toldailytopic: Revamping the tax system.

[Nick M]

... you pay $1,500.... you pay $1,500,000.

I don't see that as fair.

 

[Nick M]

It will not work because of the retention of the fiat money and is basted on a consumer basted tax system. Like our present system it is subject to political manipulation and abuse.

As opposed to gold, where the wealth becomes a finite item. The movie the secrets of oz is fairly correct and historically accurate. But he is right, I don't trust John Boehner any more than the Federal Reserve.

 

[elohiym]

As opposed to gold, where the wealth becomes a finite item. The movie the secrets of oz is fairly correct and historically accurate. But he is right, I don't trust John Boehner any more than the Federal Reserve.

Isn't that two different problems, one regarding the monetary system, the other regarding the corrupt political system?

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you were in charge of revamping the tax code of the nation what sort of tax plan do you think would be most fair and best for your country?

- Flat Tax?
- National sales tax?
- Fair tax?
- 9, 9, 9
- Other?

Or do you think we should keep things the way they are right now?

• Heavily regulate and tax corporations, LLCs, and other entities like them. (These are not people and their collective power and lack of personal liability must be controlled.)
• Deregulate and stop taxing Sole Proprietor and Partnership businesses. (These are people and should not be taxed twice.)
• Tax the States according to the number residents in the State and abolish taxing individual residents of the States. (The Federal government needs to stop abridging the powers of the States)
• Heavily tax the States according to the number of "undocumented" residents in the States. (The States can control the "undocumented" residents or pay enough to the Federal government to cover the costs of the Federal government dealing with the problem)
• Heavily regulate and tax all imports without any regard to nation of origin or whether they are being imported by a domestic or foreign entity. (Make all imported goods more costly to buy in order to create a greater demand for domestic manufacturing)
• Stop taxing businesses for labor. (Make it cheaper for businesses to hire people so more people can be hired for the same cost to the business)

 

[PureX]

Well, liberals always cry about fairness, even though taxes don't exist to be fair but to fund the government.

Right, and conservatives hate liberals, hate fairness, hate taxes and hate the government. (See a pattern, here?)

So lets make it fair. Everybody pays the same.

But of course that doesn't make it "fair" at all. A person who is earning just enough to pay for the necessities of life will have to sacrifice dearly to pay his taxes, while a person who is making more than he needs to live is sacrificing nothing at all to pay his taxes. if you're going to tax people, then "fair" means that the sacrifice each person has to make is equal, not the percentage of the tax being paid.

This is why we should be taxing accumulated wealth, not people. The more wealth a taxable entity accumulates, the greater percentage the tax would be on it. This would be 'fair' AND encourage a more even distribution of overall wealth. The more evenly wealth is distributed, the more robust the economy, and the better the well-being of society as a whole. And after all, the whole point of government, commerce, and taxation is to improve the well-being of society as a whole. NOT the well-being of a few very wealthy individuals at the expense of everyone else.

 

[elohiym]

Why tax at all? :idunno:

The government can create all the money it needs.

That's already essentially what it's doing, only now it's doing it through a system that creates debt to enrich private corporations.

Why can't people grasp this?! :sigh:

:think: :idea: Avarice! The root of all evil, just like the Bible states.

 

[GuySmiley]

I'd like to see a flat income tax on all income above a certain amount. That amount is based on some minimum living standard. Off the top of my head I'd say somewhere around $30,000 to $50,000 per year. No loopholes, no deductions. And individuals would be responsible to payment, employers would not collect taxes.

Oh, and there would be no tax on businesses.

 

[elected4ever]

With a flat tax rate I would immediately work harder and spend more. That's still a good thing, right?

No, if you are not doing your best now then you are steeling form your employer and the tax rate would make no difference what so ever. You are still a thief.

Wouldn't a flat tax amount be more fair than a flat rate? A flat rate is still very "progressive" and punishers high earners. Not realistic, just making the point. Again.

All consumer basted taxes are progressive and designed to destroy the middle class and enrich the proletariat. There is no such thing as a fair consumer basted tax.

Is it a valid assumption that high earners use more services so they should pay more? Seems to me they use less. Much more self-sufficient and productive, although early in life they tend to benefit from state universities, etc.

No. Why is the government involved in education other that to indoctrinate a captive audience.

 

[PureX]

That would stop if we payed government through last years receipts and forbade it from going into debt.

Most of all our debt is due to overly rosy economic forecasts.. remove that from the equation and you remove the problem.

i.e. at the beginning of the year, the state says.. we collected this much money last year and we have it in the bank.. that is all we are allowed to spend.. so lets make up the budget based on it.

