Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

American Millionaires: 1,400 Paid No U.S. Income Taxes In 2009 Options · View
1curiouscat
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 6:45:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
American Millionaires: 1,400 Paid No U.S. Income Taxes In 2009

Should someone who clearly has the means to contribute be given a systematic pass while those who could use this benefit to pay a mortage debt, student loans, children tuition don´t?

Should tax rates be relative to one´s wealth?



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Guest
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:03:38 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
i like flat tax idea. everyone pays (lets say) 20% sales tax on everything. cars, bread and even gum. everyone pays... kids, dealers, sex workers, nannies who are paid under the table. all of us. every single person who lives in this country will contribute, so it wont matter if you were born here or snuck in here. maybe then we wont have all this Illegal Immigrant screaming either. personally i dont care who lives here as long as they pay into our country and dont suck off it thru social programs.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:28:38 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
Some of those millionaires lost a ton of money in the markets, so their capital losses offset their tax bill completely. It does not seem fair to make people pay money on top of money that they no longer have.

Some of these millionaires were very charitable, and their donations offset their tax bill completely. If we take that away, then we're unplugging the charity machine, which is essential in a country that does not seem to have the interest or ability to dote on every citizen's well being (like, say, the Scandinavian countries).

Some of these millionaires put their money into tax-free bonds, mostly because they were either "up in age" and were no longer interested in active investing, or they took a beating in the market crash and fled for safety in bonds. This one's more questionable, even though in the case of municipal bonds (which communities depend upon for financing), the investor's incentive disappears if they become taxable.

I'm sure there are other loopholes, which the Democrats are howling about (and maybe rightfully so), that allow some of our wealthiest citizens to pay no income taxes, but it's also important to remember that the top 1% in this country pay more than the bottom 90% combined. That's an easy stat to make simple arguments from, but still, it warrants mentioning.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:36:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
Interesting topic. Of the 235,413 taxpayers that earned $1million or more, 1470 paid no income tax. That is terrible, however that only represents less than 1% of reported millionaires. Not to let them off the hook by any means, they should most certainly be paying at LEAST as much percentage wise as everyone else. What is more troubling is the 2 million drop in overall taxpayers. Just from a numbers point of view.... let's assume the millionaires that didn't pay taxes did. Rough numbers here... and only estimating their worth at an even $1M.

$1million x 20% income tax = $200,000 x 1470 taxpayers = $294millon
$1million x 40% income tax = $400,000 x 1470 taxpayers = $588million

$54283 x 20% income tax = $10,800 x 2 million taxpayers = $21.6Billion

So, while that headline is terrible and draws the most attention it isn't the most worrisome stat in the article. I agree with LMB, a flat tax taht everyone must pay is the way to go. I'd have everyone pay 15-20% income tax. No deductions or tax brackets and all that crap. Plus a small national sales tax of 2%. That way everyone can pay in.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
1curiouscat
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 10:29:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
lafayettemister wrote:
What is more troubling is the 2 million drop in overall taxpayers. Just from a numbers point of view.... let's assume the millionaires that didn't pay taxes did. Rough numbers here... and only estimating their worth at an even $1M.

$1million x 20% income tax = $200,000 x 1470 taxpayers = $294millon
$1million x 40% income tax = $400,000 x 1470 taxpayers = $588million

$54283 x 20% income tax = $10,800 x 2 million taxpayers = $21.6Billion

So, while that headline is terrible and draws the most attention it isn't the most worrisome stat in the article.


Great point. I read but did not actually do the math!





Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:17:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 538
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
I have read lafayettemister's stats before and heard that on talk shows.. It would be about right that 1400 figure out a way to manipulate the system, someone always does that. What is most troubling is that 50% of Americans paid no taxes at all. But then again you must add in children, invalids, very old people, etc. I don't guess there is any way I am going to get out of paying mine, huh?
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:43:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
I have read lafayettemister's stats before and heard that on talk shows.. It would be about right that 1400 figure out a way to manipulate the system, someone always does that. What is most troubling is that 50% of Americans paid no taxes at all. But then again you must add in children, invalids, very old people, etc. I don't guess there is any way I am going to get out of paying mine, huh?



