companies.

Also, using your line of reasoning you would like all Americans to stop paying into Social Security?

Hell yes. That should be 100% totally voluntary. If you don't like your mother enough to support her, why are you forcing me to do it for you?

It's a perfect example of the "Ownership Society" which tells Americans - "You're on your own!"

Is there something wrong with "ownership"? That's a rather peculiar condemnation of a society based on the freedom to own property, isn't it? You're certainly welcome to leave and go to a land where private ownership isn't allowed. Cuba comes to mind.

 

[TimmyBoy]

First what needs to happen, is the government needs to pay off the national debt. That will be economically painful to do because that will require more taxes and less government spending, which will hurt the economy. People will be taxed more which will hurt jobs creation and on the same token, less government spending. It's a painful process, but something that needs to be done. After the debt is paid off, what needs to happen next is the government needs to establish a surplus of funds, an emergency cash reserve so when hard economic times hit and less revenue is coming in, the government will still have the money it needs to continue operating which will keep government worker jobs who will spend and contribute to the economy coming out of a slump. It will also enable the government in the future to not have to raise taxes or go into debt in order to have the money to be able to continue operating. After this emergency cash reserve is established, then the government needs to dramatically lower taxes which will give people incentives to work hard, be efficient, creative and innovative and create jobs and economic prosperity. It will also reduce the scope, size and intrusiveness of government and create a more free society.

 

[Iriemon]

A flat tax would be much better. I just gave a speech on this last night. The current tax code costs $188.6 BILLION per year in COMPLIANCE COSTS ALONE. Over 60% of Americans hire someone to do their taxes for them, because they can't understand them or don't have time to figure them out.

Why would a flat tax reduce compliance costs? A flat tax doesn't make the tax code more simple, just makes everyone pay the same rate, regardless of income.

A flat tax would be better for nearly everyone - rich and poor. The poor would benefit from generous personal deductions (a family of four would pay no taxes on the first $46,000 of income under Steve Forbes' flat tax plan) and from cheaper consumer goods (thanks to lower corporate taxes). The middle- and upper- class would benefit by being in a low 17% tax bracket rather than the 28-35% bracket they currently find themselves in. And everyone would benefit from corporations having more money to hire more workers at higher wages.

If there are personal deductions then it is not really a flat tax. Why would corporate taxes be lower? A flat tax would have to be at least 25%, and that is if there are no deductions.

Also, a flat tax would remove a lot of the money from our politics. George Bush and John Kerry spent over $600 million combined on their campaigns, because businesses wanted their candidate to cut their taxes. If we had a flat tax and didn't allow for deductions (other than basic personal and child deductions), the corporations would no longer have any incentive to contribute obscene sums of money to politicians.

What does a flat tax have to do with deductions?

If you think imposing a flat tax would mean there would be no incentive to bribe politicians, you need a reality check.

 

[TimmyBoy]

The fact that the US has such a huge national debt and high taxes is rather unhealthy to the nation. I know Thomas Jefferson worked very hard during his presidency to keep the nation out of debt and he suceeded. He warned about this and he was wise. When you are dealing with the economy, in my view, you must have a conservative philosophy in order to make it healthy and strong and enduring. That debt needs to go and we must work to establish an emergency cash reserve for the nation to fall back on during hard economic times so their won't be need to raise taxes or go into debt to continue the operation of the government and to generate government spending to help bring the economy out of a slump.

 

[Iriemon]

I voted for a flat tax, or 'user' tax as some refer to it.

It would simplify the tax code and be far more equitable then the system currently in place.

I think food/medicines should remain non-taxable items.

How would a flat tax simply the code?

Why can't the code be simplified with a progressive tax?

 

[Iriemon]

If it's that simple, then why do US corporation like Enron, Haliburton, Goodyear set up offshore subsidairies to avoid paying taxes?

Look at this chart of Fortune 500 companies with offshore subsidaries.

