|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 8, 2011 11:04:06 GMT -8
See, I told you that the Left always. . . ALWAYS . . . claims that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. This time it's the reliably nonsensical Bob Herbert of the NYT (Which is starting to stand for Never Yet True!). Herbert does point out some real problems, such as furloughs for state workers. He apparently thinks that such measures are merely a sign of some nasty, mean-spirited right wingers. Hey, Bob! The States are BROKE, for god's sake. Wake up, man!His solution? Big ideas. As in Big and Bigger taxes, though he does not have the guts to say so. (Except that the rich are not paying their fair share.) www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08herbert.htmlAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 8, 2011 13:27:14 GMT -8
When the States are going broke from overspending and the ideas from the left are just to tax more, we are close to running out of "other peoples money" to fund that spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Feb 9, 2011 16:47:52 GMT -8
See, I told you that the Left always. . . ALWAYS . . . claims that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes... AzWm Define "fair share" -- and are the "rich" paying it? Warren Buffett pays a rate of about 16% of his income in federal income tax. His secretary pays a rate of about 33%. Buffett doesn't think that's fair. Do you? Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 9, 2011 18:06:38 GMT -8
He is quite correct. The future is not bright for young Americans. We seem to be going down the road to a plutocracy. That is not what our Founding Fathers saw for this country. Sorry to see conservatives seem to think that a nation of haves and have nots is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 10, 2011 14:06:18 GMT -8
See, I told you that the Left always. . . ALWAYS . . . claims that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes... AzWm Define "fair share" -- and are the "rich" paying it? Warren Buffett pays a rate of about 16% of his income in federal income tax. His secretary pays a rate of about 33%. Buffett doesn't think that's fair. Do you? Yoda out... I don't think that is fair. If Buffet really cared, he would provide his Secretary the same bevy of tax lawyers that he uses to keep his tax as low as legally possible. This is what you meant, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 10, 2011 14:19:30 GMT -8
Define "fair share" -- and are the "rich" paying it? Warren Buffett pays a rate of about 16% of his income in federal income tax. His secretary pays a rate of about 33%. Buffett doesn't think that's fair. Do you? Yoda out... I don't think that is fair. If Buffet really cared, he would provide his Secretary the same bevy of tax lawyers that he uses to keep his tax as low as legally possible. This is what you meant, right? It could be that she is paying the lowest legal amount. It could be that Buffet's income is from qualified dividends that have a maximum rate of 15%. His secretary's income could be from earned income, which is not maxed out at 15%. I bet that is not what you meant. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Feb 10, 2011 14:45:56 GMT -8
I don't think that is fair. If Buffet really cared, he would provide his Secretary the same bevy of tax lawyers that he uses to keep his tax as low as legally possible. This is what you meant, right? It could be that she is paying the lowest legal amount. It could be that Buffet's income is from qualified dividends that have a maximum rate of 15%. His secretary's income could be from earned income, which is not maxed out at 15%. I bet that is not what you meant. Bingo. The "rich", including Buffett, get most of their income in the form of capital gains. The rest of us get ours as earned income. Put the two together and the rich pay a far lower percentage of their income in the form of income tax (even without tax lawyers and shady tax write offs) than the rest of us pay -- all the while complaining about how high their earned income tax rate is. That said, they pay far more in actual dollars than we pay as well -- I'm not certain that it is "unfair" that they pay a lower overall rate. That's why I asked the writer to define "fair". Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Feb 10, 2011 16:35:59 GMT -8
He is quite correct. The future is not bright for young Americans. We seem to be going down the road to a plutocracy. That is not what our Founding Fathers saw for this country. Sorry to see conservatives seem to think that a nation of haves and have nots is a good thing. GOING??? Dude, we're THERE. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 10, 2011 17:56:07 GMT -8
I don't think that is fair. If Buffet really cared, he would provide his Secretary the same bevy of tax lawyers that he uses to keep his tax as low as legally possible. This is what you meant, right? It could be that she is paying the lowest legal amount. It could be that Buffet's income is from qualified dividends that have a maximum rate of 15%. His secretary's income could be from earned income, which is not maxed out at 15%. I bet that is not what you meant. I guess that is one of the problems with having a super complicated income tax rather than a rather simple regressive consumption tax collected at point of sale. That is where you were going right? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 10, 2011 20:09:04 GMT -8
