What's wrong with paying taxes?

[KafirChobee]

Clinton (BJ junky that he was) left Bush with a +$300Billion surplus - that's in yearly surplus of funds - you know?. Which Bush turned into a +$280Billion deficit - a year as soon as he could because he had to save the economy (say what?). Personally, I felt people had adjusted their incomes to their taxation to compensate for the benefits that they would reap in their futures (as becoming elderly - and without healthcare) - but, that more should have been done for those earning less than $20K a year.

Bush, on the other hand had the attitude that the poor-old-wealthy folk that paid for his presidency (and himself, his family, his inheritance) had to be compensated for earning him his presidency (God only knows what gifts he gave the 5 Justices that gave him the presidency). And, he did all in his power to compensate them for everything they had done to aid in the corrupt of the elections system. Hey, they been paid real well by all accounts we have seen thus far, especially the good old boy supplying the new voting machines (one must admire the audacity of someone willing to be the most corrupt president in history, by believing he can get away with it - because God is on his side).

Now, we pay the price. Not the wealthy of course - just the adverage American. Those that paid the price under Clinton, those that accepted having too - those that always have had to bear the burden while the rich people found ways around their having to contribute (both monetarily and by sending their sons into harms way -, I got my own tax attorney so I accept my own corruption to save a dime - but, I ain't rich). Seems fair? Eh? Atleast it seems to be the new GOP-way of things. Put a good spin on it and it all seems right. Hey, we be for the wealthy ... but it will trickle down ... to the Chinese and Indians getting your jobs.

So? What is wrong with paying fair taxes? What is wrong about those that earn more pay more? What is right about those that haven't earned it keep what their predicessors gained (as in inheritance tax). Is being born into wealth a justification for maintaining a status quo for the continuance to suppress everyone else? Or, being born more equal than the rest being able to maintain that quo? Maybe, forcing the rich or political to send their kids to public school ..... might force them to deal with it?

What's wrong with paying taxes? If they are fair? Say Starting at <$30,000 a year = 0%, just the standard sales taxes. $30K-100k, 5%$ + standards; 100-250K, 10-12%; 250-500k, 15%; 500k-1Million, 20%; 1M-3M, 30%; and Billionaires> pay up. Corporations that use USA labels and earn + $1billion 15%. Any Corporation that does business with the US government, cannot claim more than a 10% profit and must pay 15% in taxes on those profits. Any corporation having previosly claimed USA status and wishing to do business with us, equal part of equal paid.

Bingo, balanced budget.

Two, penalize companys (corporations) that have associated themselves with the US for more than say 20 years, that remove themselves from our protection to go elsewhere for profit or to use employment that is cheaper. In other words, disassociate - we as a nation no longer have a reason to uphold or defend their properties. Make that a known fact, and watch how many of theses (GOP) mavericks fly back to the fold. Or, think they can get get away with ignoring the warning - regardless, make it law - they have to become Chineese or stay with us (screw them).

I, realize this is a simplistic overview; but, it is closer to reality than Bush43's policys. And, that is reality. He has the power, but we know the truth.

The truth is, we have to raise taxes ... it is a matter of preferrance of on whom.

[Kanamori]

Why would anyone with money invest with high taxes and high interest rates? I'd keep my money pile to myself and wait for it all to drop. That isn't the way good economies are run. Bush's deficit has more to do w/ an entirely unbalanced budget (fiscal policies) than with his economic policies.

Wealth distribution is another story that isn't fixed with taxes...

[Crazed Rabbit]

You've developed a great plan for driving all big businesses out of the country and ruining the economy. Congrats. Its not too hard when you're using socialism for inspiration, though.

Crazed Rabbit

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Clinton (BJ junky that he was) left Bush with a +$300Billion surplus - that's in yearly surplus of funds - you know?. Which Bush turned into a +$280Billion deficit -

Wow we open he thread with a lie. Nice democratic talking point though. There never was any surplus and the projected one was not because of his tax increases but the fact that congress forced him to sign the balanced budget amendment.

What's wrong with paying taxes? If they are fair

Its already in the works its called the fair tax plan and it sure dont resemble your socialist solution.

