It's doesn't hurt to see what others think. (Tax Cuts)

259 replies [Last post]
Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005

I know there are very few moderates or left-leaning folk here - but sometimes its wise to just see what other citizens think.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/01/poll-should-tax-cuts-be-extended-f...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
What others think - Tax Cuts

It doesn't hurt to see what other citizens are thinking.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/01/poll-should-tax-cuts-be-extended-f...

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Good morning DM

Realizing that denial of extending the Bush era tax cuts for those earning in excess of $250K would actually raise the tax rate on some 700,000 small businesses to that of the highest in the world would effective stymie any potential economic growth, do you not see room for compromise?

I can not believe that anyone on this blog would argue that raising an individuals tax rate like, say John Kerry or John McCain, would be any big deal. (We both know it is their spouses who are the real bread winners.) But to raise tax rates on small business, is just plain dumb.

Think about it, and you just might agree that some sort of consuption tax might be doable.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Good Morning Mike King

My knowledge of 'small business tax' is limited. I understand that most 'small' businesses file as 'individuals'. I do know that if one has a small business that is earning between $250 and $500 thousand a year - a knowledgeable tax attorney can assist them in paying much less tax than I'm paying right now. If one's business is 'clearing' more that $500,000 a year - it is no longer a 'small business' and Congratulations to them in this economy!! Any small business owner who thinks that he/she is saving money by not hiring a good tax accountant is foolish IMO. 98% of Americans fall in the under $250,000 bracket - business or individual. What I worry about is taking away the 'mortgage' deduction. Many retirees’ need that deduction. If my understanding is incorrect - please correct me. Thanks.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
DM

I'm no tax attorney, but employ the services of one. Which, I believe is at the heart of the problem. Americans, by in large, search for every little advantage they can get their hands on when filing tax returns, and I'm certainly no exception. Our current code is much too burdensome, complicated, and designed to benefit specific sectors. Were this not true, we wouldn't need an IRS at its current level.

Your worry of the mortgage deduction is well founded as it is likely to be phased out (got to pay for those folks teaching Africans how to wash their privates, you know). Sorry to cite that example, but in my opinion America has much less of a revenue problem than it does a spending problem.
For decades no one in government has been accountable for deficit spending, entire states and municipalities operate on federal handouts while refusing to curb their spending.

Perhaps if as a country we could get to the point of the citizens knowing what their tax liability is and paying, and government realizing what its revenue is and operating within its means, you and I could have less worry about the future for our grandkids.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Thanks Mike

In other countries, Americans who volunteer are known for their generosity and compassion. I do think we need to know from the state department where our money (tax payer funds) is going in foreign countries . . and why. I am pleased that we are able to help out in catastrophic situations . . .and many donate private funds and services in those instances. Many Americans have a spending problem - and the financial institutions have taken advantage of this weakness. And it seems that when we stop spending - our economy is in trouble. Without jobs, we can't spend. What a mess. Stay warm - and have a nice day.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Still Spending

What an interesting turn of events. The party that wants to cut spending is 'happy' with a deal that extends the tax-cuts to the wealthy, extends the tax-cuts to 98% of middle class Americans, and ADDS OVER 90 BILLION to the deficit. Oh well, at least the American people, who were held hostage in this deal, will be able to have unemployment checks continue AND have their tax-cuts extended. I guess we can't start STOP THE SPENDING yet. . . the wealthy must be treated FAIRLY. I didn't realize that I lived among so many wealthy people here in Fayette County who felt they were being treated unfairly. I noted that unemployment is on the rise in Fayette County - I hope that this affects none of you. By the way - taxpayers are getting a 26% return on some of the stimulus funds loaned out. . .not a bad return.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Typical Repub Hypocrisy

They demanded for a while that yet another extension of unemployment benefits(enough already!) "be paid for with cuts in spending." Uh, where was that same demand as far as extending the tax cuts, and I don't just mean on the top 2% either. Where was that uproar?

Dems can be some of the least logically thinking people on the planet, but when it comes to lying over and over and "do as I say not as I do," they have nothing on shameless Repubs who can only "lead" when they are on the sidelines whining and then fail miserably once they are in power. Well, they have their chance now with control of the House and a Prez that obviously is going to move toward the center exactly like Clinton did, so let's see what they do this time around.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
A 26% return DM?
Davids mom wrote:

By the way - taxpayers are getting a 26% return on some of the stimulus funds loaned out. . .not a bad return.

Really, a 26% return. If we are getting a 26% return, why hasn't it appeared in my bank account yet?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi

Have you paid your taxes?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Taxes? I don't pay no stinking taxes.

Timmy "the tax cheat" Geithner and Charlie Rangel got away without paying taxes for years. I've decided to follow their example and do the same.
The politicians just waste it anyway.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Kawfi

Why not cheat?
It is estimated that the federal government and the states also, only collect about 85% of the taxes due legally.

There is an enormous under the table economy that we tolerate and contribute to ourselves. Cash, not checks or credit cards, causing a separate under the table economy.

"Contract" work usually avoids up to 60% tax payments--to income tax and social security tax. Does anyone really think 1099 when issued are all checked, no they are not---only when a person is audited, and not then most times.

Corporations and very wealthy people however skip paying as much taxes as are legally due, because of all kinds of deductions and donations.

If it all could be collected, we would have no problem.

I might buy a National sales tax instead providing those other than workers (corporations, etc.) were required to fork over their percentage tax upon gross income and do it immediately each week.
That is not going to happen however---many expect the working people to pay all of the tax.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
It Would Be

Hard to Cheat with the Fairtax. It just makes sense. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#3

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GA Pat

Why would you want everyone to pay between 25-35% "fair tax?"
Plus state, city,school, and property taxes?