It is unfortunate that 1400 figure out a way to manipulate the system, but again that 1400 is less than 1% of a very small subsection of the population. I would venture to guess that there is a higher percentage of non-millionaires that have/are cheating the system.

And what LadyX says also holds true. The stat about the top 1% paying more than the combined bottom 90% is a very glaring one. We've all heard it before, but it still is very shocking. I know if I were in that top 1%, I'd not be very happy about that at all.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Buz
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2011 9:29:13 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,176
Location: Atlanta, United States
No doubt a much higher percentage of non-millionaires are cheating the system. They are not under as much scrutiny.


I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

Wdawg
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:11:37 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 33
Location: Gulf Coast Panhandle, United States
Wow how about the 51% that don't pay any taxes either? Flat tax is the answer!
PrettyMom
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 7:07:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 300
Location: Eastern PA
Flat tax whether is be sales or income doesn't work either. The flat income tax would apply to wage earners, but not at all to investment income. Investment income, the form of income that mostly flows to the wealthy, would be exempt from the personal income component of the flat tax, while all compensation for work, including wages and even employer-provided health care benefits, would be taxed. Once again the poor and middle class would take all the burden.
Flat sales tax works the same way. It would put the burden on those who spend a higher percentage of their income and take it away from those who only need to spend a small portion. It would replace the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax and estate and gift taxes. www.ctj.org/pdf/perryflattaxfairtax.pdf
The 1,400 are only a drop in the bucket. The corporations who are not only paying nothing, but being given huge sums are a much larger portion. We actually have the second lowest corporate tax rate, because of all the expanded tax loopholes. But you still hear everyone saying if we would lower it there would be more jobs, lowering taxes on employers creates jobs! It's a steaming pile of BS. We're getting it at both ends, by having the highest on paper we may scare off new businesses that don't understand the truth of it or don't think it will last and by not getting the tax income we need badly either. No lube either way. This idea that jobs are a product purchased and the corporate tax rate is on that product is just stupid. Corporations pay the tax rate on profit not on payroll. The employee pays the vast majority of the taxes on their pay, so why would less taxes on profit make them spend more on payroll? If the taxes are high then they have to invest more to avoid them and where can they easily invest... PAYROLL! thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/05/260535/graph-corporate-tax-second-lowest/ Lowering the corporate tax rate is just another example of suggesting something they know doesn't work, because it sounds good. When Ireland cut their corporate tax rate in half making them one of the lowest in the EU and the world they still ended up with one of the highest unemployment rates. www.viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/01/corporate-tax-cuts-do-they-really.html The fact is that the countries who have lowered their corporate tax rates have also closed the loopholes, but you don't hear anyone admitting that.
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:57:43 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,176
Location: United States
Wdawg wrote:
Wow how about the 51% that don't pay any taxes either? Flat tax is the answer!


The 51% you're talking about own 1.5% of the country's wealth. To say that they don't pay taxes is disingenuous, there are payroll taxes, (social security) and sales taxes, taxes on gasoline etc. If that large a percentage owns such a small percentage of the wealth, there is a problem that tax rates have nothing to do with. The wealth in the United States has been being redistributed upward into fewer and fewer hands for decades.

Here's how a flat tax would work. One person makes twenty thousand dollars a year, he pays 25% tax which equals 5000, leaving 15000 to live on. Another makes one million, her tax is 250,000, leaving her 750,000. The person making the twenty thousand struggles to make ends meet, while the person making the million has 3/4 million and can pretty much live it up.