But real life doesn't work that way. The money needed in a year when a state has to recover from a natural disaster, for example, will far exceed the money it will need in most other years. You just can't always force a person, a state, or a nation to live within it's means.

 

[elohiym]

But real life doesn't work that way. The money needed in a year when a state has to recover from a natural disaster, for example, will far exceed the money it will need in most other years. You just can't always force a person, a state, or a nation to live within it's means.

You can if you take away the power to borrow money from government.

You can if you no longer allow banks to expand deposits and only loan the money they have.

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is why we should be taxing accumulated wealth, not people.

Deuteronomy 14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:​

If you want to make it "fair" then only net profits should be taxed.
Gross income should not be taxed since people do have expenses.

 

[PureX]

Eliminating the gold standard and letting the government print money won't eliminate the need for taxation (although it would certainly help!). We would still need to stop money from piling up in the hands of a few. Otherwise, the more the money piles up, the less value it will have, overall. Progressive taxation is a good way of redistributing wealth while maintaining infrastructure and social safety nets.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'd like to see a flat income tax on all income above a certain amount. That amount is based on some minimum living standard. Off the top of my head I'd say somewhere around $30,000 to $50,000 per year. No loopholes, no deductions. And individuals would be responsible to payment, employers would not collect taxes.

So, what happens when the dollar is devaluated to the point that the poverty level is $300,000 per year? Then people making less than the poverty level will be paying a flat income tax as well.

Oh, and there would be no tax on businesses.

I agree for individuals in sole proprietorship and partnerships where the business income is part of their personal income.

I disagree for corporations and other forms of businesses that provide liability protection for the shareholders. Those should be taxed heavily and heavily regulated.

 

[jwp98]

I don't get it. How can one tax wealth without taxing people?

Again and again zero-sum theory comes up. There isn't a fixed amount of wealth like there are square miles of land in the USA. If A gains, B does not lose. "A" might add value where there was none. He or she might bring in wealth from foreign lands. Harness a new resource or idea.

 

[jwp98]

No, if you are not doing your best now then you are steeling form your employer and the tax rate would make no difference what so ever. You are still a thief.

We should all be our best. Personal best, not some crazy federal or employer standard.

If I'm self employed, or work as an employee on production, how does responding to incentive make me a thief? How many hours would you have me put in per day? You're a tough boss

Why is the government involved in education other that to indoctrinate a captive audience.

To make sure no one brings a bible to school?

 

[elected4ever]

I don't agree. It has worked historically, until allowed to be changed. The Roman republic had a long a successful history with a debt-free fiat money system, and when it was changed, Rome declined. It is the gold-backed currency that is subject to manipulation by those who control that commodity.

U.S. notes will work just fine without a gold standard.

Just the opposite is true. It was the continued devaluation of the Roman currency that caused the devolution of the Roman Empire. It will be the devolution of the United States also.

Gold belongs in the hands of the people and not in the hands of government. It was the peoples gold that was minted and returned to the people that furnished the currency of the United States. The government was only to guarantee the amount and fineness of the minted coin. The government stole the gold and placed it in the hands of the wealthy elect called the Federal Reserve to monopolize the currency. This way they can and do dictate policy.

The books of the elect are balanced on the backs of the common man instead of elect who made bad choices and should be responsible for their own mistakes. You seem to be in favor of continuing this practice.

 

[elected4ever]

We should all be at our best. Personal best, not some crazy federal or employer standard.

Not the question being addressed. Don't change the subject.

If I'm self employed, or work as an employee on production, how does responding to incentive make me a thief? How many hours would you have me put in per day? You're a tough boss

Working longer hours has nothing to do with quality of work

To make sure no one brings a bible to school?

That is a bout the dumbest answer I can think off.

 

[jwp98]

Not the question being addressed. Don't change the subject.

Working longer hours has nothing to do with quality of work



That is a bout the dumbest answer I can think off.

I will continue to do a great job, though it is fatiguing and stressful, because I want to. I will work more hours and produce more product IF I can keep more of what I earn. Otherwise I'll take vacation, like today, and my spending will not enter the economy. Is that reasonable?

I was joking about the bible. Lighten up and keep your sass.

 

[elected4ever]

I will continue to do a great job, though it is fatiguing and stressful, because I want to. I will work more hours and produce more product IF I can keep more of what I earn. Otherwise I'll take vacation, like today, and my spending will not enter the economy. Is that reasonable?

I was joking about the bible. Lighten up and keep your sass.

It just gets my goat when someone insinuates that the quality of work is basted on level of pay. I am glad that you do a great job no matter the pay.:cheers:

 

[Tambora]

I vote no taxes whatsoever.