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/tax/top25.php

Some highlights:

Haliburton - 618
Citigroup 1736
Bank Of America 780
Marriott -522
Pepsi 550
Viacom -960

Enron in 2001 - 2832

You would think of all of these corporations as American entities, but they pay little or no US taxes, but send there profits to other tax haven countries with lower tax rates. Who pays - me and you of course.

Why should corporations pay taxes at all? They are organizations, not persons. If a corporation is taxed, it will attempt to avoid the tax and if not attempt to pass the cost of the tax at least partially in the form of higher prices for their goods and services.

Rather than taxing corporations, it is the persons who benefit that should be taxed. The employees, management, and shareholders.

Corporate taxes only contribute about 10% to federal revenues anyway, and the compliance costs are significant.

 

[Iriemon]

First what needs to happen, is the government needs to pay off the national debt. That will be economically painful to do because that will require more taxes and less government spending, which will hurt the economy. People will be taxed more which will hurt jobs creation and on the same token, less government spending. It's a painful process, but something that needs to be done. After the debt is paid off, what needs to happen next is the government needs to establish a surplus of funds, an emergency cash reserve so when hard economic times hit and less revenue is coming in, the government will still have the money it needs to continue operating which will keep government worker jobs who will spend and contribute to the economy coming out of a slump. It will also enable the government in the future to not have to raise taxes or go into debt in order to have the money to be able to continue operating. After this emergency cash reserve is established, then the government needs to dramatically lower taxes which will give people incentives to work hard, be efficient, creative and innovative and create jobs and economic prosperity. It will also reduce the scope, size and intrusiveness of government and create a more free society.

You're lips to politicians' ears. Unfortunately since 2000 we have been going in the opposite direction. Times are economically good, but we are borrowing money like there is no tommorrow. Which will be about right if they keep it up.

 

[TimmyBoy]

You're lips to politicians' ears. Unfortunately since 2000 we have been going in the opposite direction. Times are economically good, but we are borrowing money like there is no tommorrow. Which will be about right if they keep it up.

You can keep on borrowing money and generate a superficial, temporary economic good time, but their will be a day of reckoning.

 

[Iriemon]

You can keep on borrowing money and generate a superficial, temporary economic good time, but their will be a day of reckoning.

The Gipper knew that:

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" Ronald Reagan, 1981.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/

Unfortunately, his so-called proteges got this message: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney.

 

[TimmyBoy]

The Gipper knew that:

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" Ronald Reagan, 1981.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/

Unfortunately, his so-called proteges got this message: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney.

I would have to disagree with Cheny on his statement. The Gipper was one of my favorite American presidents even though he himself ran up a deficit when outspending the Soviets and challenging them in the Third World.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How would a flat tax simply the code?
Why can't the code be simplified with a progressive tax?

A flat tax is based on the idea that everyone pays the same rate.
A progressive tax is based on the idea that the more you make, the higher rate you pay.

That everyone should pay the same rate makes sense on its face - after all, everyone is supposed to be equal.
Why does it make sense to pay a higer rate because you make more, and how does that idea treat people equally?

 

[galenrox]

A flat tax is based on the idea that everyone pays the same rate.
A progressive tax is based on the idea that the more you make, the higher rate you pay.

That everyone should pay the same rate makes sense on its face - after all, everyone is supposed to be equal.
Why does it make sense to pay a higer rate because you make more, and how does that idea treat people equally?

It makes sense, but at the same time it doesn't. The rich get better everything from the government. They don't have to be afraid of the police, since the police exist to protect them. They have better roads, better security, better schools, their kids can afford not to serve in the military, etc. The end conclusion is that since the rich get exponentially more from the government (especially the ultra rich, who get subsidies too), and the fact that the rich tend to have fantastic accountants to find pretty little tax loopholes so they end up ACTUALLY paying very little, it would seem to make sense that they would have to pay a higher rate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It makes sense, but at the same time it doesn't. [/qupte]
You;re not going to get anywhere, with your premise contradicting itself.

The rich get better everything from the government.

Oh, this will be GOOD.

They don't have to be afraid of the police, since the police exist to protect them.