A fairer tax would be like this: We all get our first twenty thousand free, I do, you do, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do also.
On our next thirty thousand we all pay ten percent, all of us, including the Gates and Buffets and other billionaires. On the Next Hundred thousand we pay fifteen percent, the hundred after that, twenty, and on the hundred after that 25. We are all paying the same percentage of tax on the same amount of money when we earn it. Around a half million dollars we should all pay thirty five percent, and over a million we should all pay forty, you, me, Bill Gates etc. What is unfair about that. If I ever make a billion a year, I'll be paying the same tax rate as Bill Gates. I don't mind that, why should the Koch brothers?

Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:10:06 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,176
Location: United States
Here's a chart of income and wealth distribution from 2007.

You'll notice that the bottom eighty percent of the country has 15% of the net worth and only 7% of the financial wealth. The top 1% have 35 and 45% respectively. According to G. William Domhoff, the top one percent of the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their money in taxes than the nine percent just below them. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
PrettyMom
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:48:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/13/2011
Posts: 300
Location: Eastern PA
Your #s are a little off, because you forgot that investment income wouldn't be taxed. The person who made a million would only be paying income tax on his wages and that would only be a small portion of his income if any at all. Most people who make a million $ a year make little to no wages relative to their income. Would you have a salaried job when you could just use the $ you have to make more? I would serve on a board of trusties or something like that for a small salary while I earned most of my $ from being a share holder. People who make more than they need usually invest the extra until the $ is making enough $ that they don't need to work at all. I would love to do nothing but volunteer work for the organizations that I already volunteer with.
The solution you are describing is much like what we had before all the loopholes where added for the rich and profiting corporations.
One thing I've never really understood is that my thinking says that those at the top 20% make over 80% of the $ (wages, profit, etc), so they should pay 80% of the income taxes, right? I know I'm in the land of fairytales with thoughts like that.
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:57:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Wdawg wrote:
Wow how about the 51% that don't pay any taxes either? Flat tax is the answer!


The 51% you're talking about own 1.5% of the country's wealth. To say that they don't pay taxes is disingenuous, there are payroll taxes, (social security) and sales taxes, taxes on gasoline etc. If that large a percentage owns such a small percentage of the wealth, there is a problem that tax rates have nothing to do with. The wealth in the United States has been being redistributed upward into fewer and fewer hands for decades.

Here's how a flat tax would work. One person makes twenty thousand dollars a year, he pays 25% tax which equals 5000, leaving 15000 to live on. Another makes one million, her tax is 250,000, leaving her 750,000. The person making the twenty thousand struggles to make ends meet, while the person making the million has 3/4 million and can pretty much live it up.

A fairer tax would be like this: We all get our first twenty thousand free, I do, you do, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do also.
On our next thirty thousand we all pay ten percent, all of us, including the Gates and Buffets and other billionaires. On the Next Hundred thousand we pay fifteen percent, the hundred after that, twenty, and on the hundred after that 25. We are all paying the same percentage of tax on the same amount of money when we earn it. Around a half million dollars we should all pay thirty five percent, and over a million we should all pay forty, you, me, Bill Gates etc. What is unfair about that. If I ever make a billion a year, I'll be paying the same tax rate as Bill Gates. I don't mind that, why should the Koch brothers?



I don't have a problem with that. If the person making $20k wants to live it up, he/she can get another and/or better paying job. Having said that, I do agree that the first $20k is/should be tax free. In that scenario the person above wouldn't have to pay anything. It is in the creed of Americans that we are all equal. But that equality is thrown out the window whenever money is involved. Instead, we'd rather punish the successful for being successful. That is NOT equality, it is inequality disguised as tax law.