You do know how many people are not working and won't have that kind of money to buy necessities?

Right now approximately half of us work and half of us do not work for various reasons : Unemployed, handicapped, all of the military families nearly, teenagers, people on retirement- including Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, people in hospitals and prisons, people working part-time or for extremely low wages, college students (a bunch), and...

I could go on but that should be enough to indicate that exceptions will start almost immediately.

It is anything but fair to 80% of us.

Put a new tax on items not necessary for life- (yachts, big autos; restaurant meals, and such); Tariffs at the borders; licenses to develop unnecessary things; alcohol; tobacco; and so forth.

I really don't want to argue this further since it is a useless thought anyway--it will never happen.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Look at The Prebate (linked above)!

The Fairtax does not punish the poor, they will get the prebate . All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The prebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the prebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. I have read both of Boortz's books, this thing could work, check it out. -GP

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Another point

is everyone will pay taxes.

Every person be it a visitor from another Country to Illegal Aliens will have to pay taxes based on purchasing.

The more money you spend the more tax you pay. This is the only truly "progressive" tax structure.

The Rich who spends the most per capita will also pay the most.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
The New Fairtax Mantra

Think the Libs would buy this slogan? Vote for the Fairtax, Punish the "Rich"! Hmmmm....We might be on to something. -GP

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Nah-Logic completely escapes them

If it cost them control they will never go for it.

But building in a little wealth envy might get it through however.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Fair Tax= More Govt control

and more government manipulation of the tax code in order to advance whatever the government agenda is at the time. The idea and total unworkability of the Prebate and how easily the Prebate could be altered on whims of politicians makes Fair Tax a terrible idea.

A flat tax, VAT, major overhaul of the tax system and IRS, certainly has my support, but more government checks going out every month and to the majority of people is NOT any kind of answer.

Starting with simplifying the entire tax code and then move on from there. Stop with ideas of the government sending out checks to everyone once a month. Talk about making people even MORE dependent on government........

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Fair Tax is Simple

Nothing could be more convoluted than the current Tax Code with it's Gestapo IRS. Punish the Rich, Support the Fairtax. -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
There they go again.....

Last week:

Robert W. Morgan wrote:

And the Fair Tax does in a way punish the rich - sort of.

This week:

Georgia Patriot wrote:

Think the Libs would buy this slogan? Vote for the Fairtax, Punish the "Rich"! Hmmmm....We might be on to something. -GP

The Fair Tax is a fraud that redistributes the tax burden from the rich to the middle class.

and about that "punish the rich"....Really?

Some "punishment".

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Bacon

Do you even know how the Fairtax is structured? Are you familiar with the Prebate? What do you think your so-called 'Rich" do with thier money, sit in a room counting it? The Fairtax does away with all of the "loopholes", I doubt the "rich" are excited about the Fairtax. -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Yes I do!

Your buddy Robert Morgan asked the same tired Fair Tax questions last week, and I answered them HERE

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Elimination of All Loopholes

You think the so called rich pay anywhere near their tax rate? I would wager the elimination of all the tax loopholes for the rich would bring in more revenue, not less. -GP

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Give up GP

Crisp is a lost cause, why waste your time?

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Punish The Rich

Should appeal to the same ones that like other catchey slogans, you know, like "Vote For Change" and "Yes We Can". I had to keep it simple, Vote For The Fairtax Because It's All George Bush's Fault was just a little long. -GP

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Mises.Org Smashes Fair Tax Notion!

GP, from your friends at mises.org.

http://mises.org/daily/1814

A really good butt-whuppin of the fair tax notion

Have a great day!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Mises Fear Fairtax is Too Progessive!

And the liars in Washington could not be trusted to eliminate the IRS. The article also states the 23 percent is way too high. I read entire article and have a totally different perspective than you. You better watch out reading over at Mises, you might catch come disease, like Commonsensistis! -GP

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
At What Rate Do Taxes Become Too High?

For the writer of the article and other Mises.orgians, any rate above 0% is too high. I quote from the article:

"But like the calls for "fair trade" instead of "free trade," the FairTax is a fraud because it is based on the fallacy that government theft (taxation) should be done in a "fair" manner instead of eliminated altogether."

So, GP, at what rate does theftation become 'too' high for you? If it is 10%, why not 9.99% or 10.1%? If 1%, why not 0.9% or 1.15%?

As for mises.org, I was on to mises before mises was cool. Been there, done that, then moved on to reality.

Have you booked that Disney World trip yet? If that is too far, I think Dixieland Fun Park is open in the cold months. Cheaper too.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Spending

Is TOO HIGH! I could live with a 10 percent tax, then maybe I would have enough left to go to Dixieland! -GP

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
How High is Too High?

So, you endorse theft by government up to 10% of your income? Where do you get the 10% figure? How high is too high? I often hear this complaint, but how do you decide what level is too high?

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
I Figure

If 10 percent is good enough for Jesus it should be should enough for caesar. -GP

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Show Me in the New Testament

where it mentions tithing 10%. Tithing is an Old Testament concept, which I believe was only to be paid to Levite priests, who had no land or inheritance. If I remember correctly, the NT only mentions giving with a glad heart--no specific percentage. BTW, tithe actually means 10% itself.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
I was using

"good enough for Jesus" as a figure of speech, an euphenism, but I am glad to know you read the Bible! Malachi 3:10 is my favorite tithe related verse: "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows." I say cut spending instead of raising taxes. -GP

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Old Testament fullfilled....