Corporations that use USA labels and earn + $1billion 15%. Any Corporation that does business with the US government, cannot claim more than a 10% profit and must pay 15% in taxes on those profits. Any corporation having previosly claimed USA status and wishing to do business with us, equal part of equal paid.

Bingo, balanced budget.
.

You better go back to bussines 101. Corporations pay NO taxes. We do. They just pass it on to the consumer in the cost of their product. These days approximatly 23% of what you pay fr anything is covering the companies taxes on that product. Its the same thing with health care. Those of you who think your company is giving you free healthcare are being duped. If they werent paying for that they could pay you more money. Corporations in reality dont pay for anything. They exist for one purpose and that is to make money. When they cease to do so they cease to exist. This is cold hard reality.

[Spetulhu]

Wow we open he thread with a lie. Nice democratic talking point though. There never was any surplus and the projected one was not because of his tax increases but the fact that congress forced him to sign the balanced budget amendment.

How come Congress can't keep GW in line?

[PanzerJaeger]

Typical anti-upper class mentality shown in this thread. Wealthy people are not bad people.

[yesdachi]

Incorrect information, a biased perspective and a rant all in a thread-starting question . I can tell you are passionate about the topic from the length of the post and the effort put into it but this is an issue with many sides and I don’t think you are looking at it from a big picture perspective. The economy is very fragile and constantly moving, good decisions can effect the speed of the movement (thank you Greenspan) but it is still going to ebb and flow. Factors like the dot-bomb, outsourcing options, big business tax loopholes, mortgage rates, crazy government spending, and war are all things that have contributed to recession and a jobless recovery. Our economic woes were not caused by one thing and they can’t be fixed by one thing. And they certainly wont be fixed by raising taxes. Throwing money at the problem will not fix anything.

I don’t think anything is wrong with paying taxes as long as they are spent properly and paid by everyone.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Corporations don't pay taxes? Isn't that contrary to the Constitutional Amendment (14th?) that says Corporations are to be treated as people?

Did you bother reading the rest of the post or do you just like quoting things out of context. Sure they give tax money to the government but we are the ones who pay that tax in the form of increased prices on their products. A successful corporation pays for nothing. It makes money and thats its only reason to be. It looks like their paying taxes just as to many it looks like their getting free healthcare.

How come Congress can't keep GW in line?

Thios is the problem when one party has control over all three branches of government. How about asking why Bush cant keep congress in line as they are the ones who put forth the bills.

[Spetulhu]

How come Congress can't keep GW in line?

Thios is the problem when one party has control over all three branches of government. How about asking why Bush cant keep congress in line as they are the ones who put forth the bills.

I asked that question because it was said Congress kept Clinton in check.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There's nothing wrong with paying taxes. Everything in life has a price tag attached to it. And taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilised country. In Russia and the Congo nobody pays taxes, in Sweden and Denmark they tax the hell out of you.

Well I know what I prefer...


And Kafir has a good point. Multinationals are on the one hand avoiding paying their taxes in the US / the west while on the other hand benefiting from all the protection, stability, research etc. that their 'mother countries' are providing them. Let them pay up or leave indeed.

[Don Corleone]

Louis, be reasonable. Gawain's right, a successfully run corporation pays for absolutely nothing. It views any costs incurred in doing business as an expense and prices it's goods and services appropriately such that any cost is passed on to the consumer. Jacking up taxes on computers just means higher computer prices. It's a fairly simple paradigm.

With that mindset, why tax business at all? Why not tax the individuals that are taking the profits back out of the corproration, the shareholders, in the form of dividends or expanded stock offerings.

The problem with taxes is the legislature is not answerable to anyone. It's been said many times that there is no one person, or nowadays, there's no one group that understands everything that is in the US Federal budget.

Khafir, you really need to take some basic economics to recognize the difference between projected surpluses vs. realized ones, but other than that, you have a fairly valid point. Why is Bush spending money like a drunken sailor when he clearly doesn't have the revenue available to fund his spending programs?

I'm guessing this this came from Clinton's interview on ABC's 'This Week'. Just because Clinton has decided to bend reality in his shamless self-promotion doesn't make it so.

[Red Harvest]

Wow we open he thread with a lie.

Look who's talking.