As far as corporations not paying taxes, that is just the way things go. Many towns, cities, municipalities, states have given tax breaks to big companies in order to get them to open up a corporate office or plant or whatever in their locations. It's a business deal. Hey there Exxon/Mobil, come build a huge plant in my neck of the woods and you'll get to pay reduced or no tax. In return, you'll employ several thousand workers and laborers which will feed our local economy and boost our sales tax and income tax collection. Without the big corporations getting these deals we'd have almost all of our companies opening and doing business in other countries. Leaving more and more of our population without work. Not to mention the billions of dollars in charity money that these companies spend. Start "unfairly" or overly taxing these companies and watch how quickly the local parks, and charity balls, and charity functions, and sponsorship of dozens of other things in communities all over the country dry up and cease to exist.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:27:29 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
i like the idea of flat SALES tax rather than flat INCOME tax. id like to see us keep all of our money and pay like 20% sales tax on everything. from bread to cars. that way if you want a million dollar car you are going to pay 200,000 in tax into the system and if you want a 2$ loaf of bread you are going to pay .20 in tax.

if you tax only income then a lot of people paid under the table in cash are still being exempt. using sales tax then EVERYONE pays in. dealers, nannies and kids too. and maybe then we wont have to worry about people coming into the country so much. the minute they start spending money here they start paying into our system.
standingbear
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:37:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/27/2010
Posts: 195
Location: the twilight zone
Don't ask me, I'm still trying to understand what's wrong with the workers owning the means of production.

"Happiness is doing it rotten your own way."Isaac Asimov (1994)
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:22:54 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
LittleMissBitch wrote:
i like the idea of flat SALES tax rather than flat INCOME tax. id like to see us keep all of our money and pay like 20% sales tax on everything. from bread to cars. that way if you want a million dollar car you are going to pay 200,000 in tax into the system and if you want a 2$ loaf of bread you are going to pay .20 in tax.

if you tax only income then a lot of people paid under the table in cash are still being exempt. using sales tax then EVERYONE pays in. dealers, nannies and kids too. and maybe then we wont have to worry about people coming into the country so much. the minute they start spending money here they start paying into our system.


The sales tax idea sounds interesting. Everyone needs a loaf of bread. Not everyone needs or wants a million dollar car.
Ruthie
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:42:00 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,176
Location: United States
chefkathleen wrote:
LittleMissBitch wrote:
i like the idea of flat SALES tax rather than flat INCOME tax. id like to see us keep all of our money and pay like 20% sales tax on everything. from bread to cars. that way if you want a million dollar car you are going to pay 200,000 in tax into the system and if you want a 2$ loaf of bread you are going to pay .20 in tax.

if you tax only income then a lot of people paid under the table in cash are still being exempt. using sales tax then EVERYONE pays in. dealers, nannies and kids too. and maybe then we wont have to worry about people coming into the country so much. the minute they start spending money here they start paying into our system.


The sales tax idea sounds interesting. Everyone needs a loaf of bread. Not everyone needs or wants a million dollar car.


The flat sales tax is the absolutely most regressive tax that I can think of. You would have to assume that all the income of every single taxpayer is spent completely on consumer items. That is only true of the lower income classes. People who are literally living paycheck to paycheck are going to have the amount of food they can buy reduced by whatever percentage of tax they'll have to pay on it.

Rich people making a million a year aren't buying consumer goods with all that money. Are we going to tax services as well? How about real estate? Should a home be taxed at twenty percent of it's purchase price or taxed at twenty percent of the monthly payment? Should the tax collector collect the 20% up front? If you buy a $200,000 dollar home should you pay the 40,000 right then or only twenty percent on the down payment, then twenty percent on each month's mortgage payment?

If you start adding exemptions, as I'm sure Congress will, what will be exempt? Will Congress put in loopholes for their biggest contributors? Of course they will.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:40:15 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
CoopsRuthie wrote:
chefkathleen wrote:
LittleMissBitch wrote:
i like the idea of flat SALES tax rather than flat INCOME tax. id like to see us keep all of our money and pay like 20% sales tax on everything. from bread to cars. that way if you want a million dollar car you are going to pay 200,000 in tax into the system and if you want a 2$ loaf of bread you are going to pay .20 in tax.

if you tax only income then a lot of people paid under the table in cash are still being exempt. using sales tax then EVERYONE pays in. dealers, nannies and kids too. and maybe then we wont have to worry about people coming into the country so much. the minute they start spending money here they start paying into our system.


