|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 28, 2010 9:21:29 GMT -8
In a response to an editorial published by the Wall Street Journal, one reader made this comment about the current US federal tax system.
. The current system has two problems...
1. It allows politicians to use tax laws to command and control those who are taxed...and
2. It is unfair to treat legally earned dollars differently based upon personal characteristics of the person who is taxed. All citizens should be treated equally by US laws, no matter what their income...as long as their dollars are legally earned.
I concur! And, yes, the reader's second point is aimed at the concept of progressive taxation.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 28, 2010 10:54:41 GMT -8
We need a regressive tax system that has the ability to tax illegal or underground economy money. The one problem with a flat tax on income is that it can't touch underground money. That is one real big arguement for some sort of national sales tax to replace the income tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 11:05:25 GMT -8
As to point #1. Of course it does. That is the nature of it. Any time there is a cost there an influence. To deny that is to deny reality and human nature. Citizens have to figure out what they want their government to do with that power. To demand a tax system that has no influence on economic decisions or behavior is to demand the impossible.
As to point #2. Perhaps you are right and that is his argument. I had thought when I read it that he was referring to the fact that "earned income" is taxed at higher rates than dividends or capital gains. If a person earns wages, or profits from a business, that person is taxed at a higher rate than those that live on dividends and capital gains.
I guess that goes back to the first point. The prior administration decided that the income from labor should be taxed more than the income from capital. It has always been the way of conservatives to prefer money over people.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 28, 2010 11:21:26 GMT -8
As to point #1. Of course it does. That is the nature of it. Any time there is a cost there an influence. To deny that is to deny reality and human nature. Citizens have to figure out what they want their government to do with that power. To demand a tax system that has no influence on economic decisions or behavior is to demand the impossible. As to point #2. Perhaps you are right and that is his argument. I had thought when I read it that he was referring to the fact that "earned income" is taxed at higher rates than dividends or capital gains. If a person earns wages, or profits from a business, that person is taxed at a higher rate than those that live on dividends and capital gains. I guess that goes back to the first point. The prior administration decided that the income from labor should be taxed more than the income from capital. It has always been the way of conservatives to prefer money over people. Using tax policy to influence behaviour is part of the reason the Tax Code got so screwed and complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 11:25:52 GMT -8
We need a regressive tax system that has the ability to tax illegal or underground economy money. The one problem with a flat tax on income is that it can't touch underground money. That is one real big arguement for some sort of national sales tax to replace the income tax. That the underground economy escapes tax, except sales, is a valid point. It does bring up some issues on how high the sales tax would need to be to replace income tax. Would a high sales tax bring about a black market for untaxed goods? The question of collection also arises. Do we really want business to become the nation's tax collectors? If that is so all of the IRS will have to become sales tax auditors. How is it that we as a country did so well under Ike with those high tax rates? How did Warren Buffet become so rich in his lifetime with high tax rates? Why is it that since the power of conservatives has risen in politics the most wealthy have become more rich while the middle and lower economic sectors have stagnated or fallen? I think I know why. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 28, 2010 12:41:17 GMT -8
We need a regressive tax system that has the ability to tax illegal or underground economy money. The one problem with a flat tax on income is that it can't touch underground money. That is one real big arguement for some sort of national sales tax to replace the income tax. That the underground economy escapes tax, except sales, is a valid point. It does bring up some issues on how high the sales tax would need to be to replace income tax. Would a high sales tax bring about a black market for untaxed goods? The question of collection also arises. Do we really want business to become the nation's tax collectors? If that is so all of the IRS will have to become sales tax auditors. How is it that we as a country did so well under Ike with those high tax rates? How did Warren Buffet become so rich in his lifetime with high tax rates? Why is it that since the power of conservatives has risen in politics the most wealthy have become more rich while the middle and lower economic sectors have stagnated or fallen? I think I know why. For what it's worth, it is not too far from the truth to say that the very wealthy largely supported Obama, and, of course, the very poor. Those in the middle were more inclined to support McCain. I notice that some on the Far Left have criticized Obama for being too chummy with Wall Street. They have a point. Rather than a socialist, Obama seems to me to be more a crony capitalist. Oh, yes, on the issue of "income inequality," my view differs from yours. I'm not overly exercised if Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are worth billions. Oh, sure, that is a lot of money for one man to control. Still, it's not how rich the rich are that is important. It's whether we have a society and economy that allow dedicated, talented people to rise to the level of their abilities. After all, the so-called "robber barons" did not make their fortunes by sending out squads of thieves and stickup men to prey on law-abiding citizens. No, they actually made things that others needed or wanted. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 14:02:48 GMT -8
William, I applaud Gates and Buffet and say more power to them for their ability to make billions of dollars during their lifetimes. My point, which I know you must hate to address as you always ignore it, is that they made that money with higher tax rates than we have now. Low tax rates is not what spurred them to success. It was their will to succeed. Taxes had nothing to do with it.