There never was any surplus and the projected one was not because of his tax increases but the fact that congress forced him to sign the balanced budget amendment.

This is Gawains way of lying with convenient use of definitions. It is particularly hilarious that the "non-existent surplus" was used by Dubya and the GOP to support tax cuts that have mushroomed the deficits. So one minute they tell you there is a surplus so taxes must be cut, then the next there never was a surplus, *you* just imagined there was, so the GOP tricked you with the illusion.

If you do a simple total revenues vs. total outlays, you find that the U.S. Federal govt. did in fact run a surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000, and even 2001. The difference of course is the "Social Security Trust Fund" which doesn't really exist, except on paper.

In effect, Social Security is being used to make up for other revenue shortfalls, just has been done by every administration. The Social Security tax is a regressive tax, because it declines with income and is used to fund other debts...particularly the ones the GOP govt. is extending at the moment.

So if you want the cold hard truth. Income taxes were already too low to pay for the federal budget, without dipping into other sources of revenue like Social Security. The answer to the tax revenue shortfall? Lower tax revenue even more of course. If that doesn't fix it? Lower tax revenue again.

So much for fiscal responsibility.

Its already in the works its called the fair tax plan and it sure dont resemble your socialist solution.

With the whitewash used for the current deficit and BS used by the GOP discussing the state of the budgets, one can only imagine what their "fair tax plan" would look like. I know one thing is certain, the numbers won't even come close to adding up and any such plan will be sold with the same bald faced lies that have resulted in a $2 trillion dollar reversal already.

You better go back to bussines 101. Corporations pay NO taxes. We do. They just pass it on to the consumer in the cost of their product. These days approximatly 23% of what you pay fr anything is covering the companies taxes on that product. Its the same thing with health care. Those of you who think your company is giving you free healthcare are being duped. If they werent paying for that they could pay you more money. Corporations in reality dont pay for anything. They exist for one purpose and that is to make money. When they cease to do so they cease to exist. This is cold hard reality.

Scary thing is you really believe that hokum. Before the advent of Federal income tax, businesses paid most of the revenues. Now the citizens pay the bulk.

"Corporations in reality don't pay for anything," what a classic. That's of course used as the CEO and his executive team run off with phony profits, leaving the company broke, the employees out of work, and the clean up tab left to others.

[Don Corleone]

Red, again, think about it. What tax can you punish a corporation with that they're not going to just pass on to you in the form of higher prices?

I hear what you're saying, but you're confusing the rich people IN a corporation with the corporation itself. They're not the same. Using GAP accounting practices, all of the tricks they try to play to pay themselves will avail nothing, at the end of the day you'll have: Executive X making Y in the shareholders report. Even if the shareholders are dumb enough to vote for an overpriced salary, he's going to have to turn around and pay taxes, as an individual wage-earner.

If your goal is to soak the rich, and it appears to be, you have to go after the rich, not the corporation itself. By the way, 'soak the rich' means you'll see a lot more investment outside of America, but if your goal is to devalue the stock market, by all means, have at it.

[Xiahou]

Red, again, think about it. What tax can you punish a corporation with that they're not going to just pass on to you in the form of higher prices?

I can answer that. The tax that is crippling enough for a corporation to fold up and move to China instead of passing on the cost and becoming uncompetitive.

[Red Harvest]

Kafir,

Protectionism is unlikely to help and more likely to hurt. It is going to take time to adjust to a global market with extremely cheap labor--especially with a nation like China that doesn't play by the international rules.

To stay ahead, we have to be leading in fields. Unfortunately, U.S. R&D investment is shrinking rather than growing, and has been for years. Cutting R&D takes a long time to show its effect. In business it allows a company to reap more profits for a few years in a mature market. However, you can't restart R&D overnight, so once it is gone it isn't coming back for years, even if you start throwing money at the problem.

I have not minded paying my taxes. Percentage wise they are low for a developed nation, and there is plenty of infrastructure and services out there which I benefit from. As long as taxes are not exorbitant and are used to keep my country strong and developing, I'm satisfied. I do think it is ridiculous to pay $180 billion dollars extra (and growing) to service debt... It's like running a balance on credit cards rather than paying them down.