It could be that she is paying the lowest legal amount. It could be that Buffet's income is from qualified dividends that have a maximum rate of 15%. His secretary's income could be from earned income, which is not maxed out at 15%. I bet that is not what you meant. I guess that is one of the problems with having a super complicated income tax rather than a rather simple regressive consumption tax collected at point of sale. That is where you were going right? What rate would you propose for a national sales tax? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 10, 2011 22:54:03 GMT -8
I guess that is one of the problems with having a super complicated income tax rather than a rather simple regressive consumption tax collected at point of sale. That is where you were going right? What rate would you propose for a national sales tax? That's not easy to say. First we must define what are the legitimate functions of government, then figure out what sales tax rate would be sufficient to generate that amount of revenue. We need to change social security radically. It's a bit late, but I recommend doing what should have been done in the first place. Instead of the stupid system signed into law by FDR we should move to a system in which each person has his/her own private account. All the money put into each account, both from the worker and from the employer, would be untouchable by the govt. No more taking the revenue from current workers and dolling it out to current retirees. The current system is unsustainable. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 11, 2011 9:17:25 GMT -8
What rate would you propose for a national sales tax? That's not easy to say. First we must define what are the legitimate functions of government, then figure out what sales tax rate would be sufficient to generate that amount of revenue. We need to change social security radically. It's a bit late, but I recommend doing what should have been done in the first place. Instead of the stupid system signed into law by FDR we should move to a system in which each person has his/her own private account. All the money put into each account, both from the worker and from the employer, would be untouchable by the govt. No more taking the revenue from current workers and dolling it out to current retirees. The current system is unsustainable. AzWm And if your system was in place there would be millions of seniors living in poverty as they would have lost most of their retirement over the last three years. What you propose is great for wall street, bad for seniors. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 11, 2011 10:15:01 GMT -8
What rate would you propose for a national sales tax? That's not easy to say. First we must define what are the legitimate functions of government, then figure out what sales tax rate would be sufficient to generate that amount of revenue. We need to change social security radically. It's a bit late, but I recommend doing what should have been done in the first place. Instead of the stupid system signed into law by FDR we should move to a system in which each person has his/her own private account. All the money put into each account, both from the worker and from the employer, would be untouchable by the govt. No more taking the revenue from current workers and dolling it out to current retirees. The current system is unsustainable. AzWm "First we must define what are the legitimate functions of government". Really? Do you think we can ? That argument has been ongoing since Washington's first administration. If that is your starting point this will be a short discussion. Why not just put some thought to it and throw out a number for sake of debate. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 11, 2011 11:19:40 GMT -8
That's not easy to say. First we must define what are the legitimate functions of government, then figure out what sales tax rate would be sufficient to generate that amount of revenue. We need to change social security radically. It's a bit late, but I recommend doing what should have been done in the first place. Instead of the stupid system signed into law by FDR we should move to a system in which each person has his/her own private account. All the money put into each account, both from the worker and from the employer, would be untouchable by the govt. No more taking the revenue from current workers and dolling it out to current retirees. The current system is unsustainable. AzWm And if your system was in place there would be millions of seniors living in poverty as they would have lost most of their retirement over the last three years. What you propose is great for wall street, bad for seniors. I was waiting for just this reply. Well, my friend, you must not be so fast in making assumptions. You assumed, no doubt, that I was suggesting that all retirement accounts be private IRAs with no connection to the federal government. Frankly, that concept is not so awful as the Left likes to say. Over the past century we have had only two stock market collapses bad enough to seriously damage the retirement chances of most workers. (As opposed to hurting only those who are close to retirement.) Those two events would be the Great Depression and the Great Recession we are now (sadly) still in. My own account (deferred comp) got a hit of close to a third. That was in 2008. By the time I rolled