The police dont exist to protect anyone
If people who are not rich dont commit crimes, the police will leave them alone/

They have better roads, better security, better schools, their kids can afford not to serve in the military, etc.

All roads belong to everyone
Of course they have better security - they pay for it themselves
Is it better schools that matter, or better parents, taking an interest?
Serving in the military isnt exactly a lucratibe job, at least not for the average enlisted man.

The end conclusion is that since the rich get exponentially more from the government (especially the ultra rich, who get subsidies too), and the fact that the rich tend to have fantastic accountants to find pretty little tax loopholes so they end up ACTUALLY paying very little, it would seem to make sense that they would have to pay a higher rate.

If thats your conclusion, based on the arguments you just presented, said conclusion is unsound.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

It makes sense, but at the same time it doesn't. The rich get better everything from the government. They don't have to be afraid of the police, since the police exist to protect them. They have better roads, better security, better schools, their kids can afford not to serve in the military, etc. The end conclusion is that since the rich get exponentially more from the government (especially the ultra rich, who get subsidies too), and the fact that the rich tend to have fantastic accountants to find pretty little tax loopholes so they end up ACTUALLY paying very little, it would seem to make sense that they would have to pay a higher rate.

If what you say is true, it makes more sense to adjust the laws so that rich people don't get special police treatment, so rich people don't get better schools (well, wait, that's because the public fell for that public school scam and it's not rich people's fault they don't want their kids rubbing elbows with the likes of Rodney King, is it?).

Rich people seem to drive on the same roads I do. Perhaps they have some private equivalent to the 405 us proles aren't aware of?

Rich kids can "afford" not to serve in the military, eh? Last time I checked, it's a volunteer force and no one has to go that doesn't make a free choice.


Needless to say, if congressmen can be bought to raise taxes on the rich, they could be bought to end the loopholes you describe, and any other you can imagine. But discriminatory tax rates aren't "progressive", they're just a sad echo of our failed socialist that hasn't yet driven the country into bankruptcy...

...but it's still trying.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So what is it with certain people anyway?

I don't want the government to take more money away from anyone. I simply want the government to get back inside the Constitution, and that automically means it will spend a whole heck of a lot less money.

If anyone has a pet project they want funded that isn't covered by the Constitution, why can't they pony up their own dollars, put in their own time with fund raising activities, and in general leave the people who couldn't care less about their little projects alone?

Projects that are worth funding will find funds, and people that can't get their projects funded will discover how useless and ineffectual their really are.

And the rest of us will mind our own business and not ask anyone to be our crutch.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
How would a flat tax simply the code?
Why can't the code be simplified with a progressive tax?

A flat tax is based on the idea that everyone pays the same rate.
A progressive tax is based on the idea that the more you make, the higher rate you pay.

The fact that there is a progressive tax rate structure does not make the tax code complex. It is all the rules, deductions, exceptions, loopholes, etc. that make it complex. It could be simplified by removing all deductions and exceptions, regardless of whether the rate structure is flat or progressive. I am in favor of simplification.

That everyone should pay the same rate makes sense on its face - after all, everyone is supposed to be equal.
Why does it make sense to pay a higer rate because you make more, and how does that idea treat people equally?

Because a 25% tax on a guy trying to support a family on $16,000 is a crushing burden. A 33% tax to a guy making a million dollars may mean he has to buy a smaller yacht, but it's not going to cause him to worry about how to put food on the table or get medical care for his kids.

 

[Iriemon]

I would have to disagree with Cheny on his statement. The Gipper was one of my favorite American presidents even though he himself ran up a deficit when outspending the Soviets and challenging them in the Third World.

That was the Gipper's biggest failing. The debt quadrupled from $1 billion to $4 billion thru his and Bush1's term. The $350 billion annual interest expense is in part of Ron's legacy, which the current Admin is building mightly upon.

 

[Iriemon]

So what is it with certain people anyway?

I don't want the government to take more money away from anyone. I simply want the government to get back inside the Constitution, and that automically means it will spend a whole heck of a lot less money.