William, so the very rich and the poor were the supporters of Obama, and the middle class went for McCain? Where do you get this stuff? I call bull$#!+.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 14:09:48 GMT -8
As to point #1. Of course it does. That is the nature of it. Any time there is a cost there an influence. To deny that is to deny reality and human nature. Citizens have to figure out what they want their government to do with that power. To demand a tax system that has no influence on economic decisions or behavior is to demand the impossible. As to point #2. Perhaps you are right and that is his argument. I had thought when I read it that he was referring to the fact that "earned income" is taxed at higher rates than dividends or capital gains. If a person earns wages, or profits from a business, that person is taxed at a higher rate than those that live on dividends and capital gains. I guess that goes back to the first point. The prior administration decided that the income from labor should be taxed more than the income from capital. It has always been the way of conservatives to prefer money over people. Using tax policy to influence behaviour is part of the reason the Tax Code got so screwed and complicated. Try to stay on topic. I know that when I ask I question that you do not want to address you try and change the topic. I am repeating that to have any kind of tax that does not affect human behavior is impossible. Taxes are costs. Cost always affects behavior. Do you disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 28, 2010 15:02:02 GMT -8
We need a regressive tax system that has the ability to tax illegal or underground economy money. The one problem with a flat tax on income is that it can't touch underground money. That is one real big argument for some sort of national sales tax to replace the income tax. That the underground economy escapes tax, except sales, is a valid point. It does bring up some issues on how high the sales tax would need to be to replace income tax. Would a high sales tax bring about a black market for untaxed goods? The question of collection also arises. Do we really want business to become the nation's tax collectors? If that is so all of the IRS will have to become sales tax auditors. How is it that we as a country did so well under Ike with those high tax rates? How did Warren Buffet become so rich in his lifetime with high tax rates? Why is it that since the power of conservatives has risen in politics the most wealthy have become more rich while the middle and lower economic sectors have stagnated or fallen? I think I know why. I do not think that sales taxes should be the responsibility of merchants. It is a burden that they would not like and should not be burdened with. The majority of that could be taken care of by electronic transfer of taxes at the point of sale at the time of sale. Lots of details would need to be worked out about methodology, cost, and security among others, but it could be done if there were a will. Black market concerns are real just as they have always been when avoiding taxes or selling stolen goods are in question. The level of taxation needed to replace income and even other taxes like property tax would need to be studied carefully. Incremental implementation could be looked at. As you should be able to see, I want to look for a reason to seek a better and fairer way to collect the taxes that we need to run the country and the states. Do you want to do that or just whine about the issue? Your last two rhetorical questions would be addressed if you offered more than just the empty rhetoric. The answers to both are very complex and involve looking at the structure of Buffet's company that is well beyond what I am willing to do. I can only say that I am far from that upper level of income and/or wealth community that you complain about, but I do get better off every year and so could/should you. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 28, 2010 15:12:39 GMT -8
Using tax policy to influence behavior is part of the reason the Tax Code got so screwed and complicated. Try to stay on topic. I know that when I ask I question that you do not want to address you try and change the topic. I am repeating that to have any kind of tax that does not affect human behavior is impossible. Taxes are costs. Cost always affects behavior. Do you disagree? I do not disagree with the facts, just that it does not need to be that way with a regressive system that closes those loopholes/incentives and is clearly understandable. I do not want to change the topic nor did I change it. What do you think about the idea of letting everyone see the real cost of the things they buy? Getting rid of depletion allowances or making deductions for investment in equipment for business either not allowed or taken in a manner that clearly follows the expected life of the equipment. I am talking about things that help you make more money for sure, but don't you think clarity would make investment and purchase decisions much easier to understand and make? We might be really shocked to see what the real cost of some of the things we buy truly amounts to. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 15:20:46 GMT -8
That the underground economy escapes tax, except sales, is a valid point. It does bring up some issues on how high the sales tax would need to be to replace income tax. Would a high sales tax bring about a black market for untaxed goods? The question of collection also arises. Do we really want business to become the nation's tax collectors? If that is so all of the IRS will have to become sales tax auditors. How is it that we as a country did so well under Ike with those high tax rates? How did Warren Buffet become so rich in his lifetime with high tax rates? Why is it that since the power of conservatives has risen in politics the most wealthy have become more rich while the middle and lower economic sectors have stagnated or fallen? I think I know why. I do not think that sales taxes should be the responsibility of merchants. It is a burden that they would not like and should not be burdened with. The majority of that could be taken care of by electronic transfer of taxes at the point of sale at the time of sale. Lots of details would need to be worked