......New Testament must say somewhere to cheat on taxes!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
That's in there

you just have to be a politician to get to read it, you know, like Charlie Rangel and Timmy Geitner! But thank you very much sir, your response has me searching/studying the Bible and Net for an even greater understanding of God's word! -GP

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Dept of HHS Constitutional?

GP, isn't the Department of Health & Human Services unconstitutional?

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
The problem with entitlements

is once they are doled out they can only grow. Our country is being destroyed by the money spent on well meaning programs. The Department of Health and Human Services is not mentioned in the constitution unless you use the general welfare clause. The Department of Health and Human Services encompasses a giant and sprawling collection of agencies and programs. Its 2010 budget of $869 billion represents almost one-quarter of total federal spending. The department operates more than 400 different subsidy programs, including the massive and fast-growing Medicare and Medicaid programs.The projected growth in Medicare and Medicaid will create a national fiscal disaster in coming decades unless the programs are restructured and cut. Unfortunately, the 2010 health care law expanded federal health spending and will likely make America's looming fiscal crisis worse. Spending must be gotten under control, it will not matter how much we like a program if there is no money to pay for it. Tough choices ahead.-GP

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
There is NO problem with most entitlements

The Constitution was never intended to dictate how we finance our government, how much or what.

It is about forming a government and running it.

We vote all this other stuff in!

Doesn't even tell us we can't be Islamic!

Doesn't even tell us we can't be Talibanic.

Doesn't say banks can't finagle us out of business!

Doesn't stop developers from building too much on credit.

Doesn't say I have to wear clothes.

It did say once women and people who didn't own property couldn't vote and slavery was OK. We even housed troops in any house we wanted to house them.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
There IS a problem with entitlements

The problem is SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THEM. Spending is out of control and it seems all common sense has left America. Entitlements are creating a whole class of dependant lesser citizens, becoming large enough to vote themselves more. The constitution called for Congress to control the currency. Control of the currency has been turned over to a group of bankers, the FED. The FED is buying it's own debt! We must stop spending money we don't have(unless your goal is to bring down the system). Ron Paul said it best: "The Federal Reserve is the chief culprit behind the economic crisis. Its unchecked power to create endless amounts of money out of thin air brought us the boom and bust cycle and causes one financial bubble after another. Since the Fed’s creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 96% of its value, and by recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed continues to distort interest rates and intentionally erodes the value of the dollar." -GP

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GA Patriot

You make little sense.

If a group is large enough to vote themselves something then isn't that democracy?

SAs to the recession, if it weren't for the Federal reserve we would right this minute have a depression.
They didn't cause it, we did by too much credit and false assets---no one at the fed overspent until they had to save us.

I have told you several times what caused this recession---it is not welfare or social security or any of the little thinga that aggravate you like earmarks and foreign aid.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
A Democracy?

Like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner? Besides, we a not a democracy, we are a republic....but you knew that. And you really believe that FED saving us BS? I didn't get saved, neither did the stockholders in GM, but if you were in the union you sure got some payback. Socialists love screwing with Capitalism and then saying, look, "Capitalism doesn't work"! Stop the bailouts, and where in the constitution does it allow government to own private industry?? -GP

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Doesn't say they can't own GM!

They bought stock as an investment----it has been paid back now below the level of "ownership."

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Wrong

Right, they bought stock as an investment, just like all the previous stockholders had done, but wait...what happened to the REAL STOCKHOLDERS? And it has been paid back? More BS, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions... What a bunch of crooks. Where specifically is the Constitution is the Enumerated Power that allows the Federal Government to own private industry? Here is the list to make it easier : Borrow money
Regulate commerce among the states
Regulate naturalization
Regulate bankruptcies
Coin money
Fix weights and standards
Punish counterfeiters
Establish post offices
Establish post roads
Record patents
Protect copyrights
Create federal courts
Punish pirates
Declare war
Raise an army
Provide a navy
Call up the militia
Organize the militia
Makes laws for Washington, DC
Make rules for the Army and Navy
Over the years they've used the Necessary & Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and Supreme Court penumbras to give themselves powers the Constitution doesn't permit. James Madison federalist 45:"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce." Our Country needs to pass H.R. 450,it reads: "To Require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes." We also need to need to pass the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA)SB 1319 https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/87/background maybe this will happen in 2013. -GP

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Courthouse??

I have NEVER said entitlements or the FED caused the DEPRESSION that we are in now. We have however been talking recently(at least in this thread) about raising taxes and that I see excessive spending as the bigger problem. We will have to disagree on "too big to fail" and the FED saving us too, sometimes you must fall before you learn how to properly walk. And yes, I along many others feel the FED is unconstitutional. -GP

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
The Federal "Reserve"

Is just as it's name implies, a "reserve" bundle of credit available to the "world."
All institutions have a "reserve," even PTC.
PTCs is drawing interest, so is the stuff issued by the Federal Reserve.
The money is doled out as needed--not in a sack full of cash! A credit line actually.

Without it the banks, auto companies, and most commercial enterprises would be gone along with the stock market!!!!!!

Try studying the thing a little. It is a survival kit.

Could anyone have a home if they had to pay cash for it? Or a car? Or a college education?

Lack of regulation allowed crooks to take advantage and they are mostly now in the Caymans!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
The Federal Reserve

The Constitution dictates that congress is to control the currency. the Fedral Reserve is a group of bankers creating money out of thin air. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/100305jekyllisland.htm -GP

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Ron Paul Just Parroting

what he reads on mises.org. At least give credit to the Austrian economists that worked so hard to develop this theory and not Ron Paul. The work of von Böhm-Bawerk, von Mises, Menger, and Rothbard should be given due credit, not the words of a Texas poser like Paul.