The sales tax idea sounds interesting. Everyone needs a loaf of bread. Not everyone needs or wants a million dollar car.


The flat sales tax is the absolutely most regressive tax that I can think of. You would have to assume that all the income of every single taxpayer is spent completely on consumer items. That is only true of the lower income classes. People who are literally living paycheck to paycheck are going to have the amount of food they can buy reduced by whatever percentage of tax they'll have to pay on it.

Rich people making a million a year aren't buying consumer goods with all that money. Are we going to tax services as well? How about real estate? Should a home be taxed at twenty percent of it's purchase price or taxed at twenty percent of the monthly payment? Should the tax collector collect the 20% up front? If you buy a $200,000 dollar home should you pay the 40,000 right then or only twenty percent on the down payment, then twenty percent on each month's mortgage payment?

If you start adding exemptions, as I'm sure Congress will, what will be exempt? Will Congress put in loopholes for their biggest contributors? Of course they will.


lets not forget that the people living paycheck to pay check..i.e me, would have more income as there would be no income tax. my mom is in super high end real estate and she told me that that level of business dropped off not at all in this recession...so hell yeah they are buying consumables and at a higher rate than the poor.

yes you should pay 20% on a house...and there are so many programs out there you can easily buy a house no money down. its taxing consumption, which we can all control over taxing income and we have no control. being the bitch control freak i choose option A.

hell no congress isnt exempt but thats another argument all together what those "i am sure very nice men" (in bitch speak: motherfuckers) give unto themselves.

really i dont see a down side to everyone being taxed on consumption. i mean think of all the under the table workers out there...finally they have to pay their fair share.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:18:30 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,210
Location: Cakeland, United States
All this talk of taxation and whom to pin the future revenues upon and zero investigation from our official government auditors - on where over 9 trillion in money was 'lost', spent, invested, or just handed out with no expectation of ever being repaid.

Several more videos on this Youtube page, address the same situation but we don't hear about this from our failed Fourth Estate of Mainstream Media. The same MSM which rooted for the start of the 1st Gulf War and the most recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya.

War brings viewers and ratings and increa$ed commercialization.




Note to all: This is Obama's agency. Which is to say, it's probably the same people who were ignoring shit or aiding and abetting the fraud under the Bush administration and before that, the Clinton administration, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Carter and Nixon. These are the watchdogs guarding the chicken coop.

Have you ever seen stonewalling more complete, since Dick Cheney stonewalled congress about his energy meetings in the late winter, spring and summer of 2001?


If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:17:03 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
dude, i think it goes without saying that most of us would like to see the federal government canned and something new and re-vamped in its place. like a federal government as it is actually out lined in the constitution would be nice.
latinfoxy
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2011 7:08:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
I like the idea of flat taxes everybody pays for what they buy and nobody gets a loophole but what about tourists? we are talking about 60 million people that visit the USA a year is it fair for them to pay this high tax? if so, wouldnt this affect tourism and consequently affect all the places that live from this?
Kornpopper
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:27:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/7/2011
Posts: 108
Location: I am here, You are there!
We could use a system that is directed at paying a percentage of what is actually earned. Say a business owner makes $100k a year and invests nothing back into his business, then they pay taxes on the full $100k. If they invest $20k back into the business then they only pay taxes on $80k or what was their personal earned income. If they spend $20k remodeling their home then they still pay taxes on the full $100k. Taxes only drop if the money was invested back into the business that generated the money. Apply that to these larger corporations that like to gives bonuses to their execs at the end of the year and their taxable income is goes up dramatically.

Or a flat income tax tier system. If you make under $40k a year you only pay 5% income tax. $40k - $80k pays 10%. $80k - $120k pays 15%. $120 - $200k pays 20% and it would keep going from there.
No tax loopholes would be allowed. Example- purchasing a second or third home to avoid paying higher income tax, or an exotic vehicle that is not used as a daily driver.