out about methodology, cost, and security among others, but it could be done if there were a will. Black market concerns are real just as they have always been when avoiding taxes or selling stolen goods are in question. The level of taxation needed to replace income and even other taxes like property tax would need to be studied carefully. Incremental implementation could be looked at. As you should be able to see, I want to look for a reason to seek a better and fairer way to collect the taxes that we need to run the country and the states. Do you want to do that or just whine about the issue? Your last two rhetorical questions would be addressed if you offered more than just the empty rhetoric. The answers to both are very complex and involve looking at the structure of Buffet's company that is well beyond what I am willing to do. I can only say that I am far from that upper level of income and/or wealth community that you complain about, but I do get better off every year and so could/should you. They are not rhetorical questions. They are observations of reality that proves the whole low taxes makes people rich to so much hooey. I am better off this year than last. Not as good as three years ago. My business is better, my investments are better. I would be very surprised if you were not better every year. Don't you have two inflation adjusted pensions from the government that you seem to scorn? I know, I know. I could have gotten a job on the government gravy train like you. I foolishly wanted to work for myself. I mean we can't all work for the federal government, can we? I do like your point of sale transfer of taxes. That would take a lot of temptation out. I still see a huge problem with the sales tax being regressive. It impacts those with less money much more so than those with money. I know conservatives like that. Anything to spit on the poor is fine by them. What would Jesus do? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 15:23:34 GMT -8
Try to stay on topic. I know that when I ask I question that you do not want to address you try and change the topic. I am repeating that to have any kind of tax that does not affect human behavior is impossible. Taxes are costs. Cost always affects behavior. Do you disagree? I do not disagree with the facts, just that it does not need to be that way with a regressive system that closes those loopholes/incentives and is clearly understandable. I do not want to change the topic nor did I change it. What do you think about the idea of letting everyone see the real cost of the things they buy? Getting rid of depletion allowances or making deductions for investment in equipment for business either not allowed or taken in a manner that clearly follows the expected life of the equipment. I am talking about things that help you make more money for sure, but don't you think clarity would make investment and purchase decisions much easier to understand and make? We might be really shocked to see what the real cost of some of the things we buy truly amounts to. Would those costs include the downstream costs of pollution? I am sure we would be shocked if all the costs of a product from manufacture to end were in the purchase price. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 28, 2010 15:33:05 GMT -8
I do not have a link at hand, but I believe that I am correct when I say that the very rich now tend to vote Democratic. The poor, and especially poor women, tend to vote Democratic because they feel that under the Dem's the govt. will enact programs beneficial to them.
The very rich, people with net worth counted in the scores of millions of dollars, are moving in social circles now dominated by the Left, and there is a natural tendency in those circles to lean toward the Democrats.
As for taxes, we will always have them and need them since there are many functions that are the legitimate responsibility of government. Yes, some people got very rich when taxes were higher. It just makes no sense to assume, therefore, that higher tax rates do not, to whatever degree, work against entrepreneurship. It that were not so, we could safely raise everyones taxes to 90%.(Of course, whether the govt. would use all that revenue wisely is another matter.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 28, 2010 15:59:25 GMT -8
I do not think that sales taxes should be the responsibility of merchants. It is a burden that they would not like and should not be burdened with. The majority of that could be taken care of by electronic transfer of taxes at the point of sale at the time of sale. Lots of details would need to be worked out about methodology, cost, and security among others, but it could be done if there were a will. Black market concerns are real just as they have always been when avoiding taxes or selling stolen goods are in question. The level of taxation needed to replace income and even other taxes like property tax would need to be studied carefully. Incremental implementation could be looked at. As you should be able to see, I want to look for a reason to seek a better and fairer way to collect the taxes that we need to run the country and the states. Do you want to do that or just whine about the issue? Your last two rhetorical questions would be addressed if you offered more than just the empty rhetoric. The answers to both are very complex and involve looking at the structure of Buffet's company that is well beyond what I am willing to do. I can only say that I am far from that upper level of income and/or wealth community that you complain about, but I do get better off every year and so could/should you. They are not rhetorical questions. They are observations of reality that proves the whole low taxes makes people rich to so much hooey. I am better off this year than last. Not as good as three years ago. My business is better, my investments are better. I would be very surprised if you were not better every year. Don't you have two inflation adjusted pensions from the government that you seem to scorn? I know, I know. I could have gotten a job on the government gravy train like you. I foolishly wanted to work for myself. I mean we can't all work for the federal government, can we? I do like your point of sale transfer of taxes. That would take a lot of temptation out. I still see a huge problem with the sales tax being regressive. It impacts those with less money much more so than those with money. I know conservatives like that. Anything to spit on the poor is fine by them. What would Jesus do? Glad to see that you are stymied with the exchange and have to resort to attempts to change the subject. ???By the way, how long do you think it has been since we had any COLA and how long will that go into the future?  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 28, 2010 16:02:30 GMT -8