over that money into an annuity last month it had recovered virtually all its lost value. That's a recovery time of only two plus years; not bad, really. But there are other possibilities that would keep one's account both separate and secure. (Keep in mind, of course, that absolute security is never possible. You may have electronic surveillance and armed guards around your home 24 hours a day, but if a meteorite hits it all those measures will have been for naught!). How about this. The federal govt. sets up a system in which every worker has an account which the govt. itself invests in mutual funds or other financial instruments. The account cannot be raided by the government. Both worker and employee contribute to the account. In case of catastrophic downturns, such as 2008, the govt. can provide backup insurance. Yes, that would be taxpayer money, but it would be needed only very rarely, and then only to help those who took huge hits within a short period of time before retirement; that period might be 3 to 5 years, and could be flexible depending on the severity of the crash and the amount of federal bailout money could be prorated based on those and other factors. The upside to this system would be considerable. Each worker would be able to track his/her money year to year and make plans for retirement accordingly. There would be no bad effects on the national economy such as we face now with the Ponzi-like Social Security System. The Lefties believe whole-heartedly that government should take care of people, which means that the govt. assumes enormous power to meddle in the lives and livelihood of the average citizen. Under the system I propose, the government loses a lot of power, but the govt. has too much power already. Getting back to the original point, a consumption tax could be fashioned so that core govt. functions could be financed appropriately. I think we would find such a system quite beneficial to the economy. Of course, so long as politicians are in the business of handing out favors to groups and companies, we will never have a thriving economy and a sound national budget that is not constantly in the red. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 11, 2011 12:52:10 GMT -8
No comparing The Great Depression to our current situation. Currently we saw the market drop from 14000 to 7500 more or less. Now it is back to just over 12000 in about two years.
The Depression saw the market go from 381 to 41. A drop of a much greater magnitude. It took over 20 years to get back to where it was. Big difference from now.
In my opinion one of the reason why it is different now is that the government was able to intervene and prevent a total meltdown. I suspect you are against the government having that sort of power. Be happy it did.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 11, 2011 15:12:07 GMT -8
I guess that is one of the problems with having a super complicated income tax rather than a rather simple regressive consumption tax collected at point of sale. That is where you were going right? What rate would you propose for a national sales tax? I would suggest that a rate that would be slightly revenue negative coupled with more spending cuts would about do it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 11, 2011 23:45:18 GMT -8
What rate would you propose for a national sales tax? I would suggest that a rate that would be slightly revenue negative coupled with more spending cuts would about do it. What would that rate be? Expressed as a number, and not as a platitude. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 12, 2011 6:55:28 GMT -8
I would suggest that a rate that would be slightly revenue negative coupled with more spending cuts would about do it. What would that rate be? Expressed as a number, and not as a platitude. Hard to say. Here is a suggestion of around 23%. I think a little less. www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/TAX_NATIONAL_SALES.HTM |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 12, 2011 7:31:35 GMT -8
70? Did you actually look at the graph of the DJIA back for the 1920s and 1930s?
What is wrong with a consumption tax is that it hurts the retirees, poor and just the people you think who it would save.
What is wrong is the governments will eagerly implement another sales tax. California brought us the Use tax in 1935 during the Great Depression like the FICA which was implemented in 1937--both killing jobs during the Great Depression. Only the housing market after the war got us booming and the government has been priming and halting the housing market ever since to raise local tax revenues.
What is wrong with another sales tax at the national level is that the governments will not remove any other tax whatsoever. They only add to spending and taxes, and never, never eliminate taxes and spending.
Remember the skyrocketing oil prices under Jimmy the Geek Carter? What'd did the Federal government do to "help"? You got it, implement a special tax on oil to the oil companies. Heck whenever Exxon Mobil announces a 23 billion dollar quarter, you have to think, 15 billion of that goes to the governments, or else you're a bias, lazy-brainer...
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 12, 2011 10:11:04 GMT -8
What I advocate is regressive for sure. It would exempt food and maybe health care to mitigate the effect on the poor. There would be no other tax period.
|
|