We could also have a sales tax tier system. Anything needed for survival is not taxed.(food, clothing, basic neccessities) Anything after that is taxed based on the purchase price, the higher the price is the higher percentage of tax is payed.

We could get rid of the inheritace tax if it falls below $250k and base the taxes on how much form there.

No subsidies would be given to farmers who are able to upgrade their equipment each year and if they make over a certain amout of income. As the americans are paying enough for food and fuel they don't need to pay for the farmers who can afford it. Other farmers are strugling and could use those subsidies.

Harsher tax penalties would apply to company's trying to turn into a monopoly and control a market place.

Corporations that only provide a paid service (internet, phone, cable, satellite, etc) would have a cap on what they could charge their customers so as not to be cheating them by over charging and providing poor customer service. If they provide excellent service and customer support they will be able to charge more therefore making other companies follow suit so they can also charge more.

I don't know how these would play out in the real world but I think they would keep everyone on a more level playing field.

The decisions we make dictate the life we have.
Follow your dreams, for those that do not will only try to discourage others.
Guest
Posted: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:48:07 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
latinfoxy wrote:
I like the idea of flat taxes everybody pays for what they buy and nobody gets a loophole but what about tourists? we are talking about 60 million people that visit the USA a year is it fair for them to pay this high tax? if so, wouldnt this affect tourism and consequently affect all the places that live from this?


that is a good point...but tourists arent going to be buying super big ticket items i dont think. so i say yes let them pay our sales tax. i think the increase in revenue flat sales tax will bring on both state and federal levels can offset a dip our tourism industry might take. and shit...we're amercians, we hate foreigners here anyway ;)

kidding kidding...
standingbear
Posted: Friday, September 09, 2011 2:18:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/27/2010
Posts: 195
Location: the twilight zone
I honestly have no idea how to go about restructuring the tax code to make it more equatable. We aren't the highest taxed of the industrial societies. Our marginal tax rate is second lowest, lower only than Switzerland. We are not overtaxed in comparison to the rest of the world, yet it is hard to find an American with a job who doesn't think they're overtaxed. We need a tax rate high enough to function as a society. We are fighting two wars, behind the scenes in probably a dozen more, and our infrastructure is falling apart. Our education system is falling behind the rest of the industrialized world. We need to be educated to compete with other countries in the global market, but we don't seem to care. We elect people to govern who don't believe that government can work, and are surprised when they prove themselves right.

Kornpoppers ideas seem as valid as any I've heard. We should give that a try for a few years and see how it works out in practice, because the practice we're following isn't working out. We also need to get our priorities right. Like WellMadeMale pointed out, the Federal Reserve is breaking our balls. We need to find another way to issue money too. Money supply needs to have some sort of relationship to the goods it buys, not just on how much it can make for bankers.

As for sales tax on tourists, it seems to me that they should pay taxes like those of us who aren't tourists. If someone goes from a state with no sales tax to visit a state with a high one, they aren't exempt from the tax. Why should tourists be? Only people with money can be tourists anyway. Give us some of it.

I'm afraid that a national sales tax wouldn't eliminate the problem of the underground economy. Do you really think that people who are working under the table won't be able to spend their money in a tax free black market that will spring up as a result of a national sales tax?

There is a lot of waste in government spending. I'm sure a lot of the waste is the result of corruption, congressmen steering work to their contributors in exchange for "campaign contributions."
Some of it is a result of greedy businessmen sticking it to the taxpayer just because they can, and some of it is just stupidity. Not just stupidity on the part of government employees either, but the stupidity which keeps us electing the same people to the same jobs to continue wasting our tax money year after year and not bothering to find out where's it gone. Maybe we should be more choosy in the people we hire to run things for us.

We keep sending the same people who have failed to fix things to congress and electing them president and expecting them to get it right this time around. How many times would we hire the same plumber to fix our toilet if it kept leaking? Will the 113th congress be any different from the 112th? Probably not. I have lost all faith in President Obama to make any positive change, but I will probably end up voting for him. We will probably end up with a president in 2012 who doesn't really please anybody simply because the choice will be between a moderate Republican (Obama) disguised as a Democrat, and the chosen sacrificial goat of the far right lunatic fringe. Classical liberalism is as dead as Keynesian economics will be after January, 2012.