[Don Corleone]

I do think it is ridiculous to pay $180 billion dollars extra (and growing) to service debt... It's like running a balance on credit cards rather than paying them down.

Here, here!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes Don, Gawain is absolutely right. I just don't think it excludes what Kafir and I are saying. Yes, all costs are expenses for companies and are paid for by the consumer in the end. But not all of the income multinationals generate are made in the west. And not all the costs the western consumers make end up as costs for multinationals.

You want to produce your cartoon character clothing line in Southeast Asia? Fair enough. Moved your R&D department to India? Good for you. You've left nothing but a skeleton company located only in name in
America? Fine.
You left your headquarters in Illinois just so you can come crying to the US government about infringments on the intellectual property rights of your products by the Chinese? Well fork up.

Stability and rule of law is a service just like electricity or running water. With good reason, we send companies a bill for those too, even though in the end those bills are paid for by the consumer also. The good reason being that it produces the real costs involved in operating a business for each individual company.

[Red Harvest]

Red, again, think about it. What tax can you punish a corporation with that they're not going to just pass on to you in the form of higher prices?

I hear what you're saying, but you're confusing the rich people IN a corporation with the corporation itself. They're not the same. Using GAP accounting practices, all of the tricks they try to play to pay themselves will avail nothing, at the end of the day you'll have: Executive X making Y in the shareholders report. Even if the shareholders are dumb enough to vote for an overpriced salary, he's going to have to turn around and pay taxes, as an individual wage-earner.

If your goal is to soak the rich, and it appears to be, you have to go after the rich, not the corporation itself. By the way, 'soak the rich' means you'll see a lot more investment outside of America, but if your goal is to devalue the stock market, by all means, have at it.

I'm not interested in "punishing" them. That is where I differ from Kafir. However, I don't necessarily pay higher prices as a result of them being taxed more. Someone who *consumes* more may (assuming it is a domestic market.) However, *savers* would not be punished as much. I'm not a fan of our high leverage consumption based economic model where savers get taxed, and heavy borrowers get credited.

I'm not interested in soaking anyone. Rather I believe we need to be honest with out analysis of budget situations, and follow through on plans. The current path is completely irresponsible and is not sustainable.

People have talked of going to a "national sales tax" and all that...I don't think they realize what sort of shock that would have on this consumption based system, especially as folks quit buying big ticket items. (It would also be regressive in nature since the poorer classes spend a higher percentage of their income anyway.) Nor do folks appreciate how large that tax would be.

If we want to be in better fiscal shape, we need to match federal tax revenue with expenditures. We also need to get a handle on out of control things like health care. It consistently grows by double digit rates each year. The only time it didn't is about the time Universal Health Coverage was being discussed... The other part is of course encouraging investment for future tech, basic R&D. Without it, our standard of living is going to begin suffering greatly. We can only resist the pressure of ballooning Federal defecits, skyrocketing trade deficits, and runaway health care costs for so long before something enters runaway mode.

[Red Harvest]

I can answer that. The tax that is crippling enough for a corporation to fold up and move to China instead of passing on the cost and becoming uncompetitive.

Who needs a tax for that? They are moving to China without it. Manufacturing in the U.S. is disappearing. It's about cheap labor. The whole time they've been cutting R&D as well...despite some tax incentives for R&D.

[Don Corleone]

You want the US government to charge corporations for protecting patented intellectual property?

If a company relocates it's design and manufacturing overseas, that's less income tax the US receives and more that the foreign countries receive. Unless the CEO & the rest of the board are moving to New Delhi themselves, any money they wring out of that relocation is still going to be taxed while they're living large in their upper East Side penthouse. In doing this, tax policy is more direct and the effects (and therefore the merits) of the current taxation/spending programs are easily observable. Either corporate leaders think they're getting a good bang for their buck, and they take their income while living here and pay their taxes or they don't, and they relocate.

The situation you describe, where a corporation receives services when it's not paying taxes doesn't happen with individual tax payers. If Lee R. Raymond, CEO of Exxon Mobile decides he doesn't want to pay American taxes and moves to Shanghai, there's not much he can do to force the US to provide him with public services over there.