True the Fed has done a miserable job of managing the value of the dollar, but it ain't unconstitutional. Get Real.

Also, how do you explain boom-bust cycles that happened prior to the creation of the Fed? Got any theories on that?

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Ron Paul Is His Own Man

And doesn't need to Parrot anyone. But it looks like things might get interesting, because on Thursday, House Republican leaders announced that Representative Ron Paul of Texas, will become the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Fed. -GP

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Interesting Times

Yes, that will indeed be interesting. But, he is still just parroting what he has read on mises.org and the books sold there. No original thinking on his part.

As for the Fed saving the world, from your friends at Fox News.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/01/fed-unveils-financial-cris...

Now, one can legitimately argue that the Fed allowed the real estate bubble to occur, but the Fed also stepped in to prop up the commercial paper market, which is what oil is to an engine. Had the commercial paper market completely collapsed, you very might well be living off the supplies in the doomsday bunker under your house.

More than the Fed, I fault Robert Rubin and his push to do away with Glass-Steagall.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - nice

copy paste job from mises.com. You really haven't read any of this have you pal?

What's the main tenet of Human Action? How does it relate to Ron Paul? Give us a little essay on this.

You somehow object to civilation, you know the part about how thought is past from one generation to the next? Your thesis that no one has an orginal thought therefore since no thought is orginal we should simply discount it when it comes from another human from a different age.

So, since you can't or won't name a book, give us some orginal thought.

Waiting, PTCO.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO Yes I Have Read

all that stuff and more. It's been a long time. I told you, I was into mises before mises was cool. I did not copy and paste. I always note that when I do. It has been a long time since I read any of the von Mises stuff, but the main point I took away from Human Action was that all that can be said about human action is that humans act to alleviate discomfort. In my view, this is entirely correct and does explain nearly all facets of human action. Brillant thinking in my view. As for the rest, I don't remember so well, as von Mises is very dry and his writing must be extremly difficult to translate from German. I much prefer Rothbard for pleasure reading, as he had a sense of humor. I am not going to write you and essay--are you going to come over to my house and wash my car? If you want an essay, write it yourself. As for books, I did recommend some of Krugman's stuff, as well as John Kenneth Galbraith. There is also some Indian guy (not native American) that has written some good stuff on progressivism or whatever you want to call it. Another book that you might want to read is Envy-A Theory of Social Behavior. It ties in with some libertarian writings, by Rothbard I think, that the key to capitalism flourshing is the taming of envy. Some attribute this to religion, particularly Protestantism, but I am not so sure about the protestantism part. Do you care to comment on envy theory? I have some orginal ideas on this, but will save that for my book and not give it away for free here.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Dept of HHS Constitutional?

GP, isn't the Department of Health & Human Services unconstitutional?

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
It does make sense - if you can think

The Fair Tax does make sense for all the obvious reasons. Problem is getting simple-minded people to understand that it replaces all Federal income tax. And the prebate is pure genius, but again it won't catch on until the simple-minded (and poor - they go together, you know) learn that they will be better off than they are now - paying about the same for things, but getting a $3or400 per month head start.

By far the hardest thing for the simple-minded to understand is how the current imbedded taxes will be mostly washed out. That requires more than a third grade education and sadly I think this is the one issue that will be demonized and misrepresented by the control freak politicians.

Still, I would like to see some candidates for House and Senate come forward and run on just this one issue. Might prove interesting. And if Steve Brown can get elected by promising to stop some road that is already half-built, that shows that all things are possible.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Mud-Correct

The knee jerk reaction of the progressive party against the Fairtax is rooted in baseless commonalities.

You have to believe that the current system is the best we can get and no other system could replace it. We do not know what a system of Fair or Flat taxes would look like, however, all things considered it would have to be better than what we currently have.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Yes, but the Progressive/liberal population is shrinking

As stated before, they were at 20% of the total, while inependents were over twice that. The wild-eyed, rabid, anti-Christmas, anti-flag, anti-God group won't go away, but they are a heck of a lot less than 20%. So now (meaning 2011) is the time to promote te Fair Tax and cater to the growing independent group that is seeing the moochers defecting from the Obama zombie mindset because he didn't deliver enough goodies in his 2 years. They will love the prebate. Real independents that pay taxes will love the IRS going away. Educated independents and Republican voters who like it best when the economy is robust will like the boost to the economy and job growth the Fair tax will bring.

If you add all that up, you'll get 70% minimum in favor of the Fair Tax. Of course it has to be explained properly and simply and those that demonize it should be put down with calm facts and logic. I can even see Obama caving in and supporting the Fair Tax after he is relected. Again, he knows catering to the dwindling uber minority hard left (10% by the 2012 eletction) is not a winning strategy. He will look to the center and the Fair Tax has enough good points that he can twist it around, make it his idea and that will be his legacy. He has just shown this week that he is more flexible than I ever thought possible.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
RWM wanna be

All on Social Security and Welfare and Medicaid and all making less than 40,000 (or whatever) per year will get their great big monthly DOLE, huh?

Here is what would happen to those checks of 3-400 dollars per month:

They would never be increased for inflation. More added to dole every year.
SS would be cut back due to that income.
In a recession or budget balancing frenzy the checks would stop!
About half of those getting them would let their kids go hungry--buy lottery and whiskey with it. (or are you going to "regulate" them?