"Happiness is doing it rotten your own way."Isaac Asimov (1994)
LadyX
Posted: Friday, September 09, 2011 2:58:29 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
LittleMissBitch wrote:


lets not forget that the people living paycheck to pay check..i.e me, would have more income as there would be no income tax. my mom is in super high end real estate and she told me that that level of business dropped off not at all in this recession...so hell yeah they are buying consumables and at a higher rate than the poor.

yes you should pay 20% on a house...and there are so many programs out there you can easily buy a house no money down. its taxing consumption, which we can all control over taxing income and we have no control. being the bitch control freak i choose option A.

hell no congress isnt exempt but thats another argument all together what those "i am sure very nice men" (in bitch speak: motherfuckers) give unto themselves.

really i dont see a down side to everyone being taxed on consumption. i mean think of all the under the table workers out there...finally they have to pay their fair share.


Yes, you would have more money in your pocket if income taxes weren't deducted, but it's not as if consumer prices wouldn't shift to reflect that change. I don't see how that shift will result in lower income citizens garnering more net wealth. Plus, as mentioned, there's no escaping the black market. It will only grow if sales tax becomes the sole collection system.

In fact, it would have the opposite effect. CoopsRuthie is correct: sales tax is horribly regressive. Yes, everyone needs a loaf of bread, but that reality is what makes it regressive. If Citizen A brings in $10,000/week and Citizen B brings in $1,000/week, yet both A and B will have to purchase groceries, household items, and gasoline, then you can see that these basic items will require of Citizen B ten-fold the budget share that it would for Citizen A.

Yes, A would buy different, and a greater quantity of, products than B in all likelihood, but I have a hard time building a fairness argument around regressive taxing.

And here again in this thread, there's this talk of an underclass getting away with not paying into the system, and you can hear that echoed in the conservative refrain (also mentioned in this thread) that half of US citizens don't pay income tax (which CR handled already). Yes there is cheating and there is theft, but that's an emotional thing, not a logical one. Apparently, it just burns people up to no end that a minority of the population abuses the system. Stock up on antacids, I guess. That's a personal issue you'll just have to work through, because it's of little actual consequence to the budget. That dastardly half that "get away with" not paying taxes? They have no business having the government hack away at what little they bring on to begin with.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:20:06 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,210
Location: Cakeland, United States
standingbear wrote:
We keep sending the same people who have failed to fix things to congress and electing them president and expecting them to get it right this time around. How many times would we hire the same plumber to fix our toilet if it kept leaking? Will the 113th congress be any different from the 112th? Probably not. I have lost all faith in President Obama to make any positive change, but I will probably end up voting for him. We will probably end up with a president in 2012 who doesn't really please anybody simply because the choice will be between a moderate Republican (Obama) disguised as a Democrat, and the chosen sacrificial goat of the far right lunatic fringe. Classical liberalism is as dead as Keynesian economics will be after January, 2012.


Some choice we have, eh? Pretty much the same bird shit as in 2008. Only this time, we'll know going into it...there are no lies left to swallow and hope for...or believe in.

We get more of the same or worse.

We are well and truly fuckered.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
nazhinaz
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2011 6:15:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
Please try to understand.
IF THEY PAID TAXES REGULARLY, THEY WON'T BE MILLIONAIRES.
To be a millionaire, one needs to overcome obstcales, including the obstacle of paying taxes regualy and in keeping with your accrued income.
They did surmount the obstcales, including avoiding paying proper taxes and now they enjoy their hard earned millions.
Go and do that if you wanna enjoy being a millionaire.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2011 6:44:04 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 472,793
LadyX wrote:
LittleMissBitch wrote:


lets not forget that the people living paycheck to pay check..i.e me, would have more income as there would be no income tax. my mom is in super high end real estate and she told me that that level of business dropped off not at all in this recession...so hell yeah they are buying consumables and at a higher rate than the poor.