[Don Corleone]

If we want to be in better fiscal shape, we need to match federal tax revenue with expenditures. We also need to get a handle on out of control things like health care. It consistently grows by double digit rates each year. The only time it didn't is about the time Universal Health Coverage was being discussed... The other part is of course encouraging investment for future tech, basic R&D. Without it, our standard of living is going to begin suffering greatly. We can only resist the pressure of ballooning Federal defecits, skyrocketing trade deficits, and runaway health care costs for so long before something enters runaway mode.

Aah, you're so close! In truth, it's the opposite. You can always find ways to spend more money. You cannot always find more ways to make it. Eventually, raising taxes will not yield any additional revenue. Therefore, we need to match our expenditures to our revenue, not vice-versa. You can't start with the basic premise of "Okay, we're going to open the cookie jar, then we'll figure out how to pay for it". It's got to be 'this is what we have available to spend on ourselves. We need to decide how to divvy it up".

And if you want to control health care spending costs: institute common sense torte reform:
a- lawyers must be required to bill their clients, even if they lose (this business of if we lose, you don't pay encourages abuse)
b- you shouldn't be able to shop jurisdictions and
c- punitive damages should be given to the government, as revenue, not the plaintiff.

[Red Harvest]

Aah, you're so close! In truth, it's the opposite. You can always find ways to spend more money. You cannot always find more ways to make it. Eventually, raising taxes will not yield any additional revenue. Therefore, we need to match our expenditures to our revenue, not vice-versa. You can't start with the basic premise of "Okay, we're going to open the cookie jar, then we'll figure out how to pay for it". It's got to be 'this is what we have available to spend on ourselves. We need to decide how to divvy it up".

We are on the other side of the hump from where you think we are unfortunately. Cutting taxes has been reducing revenue, not increasing it. Regardless at the debt level we had/have we need to pay down before considering reducing taxes.

If taxes were something like 50%, then cutting them would almost certainly be a stimulus. With revenues running 16.3% of GDP...it has the opposite effect. If we were running the 2001 revenue rate of 19.8% we would be in balance overall with expenditures.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not talking about cutting taxes. I'm not talking about raising taxes. I'm talking about building a budget based off of what you expect to take in, and spend to that amount, not trying to set revenue goals based on your desired spending.

I actually agree with you that we are not at a local maxima on the tax rate v. revenue curve right now and we would most likely increase revenue by increasing taxes slightly. Not a lot but a slight bit. But in doing so, we should not say: "Okay, we want to spend an additional 100 billion next year, so we need to try to raise 100 billion". We should say "Okay, we need to increase our revenue. Our best guess is we can raise it about an additonal 75 billion. Therefore, we have an extra 75 billion to spend this year".

I think we need to cut spending and increase revenue, simultaneously and use all budget surpluses for the next 3 or 4 years to pay down our national debt. It's too large, and it's going to have a nasty affect on the housing market when the cost of borrowing starts to soar.

[Xiahou]

And if you want to control health care spending costs: institute common sense torte reform:
a- lawyers must be required to bill their clients, even if they lose (this business of if we lose, you don't pay encourages abuse)
b- you shouldn't be able to shop jurisdictions and
c- punitive damages should be given to the government, as revenue, not the plaintiff.

It's worth noting that the fastest growing parts of the budget are the healthcare entitlements of medicare/medicaid. While some sensible tort reform would help, I think a better way would be to make people more accountable for their own health. For example, if you're a morbidly obese chain smoker, your increased healthcare costs are required to be picked up by everyone else- even if you lead a meticulously healthy lifestyle.

I think this should be addressed by allowing insurance companies and government entitlements to to charge higher premiums/deductibles to people who lead clearly unhealthy lifestyles. The benefit would be two-fold. First, and most obviously, people whose lifestyles cost us more would pay more. Second, once you start hitting people in the wallet, most will take more responsibility in their own health. If being fat is costing you money every month, you'll have a tangible reason to deal with the problem.

[Red Harvest]

And if you want to control health care spending costs: institute common sense torte reform:
a- lawyers must be required to bill their clients, even if they lose (this business of if we lose, you don't pay encourages abuse)
b- you shouldn't be able to shop jurisdictions and
c- punitive damages should be given to the government, as revenue, not the plaintiff.