I can't wait to get my DOLE check!

This is by far the worst "idea" since the Ponzi Schemes! (No, maybe the bundled, worthless, Wall Street Mortgages was).

Just remodel the IRS form to NO DEDUCTIONS and a 5% minimum tax on everyone up to livable wage; then 10,15,20,25, and 30% every 15,000 above that up to a max of 30%. Corporations also.

Do I have to graph it for you?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
It'll never happen Robert W.

The main problem with political support of the FairTax is that the "take home 100% of your paycheck" misrepresentation is revealed. The taxes you now pay are deducted from your paycheck. When businesses don't pay those taxes, your paycheck will be reduced by the size of your deducted taxes. You'll get 100% of your paycheck after it is reduced by your now withheld taxes. That is a major component of the business savings that allow goods to be produced 23% cheaper. In fact, it is over half, 12% of the 23%.

Do you agree that paychecks will be reduced, or do you believe that everyone is suddenly going to get a 23% raise?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Jeff

I figured when the "fair tax" stuff came up again we might hear from you!

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Jeff C..

Good to see you back here.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Well Jeff, if those are the only 2 choices, I'll say c.

Meaning None of the above.

How in the world can you arrive at a conclusion like that - business don't pay taxes (except for 1/2 of ss) - We Do! If there is no income tax or ss deductions, the withheld payments stop and everyone will get to keep more of their paycheck. It is not a raise, it is certainly not 23%, it is 7% plus Medicare deductions plus whatever you have told your employer to deduct - so it varies with each person. But it all goes away and you get 100% of your gross pay minus deductions for state taxes and maybe health insurance if that is part of your compensation package.

Now you are correct about political support being the major problem, but not because of an alleged, imaginary misrepresentation, but instead the loss of power by the old-time career pols. That's why I think some people from both parties need to run in 2012 pledging to abolish IRS and adopt the Fair Tax. Nancy and Harry will be footnotes (footstools?) in history by January 2013 and the House and Senate will be made up of a lot more
free-thinking independents who can actually get this thing done. Power back to the people.

Unless of course you really like the present system and the sputtering economy and current leadership. Are you not a little bit embarrased by the House members who think that the Obama/Republican compromise is not enough punishment for the achievers? Or the rich, or the Billionaires, to stay in step with the new liberalspeak.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
FAIR?

You are nuts.

Income tax also must be moved from payroll deduction to sales tax!

How in hell will the feds get it otherwise?

When that occurs one is NOT going to get to keep what was being deducted from his check for income taxes as a larger paycheck! The business would have to pay that and they certainly won't.

Look, the money either has to come from tax deductions at payroll, or from sales taxes.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Bonkers, I have a suggestion that may help you

Perhaps you could benefit by reading some other writers who don't start with "you are nuts". That is a little off-putting to some people and they may choose to not read any more. I, of course, do not care, but others may.

Let's start with Peggy Noonan today in the WSJ - you can read today's article without a subscription by looking it up on Drudge. It is a well-written, well-researched and well-constructed article that outlines what is wrong with Prezbo's approach to leadership and she makes her point perfectly without name calling or using profanity. And all her thoughts track perfectly from one paragraph to the next. I even agree with her conclusion that Hillary is the only Dem that can wrest the nomination from Obama and then win against whichever boring Republican is running - they haven't really picked very well the last few times, INMHO.

I don't expect you to ever approach Ms. Noonan's level of writing or intellect, but please read and enjoy.

And JeffC, if she chooses to write about the Fair Tax, I will let you know.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
You've misunderstood Robert W.

Your position that business don't pay taxes is erroneous and illogical. You're saying that the amount that a business pays to the government that they withhold from your paycheck is not a cost item to them?

Here's a quote from Boortz's blog:

"On a larger scale real wages will rise to the extent to which the nation’s employers decide to return the embedded costs of their employee’s income and payroll taxes to the employee. Likewise, the cost of the products or services produced by the employer will be reduced to the extent to which that employer retains all or a portion of those income and payroll taxes together with the other taxes on capital and labor eliminated by the FairTax. Once again, a zero-sum, revenue neutral game.

Now, let’s elaborate on the “keep 100% of your paycheck” line that appears in The FairTax Book. It is certainly true that after the FairTax becomes law there will be no more withholding from your paycheck for any federal taxes. What you earn is what you get. This is not to say that your gross pay will equal what it was before the FairTax. This will depend on what your employer does when the embedded costs represented by the tax burden you have passed on to your employer disappear. One thing is certain: You will suffer no decrease in real or net earnings — the amount of each paycheck you deposit into your bank account every other week. The “keep 100% of your paycheck” concept can more easily be applied to those who either change jobs or come into the labor force after the implementation of the FairTax. A new worker will negotiate a wage with an employer knowing that the amount negotiated will be the amount that worker receives every two weeks … no deductions. Likewise, when you change employers you, too, will negotiate a wage that will not be subject to withholding, and you will get 100% of your wages in each paycheck."

The important part is: "You will suffer no decrease in real or net earnings"
Here's Dr Jorgenson answering questions on the Free Republic blog:

At 06:41 PM 8/24/2005 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Jorgenson,
Excuse me for my lack of understanding of your answer, when you say "workers would keep that after-tax pay" are you saying that if they are making $1000 a week now, and paying $200 payroll+income taxes now, that under the FairTax you were assuming that workers would get paid $800 and keep all of that? Or are you saying that you meant they would make $1000 under the FairTax?
Regards,
Rob xxx
Dr Jorgenson responded:
August 24
Dear Rob,
I am saying that the worker would continue to receive the after-tax amount of $800. Prices received by producers would decline to cover the cost of after-tax wages to workers and after-tax dividends and interest to investors. However, taxes paid at the retail level would include the Fair Tax.
Best,
Dale

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
MUD

You do know that most high school graduates now have a pretty good 3rd grade education---they can read some and write little.