yes you should pay 20% on a house...and there are so many programs out there you can easily buy a house no money down. its taxing consumption, which we can all control over taxing income and we have no control. being the bitch control freak i choose option A.

hell no congress isnt exempt but thats another argument all together what those "i am sure very nice men" (in bitch speak: motherfuckers) give unto themselves.

really i dont see a down side to everyone being taxed on consumption. i mean think of all the under the table workers out there...finally they have to pay their fair share.




Yes, you would have more money in your pocket if income taxes weren't deducted, but it's not as if consumer prices wouldn't shift to reflect that change. I don't see how that shift will result in lower income citizens garnering more net wealth. Plus, as mentioned, there's no escaping the black market. It will only grow if sales tax becomes the sole collection system.

In fact, it would have the opposite effect. CoopsRuthie is correct: sales tax is horribly regressive. Yes, everyone needs a loaf of bread, but that reality is what makes it regressive. If Citizen A brings in $10,000/week and Citizen B brings in $1,000/week, yet both A and B will have to purchase groceries, household items, and gasoline, then you can see that these basic items will require of Citizen B ten-fold the budget share that it would for Citizen A.

Yes, A would buy different, and a greater quantity of, products than B in all likelihood, but I have a hard time building a fairness argument around regressive taxing.

And here again in this thread, there's this talk of an underclass getting away with not paying into the system, and you can hear that echoed in the conservative refrain (also mentioned in this thread) that half of US citizens don't pay income tax (which CR handled already). Yes there is cheating and there is theft, but that's an emotional thing, not a logical one. Apparently, it just burns people up to no end that a minority of the population abuses the system. Stock up on antacids, I guess. That's a personal issue you'll just have to work through, because it's of little actual consequence to the budget. That dastardly half that "get away with" not paying taxes? They have no business having the government hack away at what little they bring on to begin with.


ok yes i see your point...but really very very few people out there deserve a free ride and i have known too many able people taking it. and that goes for the rich too. they dont pay income taxes like the rest of us. everyone. every single person..young old legal illegal rich or poor should have to pay into our system...with the exception of a very few. and if flat sales tax is rife with problems then a new way should be thought of. clearly what we have is not working now and more over it is slanted to benefit the already rich. frankly i think or i wish rather there was a built in system for a redistribution of wealth. i know its america and i know its dog eat dog and i know its every man for himself...but maybe if it wasnt maybe if as a society alms-giving was more important to us the we wouldnt have grandmas eating cat food while Tiger Woods has so much money he chokes on it.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, September 10, 2011 7:13:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,342
Location: Alabama, United States
Maybe a national sales tax as the final solution isn't the way to go. But it would be a head start. Instead of it being a huge percentage in lieu of income tax, I wouldn't be opposed to a 2-3% national sales tax. Even though I know it would be a pain in the ass for business owners. In my corner of the country we have a 9% sales tax. Of that, 4% goes to the state and 5% goes to the county. For my little mom&pop shop each month I pay roughly $1200 and $1500 per month to the state and county. If we added a 3% national sales tax, it wouldn't have the same burden as a 25-30% sales tax to offset no income tax (clearly). Collecting an extra .03 cents on the dollar isn't going to break the backs of the individual consumer, but collectively would be an enormous boost to the federal revenue. There are 28.6 billion business listings in the US. If they all collected the same that I could collect (and I guarantee most would collect waayyy more) that extra 3% would bring in $28billon. The actual numbers would probably be 10 times that amount.

In the grand scheme of thing, $28billion is only a drop in the bucket but it's better than nothing. And everyone would pay into it, everyone would bear some of the burden. Yea, there may be a black market out there but your average everyday consumer has no idea how to access it.

What we are doing isn't working, both Dems and Reps agree with that. But if we do nothing, then nothing will change.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.