Not true. The nation spends about $1.3 trillion annually on healthcare, and about $6.3 billion on physician malpractice insurance.

It isn't torte reform that is needed. It is an outside body to set some rules and limit profits to a reasonable level. Right now, the medical industry seems to be running as a get rich at any cost scheme. It is certainly out of place for such an industry.

Want to save money? Simplify the system. Much of the expense now appears to be tied up in the insurance bureaucracy and paperwork. With the multitude of plans and players the cost of doing business is mostly wasted. That isn't about care or malpractice. It is about inefficiency.

The industry needs both streamlining, and a competitive environment. It sets most of its own rules, and that doesn't work. I have medical bills I refuse to pay for malpractice reasons. I have not sued...yet.

Punitive damages should go to the individual. They are the ones who suffered. I've seen the sort of crap these scam artists in the medical industry pull, and many should lose their licenses, but they don't because they are esssentially self regulated (much like the legal industry--isn't it ironic?) Victims get the short end of the stick most of the time. My hat is off to anyone that ends up a few dollars up versus the system.

When the patient finally has some decent rights and representation outside of a court, THEN I'll consider torte reform. Either way, it isn't what is behind rampant health care costs.

[Don Corleone]

Entitlement programs probably are the fastest growing, due to the number of baby boomers qualifying for Medicare. There's not much to be done about that. But that's a drop in the bucket. The #1 expense for doctors & hospitals is malpractice insurance. It's gotten to be so bad, in some particularly sue-happy states, like John Edwards' shangri-la North Carolina here, we're actually having a shortage of specialties with particularly high lawsuit rates, like Ob-GYN's. There's an expectation that if everything doesn't go perfectly, it's the doctor's fault and you should sue. Since it doesn't cost you anything, the lawyer waives his fee if you lose, why shouldn't you roll the dice? Hell, even settling can get you some serious cash. But wait, why is 66% of the judgement of it going to Dewey, Cheatam and Howe?

[KafirChobee]

Point is, there can exists a fair system. It simply takes a fair administration to lead us to it.

I never said a thing about defining or protecting tariffs and such, or that the government ought to consider this that or another thing to abuse the poor in this country anymore than they already have.

As for my lack of knowledge on economics? I did say my premise was an over simplification - not a solution; simply a perception of how it ought to work. Accepting that what is occurring at present (in terms of our taxation methods, system and proposed legislations - all benefitting the wealthy, privilaged, and corporate sets) is somehow practical, or for the good of ALL in the nation - well, it seems niave. Then again, I understand how voting against ones own self interests is viewed from some peoples' standpoint (philosophy: "what is mine, is mine. And, what is theirs, will be mine - if Bush keeps his promise" - and by god why else did we give $millions to DeLay for his campaign?) - me, I vote with my conscience (what is good for all is good for me).

Point is, there can be a simplified tax plan, and a compensation plan for those that fall below the poverty level - if we wanted it. Meaning, if we as a people realized the possibilities that by doing such an outlandish thing would benefit us - all of us (as in reduced crime, balanced budget, etal).

Paying Taxes is Patriotic, it is also a simple necessity - regardless of what one calls it. Doing it fairly? Well, it seems to be dependent on how much one contributes to the political system of a cetain party - or not. Seems to have worked out well for Haliburton and a number of others though (just look at the benefits from Katrina, after their landfalls in Iraq - wonderful thing knowing Cheney - still getting his stypence from them - something about a prorated salary? Or, is that kickback? Ot is after all $2Mil a year).

Still, Corporations pressed the issue to become singular entities - a single person before the law. And, to be treated as such. Now, with Bush, they have become superhuman entities - laws address them as specificly entitled individuals; a persons is f'd (imagine congress passing a law for you to file bankruptcy to dump your wife, your kids, your parents, your in-laws, and not be responsible for any incurred debts - as a matter of fact the government would be more than happy to pay for all of it - well, part of it ... the rest we can just forget about - pretend those promises made to those fools that believed them never existed. After all, they just be working peeps anyways. You know? the morons that pay their fair share of taxes). Corps get gov. buy outs and speciel loans, they can now claim bankruptcy and regnay (ms) on their promises to their employees to give them the retirement funds they paid into (gee, that seems fair, by GOP standards anyway). Point is, life seems to have become even fairer for some than others under the present governance.