If anyone has a pet project they want funded that isn't covered by the Constitution, why can't they pony up their own dollars, put in their own time with fund raising activities, and in general leave the people who couldn't care less about their little projects alone?

Projects that are worth funding will find funds, and people that can't get their projects funded will discover how useless and ineffectual their really are.

And the rest of us will mind our own business and not ask anyone to be our crutch.

The vast majority of Americans disagree with this view. Most like social institutions like social security, medicare, safety nets, and assistance to the less fortunate.

Most of us don't want to live in America where old grannies are begging at stoplights, and see images of hordes of poor and starving people in America.

 

[galenrox]

If what you say is true, it makes more sense to adjust the laws so that rich people don't get special police treatment, so rich people don't get better schools (well, wait, that's because the public fell for that public school scam and it's not rich people's fault they don't want their kids rubbing elbows with the likes of Rodney King, is it?).

Rich people seem to drive on the same roads I do. Perhaps they have some private equivalent to the 405 us proles aren't aware of?

Rich kids can "afford" not to serve in the military, eh? Last time I checked, it's a volunteer force and no one has to go that doesn't make a free choice.


Needless to say, if congressmen can be bought to raise taxes on the rich, they could be bought to end the loopholes you describe, and any other you can imagine. But discriminatory tax rates aren't "progressive", they're just a sad echo of our failed socialist that hasn't yet driven the country into bankruptcy...

...but it's still trying.

Dude, if you have an idea to solve the problem of people who don't look rich getting ****ed with by the police, I'd like to hear it. And if you've got an idea to tidy up congress enough so that the congressmen will stop pandering to the rich with their little tax loopholes, I'd like to hear that too.

As a society we are in this all together. We are all interconnected through our government, and yet we just sort of sit back and ignore how the rich have FAR more power than everyone else in government, under the excuse that we don't always see it (which, in itself ignores that we're talking about the rich, who can afford to be secretive).

 

[galenrox]

It makes sense, but at the same time it doesn't. [/qupte]
You;re not going to get anywhere, with your premise contradicting itself.

Well, yeah, if you lack the ability to complex thought. It makes sense because it's simple and easy. It doesn't make sense because it's unequal.

The police dont exist to protect anyone
If people who are not rich dont commit crimes, the police will leave them alone/

Yeah, and we live in Candyland and the streets are paved with gold and the lightposts are made of peppermint. Meanwhile in the real world the police DO protect the rich and terrorize the poor.
I have only been arrested once, yet I have been screwed with by the police on numerous occasions (me only being arrested once was meant to imply that that was the only time I was doing anything illegal when I got screwed with). My friend got beaten for mentioning the ACLU to a cop. I was made to stand outside in the middle of a Chicago winter without a jacket for 45 minutes while the cops laughed at me. You wanna know why this **** happened? Because we were in a rich neighborhood, and we didn't look rich. So once you want to start talking about the real world and not fantasy land, then let's talk.

All roads belong to everyone

True, and the nice roads in the suburbs really do a lot of good for the kids on the ****ed up roads in the projects

Of course they have better security - they pay for it themselves

You know full well that I wasn't talking about private security, so I'll just take that as an admission that you couldn't come up with a counterpoint.

Is it better schools that matter, or better parents, taking an interest?

It's both, and ignroring one of the factors is ignorant. You put a lazy kid with parents that don't care in a good school, he'll still do poorly, but you put an average kid in a crappy school, he's gonna do a lot worse than an average kid in a good school.

Serving in the military isnt exactly a lucratibe job, at least not for the average enlisted man.

Exactly, but for a lot of kids it's the only option. Not rich kids, of course.

If thats your conclusion, based on the arguments you just presented, said conclusion is unsound.

Based on what? You didn't disprove a single one of my arguments, you are not in a position to declare my conclusion bunk.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The vast majority of Americans disagree with this view. Most like social institutions like social security, medicare, safety nets, and assistance to the less fortunate.

Most of us don't want to live in America where old grannies are begging at stoplights, and see images of hordes of poor and starving people in America.