Also about 85% of so-called college grads do a little better in that they can do long-division if they lay down their calculators, know how to text, have a sheep-skin which entitles them to a job trial.

Then there are the graduate college people--Masters degrees and PhDs.
You can't understand a thing many say or write. Most are bought off the Internet or from Podunk U. (Atlanta School teachers).

They have no liberal arts knowledge, no history knowledge, no common sense knowledge, and certainly don't know how to work for something other than money!

We are what, 23rd in the world with real educational sense?

An 8th grader in 1925 knew more than a PhD now about common sense or development.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Dm and wealth envy

DM you do understand that the top 5% pays over 50% of all Federal Tax liability.

The Top 10% pays almost 70% of all Federal Tax Liability.

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."

According to the IRS almost 47% have no Federal Tax Liability and in fact almost 30% of that group actually receives taxpayer funds called the "Earned Income Tax Credit" EARNED????

So just how is it fair that about half of Americans who have no "skin in the game" wants more from a group that already shoulders the largest share of the burden?

btw- The Wealthy owns and operates most of the Small Businesses as well as they are the ones that invest in those same businesses.

Now take away more funds from this group do you still think they will invest and hire more of the unemployed?

Oh and allowing the wealthy to keep the money they EARNED is not a tax cut. It has been the rate for 10 years. It's their money not the Governments.

The Government overspent and then counted on raising taxes to offset their spending spree. So they can whine all they want about adding to the deficit. They spent it they own it.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observrofu

There is no way that I would sanction keeping Americans who earn less than $250,000 a year from receiving a tax-cut at this time. So you go on and join the others who used this as leverage to get the wealthy an additional break during these economic times. Who benefits? Follow the dollar. The same corporate heads that have you believing that you're helping the economy by filling their pockets. We’re still spending GP.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Wow, you can edit, why can't I?

Do you have access to the server at the Citizen? BTW, You left the GP at the end. I am not ObU, but he does make a very cogent argument. -GP

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM-Respectfully you are full of it

DM the "Rich" are people too. They are not some foreign land owners that do not contribute to society in general. Yours and the Progressive attacks notwithstanding leave out a simple fact.
The Constitution provides relief for unfair taxation. If you tax one class of people and not others that violates the spirit of the 16th Amendment.

Now I know how progressive's feel about the Constitution but there it is. You cannot "fairly and lawfully" tax one without taxing another.

I know we are doing it already still doesn't make it legal.

Here is a quick economic analogy for you.

You are given $100. You go to the store and purchase $150.00 worth of goods. Now you only have a $100.00 you explain that your rich neighbor promised they would give you another $100.00 so not only can you pay the $50 back you will spend an additional $50 when you do.
So the store gives you credit for the $50.00.

You leave and go to your rich neighbor and ask for the $100. They decided not to give you the money.

You go to the store and claim your overspending was their fault.

This is the argument that you and others are using to claim the rich and Republicans are raising the deficit from extending the Bush Tax cuts and not raising the rates.

Nonsensical at best.

Do the rich get richer. Of course and it is us the non-rich that benefit. Contrary to popular belief they do spend money a lot of money. That money provides jobs.

Landscapers, Pool Cleaners, Maids, and other assorted support ancillary services. These in turn take their pay and spends it down stream.

Classic "Trickle Down Economics" DM. It works every time.

They invest in business. Without rich investors I would not be were I am today employing 45 people.

The Rich gave me money.
I bought equipment and supplies. A building and started hiring.

All with money from the "Rich". The money I spent enriched others.
The money I gave them enriched still other people. The cycle goes on. I paid the loan back with interest. The Rich got a little richer.

Trickle up economics is a joke. How does taking money away from me to give it to the recipitant class enrich me at all?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Good post, Observer. DM will now finally understand

I mean even Obama understands it after yesterday, so DM will not be far behind. The wealth envy thing is so foolish and even Prezbo (through his endless polling) has figured out that it is better to annoy the 10% or so on the hard-core left wing than the 30-40% independents who will seal his fate in 2012. Thanks to talk radio, Fox News and the internet, Prezbo and other shallow politicans are learning that talking in sound bites is not enough anymore. American voters are still woefully undereducated about real issues, but the tide is beginning to turn against Obama and his harmful agenda. After all, when does the hope and change kick in? Two years - well we are there. Three years? - after the next round of unemployment benefits runs out? Or 4 years when Bobby Jidal, Sarah Palin and others start looking like responsible alternatives to this empty suit and his controllers.

Again, congrats on an excellent post. Look forward to DM climbing onboard the trickle down economc freight train.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Something I Remember From My Youth

One of Aesop’s enduring fables tells the story of a man and wife who owned a goose that laid one golden egg every day. But they convinced themselves the goose wasn’t making them rich quickly enough. So, they decided to kill their moneymaker in order to open up the goose and get their hands on the treasure trove inside. However, when they cut open the goose, they were aghast: it looked like any other goose and there was no gold to be found.
Now they were much worse off than before because they killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Today we are still trying to slice open that goose.
-GP

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observerof u - and you're 'empty'

Where would you be if the rich had not 'given' you the money? Who purchases the product of the 'rich'? If those who are consumers have no money - no one gets 'rich'. Creative business people become successful when there is a market for their product. If the consumers have no money - no gain for the rich. It's a circle that depends on the consumer’s ability to 'buy' the product. Many 'rich' people understand this principle and know that without the 'middle class' able to buy - their proceeds will dry up.