Some no longer need to pay taxes at all, and some see nothing wrong with that idea. What is wrong with that picture? Where a Mother of two making $12K a year working two jobs pays taxes, an corporations don't. ?????

Argue how the GOP Congress has made it fairer for all of us. How their plan has balanced the budget thru trickle down economics, or that by benefitting the wealthy we really benefit the disenfranchised. or ..... what ever.

Point is, taxes are needed. Less we fall back into a pre-depression era mentality that it is every man for himself. Therefore, Corporations wanted to be equal in the eyes of the law - why not in the eye of the tax man? Why not in the eye of ethical responsability? Why not?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have yet to see an idea that makes more sense, fiscally or ethically, than the proposed "Fair Tax" concept.

-- Yes there would be a downward hiccough in revenues for a few years as E-bay became our number one marketer and used items became trendy. Wear and tear would result in a return to normal soon enough.

-- Your investments would not be penalized, saving money would not be penalized, and YOU would be in charge of another 20+ percent of your paycheck.

-- Lower income/no income individuals and families currently pay tax only to fund Social Security and Medicare, along with the taxes the rest of us pay for goods and services. Since the fair tax would also involve a form of refund check (equal for all), designed to return the cost of necessities many such families would actually pay fewer taxes, since the embedded tax on goods and services that currently exists would go down/be replaced by a tax for which they are compensated. They would more likely experience little change in their effective taxation. If there is a regressive element to this plan, it would affect middle and working class families by taxing their total wealth at a greater percentage than the total wealth of the wealthier groups. This, however, exists in the present system as well, so I don't see a loss here.

-- The "progressive" tax argument has always been that the wealthy benefit more from society than do those with less resources because their wealth allows them to get the best possible services etc., and that they should therefore shoulder a higher tax burden.

This is specious. Transportation, law and order, emergency services etc. are equally important for all, and maybe more so for those who would lack the funds to secure private equivalents. I can accept the need to exempt the near destitute or destitute from paying as their personal survival is and should be their primary concern, but fail to see the logic in why Donald Trump should pay more than I to have the same ambulance service available. If he wants to have a medevac chopper available to him and only him by contract, he has to pay for it in addition -- his business yeah or nay.

Even if you accept the idea that public services and the more esoteric benefits of society are enjoyed more by the wealthy, an income tax is not the way to address it. Only a tax on wealth could do that, and would require a law that establishes a specific tax based on a person's overall economic worth. Any other system simply encourages the wealthy to show no "income" or some such evasion. Income taxes hammer the entrepeneurs and small business owners who make the economy hum, they do not really impinge on created wealth or the power that obtains from it. If you want to tax wealth, then have the courage of your convictions and go after total worth above X with a tax (But watch the population of Monaco bounce!)

Businesses do, and always have, passed along as much of the cost of their own taxation to the consumers as the market would allow. This was true prior to the income tax, and would be true under the fair tax. The Fair tax seeks to create an economy wherein this tax was exacted once and only once at the point of retail sale for any new good or service. We would see little or no change in the cost of any good or service, but would not owe taxes on the profits from our yard-sales as we do now, and would, if we were careful spenders, spend less in taxes by increasing the service life of products we use or buyiung used goods. Wherein the harm?


I have yet to see anybody argue against the economics or ethicality of the proposed fair tax effectively. The only argument against it that holds water is that the current lobbyist/accountant'government pork system works well at keeping the powers that be in power so they'll never pass it -- and that one is a tough point.

Seamus

[bmolsson]

Taxes are fundamentally wrong. When you charge for something you should have something in return. So is not the case with taxes.

[Azi Tohak]

Taxes are fundamentally wrong. When you charge for something you should have something in return. So is not the case with taxes.

See, I agree with this. Why do I pay taxes for roads and administration? Because the country needs that, and I think paying for that is a reasonable investment. But then why do I also pay for poor and otherwise worthless people? They contribute nothing, and they don't pay for anything themselves, they rely on working people to survive. Why is that permitted?

Azi