Well, you see, in a free country, those people that don't like images like that are perfectly free to give their own money to whatever causes they feel are just.

Just because most Americans like certain programs isn't justification for stealing the money to finance them. Are you saying that you need someone waving a gun in your face to make these "contributions" to your favorite programs, or is it just that you feel that waving guns in other people's faces is an acceptable means to make them pay for what you want?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Dude, if you have an idea to solve the problem of people who don't look rich getting ****ed with by the police, I'd like to hear it. And if you've got an idea to tidy up congress enough so that the congressmen will stop pandering to the rich with their little tax loopholes, I'd like to hear that too.

As a society we are in this all together. We are all interconnected through our government, and yet we just sort of sit back and ignore how the rich have FAR more power than everyone else in government, under the excuse that we don't always see it (which, in itself ignores that we're talking about the rich, who can afford to be secretive).

Since the people abdicated their position as watchdog over the politicians in favor of handouts and freebies, what makes you think anything can be fixed? The way the tax structure is now, more than half the voters don't pay tax at all, yet they manage to pick up freebies from the government. The people getting more from the government than they're paying in have no incentive to change the system. It's not just the "rich" that are scamming the system, it's practically everyone.

So since we're all in this society together, why should we single out the one group of people that produce more for special attention when most of the problem is you and your neighbor and your collective power in voting things for yourself?

Perhaps if we first got the government back to the Constitution (won't happen) we could then discuss special access and power politics. As it stands now, you're simply whining because one group is more visible, not that it has more power.

But until people drop the Marxist class warfare nonsense and identify the real problem, their own individual greed, things aren't going to get better.

Historically, things never get better. There's no reason why that will change for us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, yeah, if you lack the ability to complex thought. It makes sense because it's simple and easy. It doesn't make sense because it's unequal.

What is the ability to complex thought?
Contradictions cannot exist. Your premise is a contradiction.

Yeah, and we live in Candyland and the streets are paved with gold and the lightposts are made of peppermint. Meanwhile in the real world the police DO protect the rich and terrorize the poor.

Yawn. The man is keepin' the bruthas down, eh?

I have only been arrested once, yet I have been screwed with by the police on numerous occasions .

Your personal ancedote doesnt in any way add to the soundness of your argument.

True, and the nice roads in the suburbs really do a lot of good for the kids on the ****ed up roads in the projects

Once you agreed with me, why did bother with the rest?

You know full well that I wasn't talking about private security, so I'll just take that as an admission that you couldn't come up with a counterpoint.

In order for me to do that, you'd have to first present a valid point.
Get busy.

It's both, and ignroring one of the factors is ignorant. You put a lazy kid with parents that don't care in a good school, he'll still do poorly, but you put an average kid in a crappy school, he's gonna do a lot worse than an average kid in a good school.

Who is ignoring 'one of the factors'? Why, YOU did.
When you made the argument, excluding parental involvement, weren't you 'ignroing one of thr factors'?
Doesnt that make you ignorant?

Define "crappy school".
If a "crappy school" is the contrinuting factor in your scenariom how do you explain the kids that excell at 'crappy schools'.

Exactly, but for a lot of kids it's the only option. Not rich kids, of course.

The military is NEVER the "only option", for anyone.
And further, if you arent bring enough to make it in the profate sectory, its unlikely that you'll make it into the military.

Based on what? You didn't disprove a single one of my arguments, you are not in a position to declare my conclusion bunk.

I did, and I am.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, you see, in a free country, those people that don't like images like that are perfectly free to give their own money to whatever causes they feel are just.

Just because most Americans like certain programs isn't justification for stealing the money to finance them. Are you saying that you need someone waving a gun in your face to make these "contributions" to your favorite programs, or is it just that you feel that waving guns in other people's faces is an acceptable means to make them pay for what you want?

Yep. Nobody (or a lot fewer) will pay up if everyone else doesn't have to.

Whether it is "stealing" depends on your point of view. The only reason any of us has to anything we have is because the Govt allows it.