Quote:

Trickle up economics is a joke. How does taking money away from me to give it to the recipitant class enrich me at all?

I know you don't understand. Thank heavens there are people who do. When there are no longer consumers for your product, you will have to downsize to possibly 20 -theoretically - and the vicious cycle goes on.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I rest my case your wealth envy wins

it is quiet obvious you are simply unwilling or incapable of understanding that demonizing the wealthy and the confiscation of their wealth has little to no impact on the economy as a whole.

DM all economies are micro or macro-economics. My "wealth" is distributed by me in the form of paychecks and purchases. This in turns enriches still others as the Recipients of my wealth spends those distributed funds with others. This is the only way to stimulate the economy.

Let's look at your confiscation and re-distributed wealth scenario.

The Government decides to take additional funds away from me
in the form of taxes. I now have less money to both invest and spend.

Those funds are then given to the Recipient class who then uses that "free" money to spend where? Well most economist will tell you that the money is not spent on luxury items like restaurants and vacations but is usually spent on utilities and basic necessities. A worthy cause sure but did it spur job creation or the economy. Most assuredly it does not.

Now I used my wealth to spend and make payroll. I enriched many macro-economies by doing so. My purchases and payrolls and their purchases gives business to the micro or local economy which enables others to potentially hire someone or increase the wage of others.

Keynesian economics does not work DM. Never has and never will.

Your mantra of enriching Corporate America is simply good old fashion Socialism masked by your disdain for Capitalism.

Not all wealthy won life's lottery DM. Most worked hard for it and earned it but even those like Paris Hilton who does nothing for her income benefits society by re-distributing their own wealth. She spends money and that benefits the economy.

The Government does nothing efficiently DM. 100% of my "wealth" goes into the micro-economy. Just how much do you think the Government would re-distrbute to the Recipient class DM? I would wager less than 50%.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
LOL Observerofu
Quote:

incapable of understanding that demonizing the wealthy and the confiscation

Never demonized the rich or mentioned 'confiscating' their property. From your own mouth - you wouldn' t have anything without the 'government's ' help. Have a nice day.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Explain DM how the Government "helped" me?

And what where MY words that stated such?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Helped you!

I could provide a list, but I will just say the government sent 25,000 to Iraq and Afghanistan (WHO EITHER WON'T BE RETURNING, OR RETURN DISABLED) in order to prevent them from attacking us by coming ashore in New York and California, poisoning all of our water, blowing up all of our buildings, causing mayhem and taking your money!
Or so you say they would have done!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Focus CHR Focus

DM said my OWN words.

I just want to know what those words were?

Of course the Government under the command of the Constitution "helps" us. When they go to far is the problem. We don't need much of the "help" they want to provide.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observerou
Quote:

The Rich gave me money.
I bought equipment and supplies. A building and started hiring.

All with money from the "Rich". The money I spent enriched others.

I stand corrected. You benefited from the 'rich'. Trickle down, trickle up - is actually a circle that without the consumer able to purchase the product/services of the provider - THE ECONOMY FAILS. Get it? (I doubt it - until you feel the pinch when no one is able to 'purchase' your service/product. . . but I'm assuming you consider yourself among the wealthy - so your 'tax-break' will add to the deficit - and no one will benefit unfairly from your hard work. and fewer people will be able to afford your services,

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Answer this Obsererof u
Quote:

When there are no longer consumers for your product, you will have to downsize to possibly 20 -theoretically - and the vicious cycle goes on.

This is what you said you did with the help of the 'government':

Quote:

Now I used my wealth to spend and make payroll. I enriched many macro-economies by doing so

If no one 'buys' your product or service because they have NO FUNDS - WHERE DO YOU END UP?

(Please - no more gobbly-gook from mises.org. We've been there, read the book, saw the results. Keynesian economics aside - lets just use some common sense here. Corporations and banks have the finances to put to public use. Without funds placed in the economy by SOMEONE - the American people will not have the confidence to SPEND for any service or product. Philosophies, ideologies aside, the economy will fail. Looking forward to your answer.
By the way, have you researched how many ‘paychecks’ the Hilton’s are responsible for – including Paris? If she pulled back just her contribution, there would be more ‘unemployed’. She adds to her wealth because consumers are able to buy her ‘products’. Poor kid, if the consumers for her products have no funds, she’ll just have to depend on her investments and tax breaks. ☹ (Just like you?)

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM to fulfill your request

one would have to assume that the economy has collapsed. For if no one has any funds as you say then that would mean the dollar has plummeted and inflation is therefore rampant. Only then does your scenario make sense.

Now figuring that has not occurred which is therefore worse?

Spending Trillions on needless Government entitlements and programs or allowing the American individual to keep more of their own wealth?

Who is more efficient with wealth allocation?

Businesses thrive on knowing what is going to happen tomorrow, next week and next year, as well as, the next 2-5 and 10 years.

Our current stasis we find ourselves in is because of Government. Their constant interference cause instability. Instability is the antithesis of Business.

btw- you are still incorrect. I never said my "loan" was trough the Government. Thus I never said the Government helped me. Please re-read.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observerou
Quote:

one would have to assume that the economy has collapsed. For if no one has any funds as you say then that would mean the dollar has plummeted and inflation is therefore rampant. Only then does your scenario make sense.

No - the scenario is today's reality. . .and you know what they say about those who 'assume'.