I do not have a link at hand, but I believe that I am correct when I say that the very rich now tend to vote Democratic. The poor, and especially poor women, tend to vote Democratic because they feel that under the Dem's the govt. will enact programs beneficial to them. The very rich, people with net worth counted in the scores of millions of dollars, are moving in social circles now dominated by the Left, and there is a natural tendency in those circles to lean toward the Democrats. As for taxes, we will always have them and need them since there are many functions that are the legitimate responsibility of government. Yes, some people got very rich when taxes were higher. It just makes no sense to assume, therefore, that higher tax rates do not, to whatever degree, work against entrepreneurship. It that were not so, we could safely raise everyones taxes to 90%.(Of course, whether the govt. would use all that revenue wisely is another matter.) AzWm Sometimes we forget that when tax rates were higher that rules for deductions were also vastly different. Good point about the super rich. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 16:11:24 GMT -8
They are not rhetorical questions. They are observations of reality that proves the whole low taxes makes people rich to so much hooey. I am better off this year than last. Not as good as three years ago. My business is better, my investments are better. I would be very surprised if you were not better every year. Don't you have two inflation adjusted pensions from the government that you seem to scorn? I know, I know. I could have gotten a job on the government gravy train like you. I foolishly wanted to work for myself. I mean we can't all work for the federal government, can we? I do like your point of sale transfer of taxes. That would take a lot of temptation out. I still see a huge problem with the sales tax being regressive. It impacts those with less money much more so than those with money. I know conservatives like that. Anything to spit on the poor is fine by them. What would Jesus do? Glad to see that you are stymied with the exchange and have to resort to attempts to change the subject. ???By the way, how long do you think it has been since we had any COLA and how long will that go into the future? The important question is...did I annoy you?  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 16:14:23 GMT -8
I do not have a link at hand, but I believe that I am correct when I say that the very rich now tend to vote Democratic. The poor, and especially poor women, tend to vote Democratic because they feel that under the Dem's the govt. will enact programs beneficial to them. The very rich, people with net worth counted in the scores of millions of dollars, are moving in social circles now dominated by the Left, and there is a natural tendency in those circles to lean toward the Democrats. As for taxes, we will always have them and need them since there are many functions that are the legitimate responsibility of government. Yes, some people got very rich when taxes were higher. It just makes no sense to assume, therefore, that higher tax rates do not, to whatever degree, work against entrepreneurship. It that were not so, we could safely raise everyones taxes to 90%.(Of course, whether the govt. would use all that revenue wisely is another matter.) AzWm When you find the link, let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 29, 2010 15:05:42 GMT -8
Glad to see that you are stymied with the exchange and have to resort to attempts to change the subject. ???By the way, how long do you think it has been since we had any COLA and how long will that go into the future? The important question is...did I annoy you? No, not annoyed. I am amused to see that those unwilling to make sacrifices for their country want to try to denigrate the service of those who did. They envy the result of the sacrifice that many have made, but forget the tremedous sacrifice and effort that it took to get there. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 29, 2010 17:05:56 GMT -8
The important question is...did I annoy you? No, not annoyed. I am amused to see that those unwilling to make sacrifices for their country want to try to denigrate the service of those who did. They envy the result of the sacrifice that many have made, but forget the tremedous sacrifice and effort that it took to get there. I would never denigrate my Father. His pictures with his medals hang on the wall of my study. You, on the other hand, sure. I would never say your service was not honorable. I just doubt that your sacrifice is any more than someone in the merchant marine. I doubt that you faced the dangers on your job that compare to coal mining, for instance. Play the vet card if you want, it matters not to me. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 30, 2010 7:13:10 GMT -8
No, not annoyed. I am amused to see that those unwilling to make sacrifices for their country want to try to denigrate the service of those who did. They envy the result of the sacrifice that many have made, but forget the tremedous sacrifice and effort that it took to get there. I would never denigrate my Father. His pictures with his medals hang on the wall of my study. You, on the other hand, sure. I would never say your service was not honorable. I just doubt that your sacrifice is any more than someone in the merchant marine. I doubt that you faced the dangers on your job that compare to coal mining, for instance. Play the vet card if you want, it matters not to me. "You, on the other hand, sure." Just what does that mean? I share the respect you show for your Father. That has nothing to do with the tone and the words of your disrespectful and denigrating remarks up the thread. Are you really that small? |
|