Your simplistic answer to the global economy (which includes the US) is 'it's the governments fault'. You add an interesting opinion to the conversation. Some respect your opinion - but you won't change anyone's mind that may disagree with you. We are waiting for the 'new' Congress to come up with cutting the 'needless entitlements'. The new Congress represents 'us', the people. Let's put the blame where it belongs. We have allowed special interests and corporate heads to control our elections. . we need to get out and vote!! We get your point of allowing American individuals being able to keep more of their own wealth - however many do not agree that other Americans who have become victims of our present economical situation should not receive services that 'taxes' provide. By the way, I corrected my mistake, you made it clear the rich helped you - and now that you are 'rich', you help others. Thank you. Did an individual rich person help you – and did one of the programs provided by ‘the funds of the rich’ help you?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM many of the good answers are truly simple

the more convoluted the answer the more likely it is going to be screwed up by Government.

btw- I went to a private group of Investors. People yes Rich people interested in bringing jobs into a very tough environment.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Wealthy pay half the taxes?

Without arguing that, let me say what you didn't:

That top percentage of people paying all that tax you mention, pay it out of 20-1000 times as much income as does the average worker!!

$500,000 earnings----$50,000 taxes after average deductions
$50,000 earnings----$10,000 taxes after average deductions

Ten times the earnings, five times the taxes!

It gets to be a much worse ratio for over $500,000 earnings.

I can hear you now saying they EARN it. Most do not, just lucky.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Again with the wealth envy

that is you Libs major problem. The Wealthy pays more than their "FAIR" share and almost 47% of freeloading Americans want more.
The Recipitant class always does.

Now as to your stats do you have any backup for those?
Because if what you said is correct the IRS stats would reflect that. It does not.

Air Stats also known as Butt Stats as in pulled out of....

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
o of u and Morgan

Fair tax is on sales tax, not income. Ted Turner can survive on the same groceries as I can.

My numbers are after "the average deductions!"
There are no government number that give the "net" tax paid that I know of.

Isn't corporate tax 35%? I know that there is no corporation that pays anywhere near that percentage on earnings.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Good arguement for the Fair Tax

If you think a fair share means that everyone pays the same % of their income, then the Fair Tax is for you. Eventually everyone spends all their income except for what they save (aka responsible behavior). If you all can get past the idea that we have to take someone's savings away from them so the government can spend it on studying the length of elk antlers or some such foolisness, the Fair tax will handle it.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Why is that surprising OOU?

According to a study by the University of California the top one percent's financial wealth in 2007 was 42.7% of everything. The next 19% owned 50.3% of everything. The next 80% owned 7%. Their fault for not succeeding or being lazy or whatever doesn't matter does it? The fact is that if anything gets taxed then the rich pay the taxes because the top 20% owns 93% of everything.

Basically, the bottom 80% need to be taxed something to have some skin in the game but you're not going to finance the country with the 7% of the economy they own.

Whatever the tax structure, the bottom 80% are only able to finance a part of the overall government to the miniscule amount of their miniscule contribution to the economy. Since the top 20% are going to pay for virtually everything under any circumstances, the only way to reduce taxes is to reduce the government. And the top 20% are still going to be paying for it.

Wealth, Income, and Power

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Bottom 80% can be taxed easily and painlessly

Got 2 solutions for getting some tax revenue out of the bottom 80%. The Fair Tax and the Lottery. Either one works great. You will get much more spending out of that group than just the 7% of the economy they own.

In fact, why not a reverse progressive tax with some built-in incentives? Maybe the more you earn the less tax you pay. That would encourage the marginal people to work harder - maybe even get a second job in order to get ahead and be able to keep more of what they own. How about that?

And I do agree, whatever we do, let's combine that with less spending.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Morgon: I agree as far as it goes

Might I suggest also that we return to sharecropping or feudalism, where the vassal can have 1/3 of his pay and the lord gets 2/3 automatically.

This would have a limit however as to the pay scale----if any lords were also sharecroppers, lords would not share any of the money made by their vassals! Room and some board would be furnished. Plus handmedowns.

No tax forms to fill out, no deductions allowed.

As the Constitution said, vassals would only count for taxes as 3/5 of a human or thing.

All women, lord's ladies and vassals, would do as told by their master.

No vassal or woman could ever own anything of value.

The birthright of blue-blood or lord would prevail in all cases of law.

There are other things that would make it better but this is getting too long.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Yes indeed, the 3/5 of a person idea in valid

Forgot about that. Along with the reverse progressive tax, where you are taxed less if you earn more, there has to be a minimum amount of tax paid (say $5,000) before you get the right to vote for real. Below that amount, you get 3/5 of a vote provided you are working and pay some tax. Of course if you choose not to work or receive any government handout - no vote at all since you don't have "skin in the game" as someone on here accurately pointed out. I think we can exempt social security people from the handout list because that is actually their own money they receive - at least for the first 10 or 12 years. So let seniors on ss vote until age 75, but not beyond or maybe we convert them to the 3/5 vote at that point.

Real solutions for real problems.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Morgon

Now would Mexicans count for 3/5 vote also, or just 1/2?

How about Central Americans, 1/2 or maybe 3/8?

Asians may count for 1&1/4, huh?

Middle-Easterners about 1/2, I would say.

Europeans (except for French) 1

Also, downgrade Californians, Arizonans, Alabamians, MS (I ain't gonna spell it, N & S Dakotians, West Virginians, Illinois (Chicago only), the Bronyx, Rhode Islanders, Bostonians, and most of Georgia to 7/8 vote!

Recent Comments