Taxes, time to pay your fair share

[SmitEvo]

amicheze;191270 wrote:
Doesn't matter. Was I talking about you specifically?

No...but I was just wondering?

[Sweet-WRX-Lovin]

Taxes just blow ass. The rich have been carrying the burdens of the poor since forever. I feel very sorry for them too, cuz they're rich and that would suck.

[Purple_94GT]

DaveH;191240 wrote:
So I wonder how much in tax everyone would need to pay if the only thing the Govt spent money on were the things it was SUPPOSE to spend money on. ie: military, interstate road systems, etc and not all these friggin handouts or some special library named after xyz congressman.

Every year I get all worked up about taxes at least a couple of different times. Yesterday, pay day, was one of those times again. I am in the same boat as you Dave; whenever I work overtime I get killed. I live in Minnesota, am single, and bought a house too late this year to itemize, so I actually get killed about as bad on taxes as anyone can who earns less than $150,000. Next year I’ll be able to itemize and deduct my interest, so at least I’ll be able to garner that deduction in my overall tax burden.

I am a supporter of the FairTax idea, but not everything, or a lot of things, which it proposes. One reason I really like the FairTax is because it lets every individual determine their own tax burden. If you don’t want to pay high taxes, don’t buy a new TV, motorcycle, car, etc. If I feel like living a frugal lifestyle now in order to retire early, it would be much easier to put away a bunch of cash without have my check destroyed by income taxes. If you look at this country’s spending habits vs. income levels it shows that taxing a person’s purchases vs. their income is actually a more stable means of collection. I don’t agree how the FairTax supporters pitch it as the be-all, end-all idea that is going to save the country. I’m not going to go into this all right now because this thread isn’t about the FairTax initiative.

I’m not a Republican or a Democrat; I dislike each side just about the same. I wish people wouldn’t always turn the tax discussion (or any political discussion for that matter) into a partisan debate. Why can’t we all simply agree that the government spends entirely too much money and has been doing this for years? The 9 trillion dollar national debt was not created solely by one political party. The US collected a little over 2.2 trillion dollars last year. They paid around 406 billion on interest on the national debt. I would like to see a shift in our government's focus to paying off the national debt. Suspend any new programs, additions to existing programs … anything that would mean additional spending. Use any surplus, not the surplus left after the new programs, to pay down the debt. Without the national debt the US would be left with an additional 20% to give back to its citizens. This would only happen though if the citizens required the government to curtail their spending before and after the debt is paid off.

How much do we spend on “fluff” every year? Why should everyone be entitled to a free ride if they don’t feel like working? Why should living in the US entitle you to anything besides a chance to go get yours? Last time I checked, if I don’t work show up for work, I don’t get a paycheck. The same should go for those on welfare. If you can’t find a job, the government should give you one. You can’t tell me there isn’t work that could be done of every city block in this country (picking up trash, painting buildings, cleaning toilets). At least we’d be getting something out of our tax dollars, plus it would offer incentive to go get a better, possibly even a real job.

Please don’t paint me as a cynic that thinks that welfare if the worst thing in the world. Social programs are and should be in place to give people a chance to better themselves. I have an old co-worker who is currently on welfare and using it the way that is should be. His wife goes to school full-time and works part time. They have two kids. He quit his full time job to go back to school full time. He is given a few grants to help pay for school, he gets his healthcare picked up by the state (MN Cares), and he spends the next couple of years suckling on our country’s teat. I know him though and the minute that he is done with school he will be back into the workforce earning a much higher wage, providing much higher tax revenue each year until his retirement. Before making his decision, he bought his trailer house and paid it off by working the last few years. Would he rather have a nicer/newer house? Of course, but he is willing to sacrifice a few years of his life to have a better future. This is the kind of thing that these programs do and should allow, nothing more-nothing less.

Why should I have to pay for someone else’s perpetual lack of education, skill, determination, or whatever else is keeping them from making it in this country. I’ve had to work for every cent I have. I worked my ass off while going to college pay my bills. I applied for an NSF scholarship and was awarded a $13,000/year scholarship. After filling out my FAFSA information the scholarship was withdrawn because I made too much money. If I was have been sitting on my ass on financial aid I would have been awarded this scholarship. I still managed to work my way through school and left without a single loan for my schooling. Being debt free has allowed me to do so many things that I wouldn’t be able to do otherwise, just as it would the United States government.

Sorry for the ridiculously long rant. My lack of sleep (went to the Sevendust concert last night) coupled with the Red Bull that I just slammed has turned mind onto thinking about a myriad of different things all at once.

Lucas

[torbs]

tjamz;190887 wrote:
I was wrong, I figured it at 20% http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9510&highlight=flat

for those that don't want to dig:

http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=151840&postcount=37

For those that don't want to click:

---

Chuck...I dont understand why you don't like the fair tax beings you figured out a flat tax @ 20%....the fairtax is more supported in congress than the flat tax, and it isn't too far off being 23%...I just dont get why you seem against it when you support a program that's nearly identical, but has more support from congress, etc...

[DaveH]

$1 million for the freakin Woodstock Museum was attached to the latest education and healthcare bill. It looks like it got the boot, but that is the kind of crap that is just killing us. Politicians who just play gimme gimme with the peoples money, trying to get as much of the government fat as they can for their particular state. It's rediculous.

I know Chuck will poo poo my idea again, but the only "fair" tax is one where everyone pays the same amount. Not the same percentage, the same dollar amount. Anything else is just socialism.

[torbs]

DaveH;191639 wrote:
$1 million for the freakin Woodstock Museum was attached to the latest education and healthcare bill. It looks like it got the boot, but that is the kind of crap that is just killing us. Politicians who just play gimme gimme with the peoples money, trying to get as much of the government fat as they can for their particular state. It's rediculous.

I know Chuck will poo poo my idea again, but the only "fair" tax is one where everyone pays the same amount. Not the same percentage, the same dollar amount. Anything else is just socialism.

we can thank hilary/the dems for the woodstock museum...

and having everybody (somebody making $1,000,000 and somebody making $15k) paying the same amount dollar wise (NOT PERCENTAGE) seems totally unrealistic...I don't see what's bad about everybody paying in the same percentage based on what you want to buy...thats why i like the fair tax idea...bc it is NOT based on income, it's based on SALES.

Dave, are you saying that you don't think it's fair that you along with everybody else in Fargo now pays a 6.5% sales tax?...from the way I read what you just posted, it looks as though you don't think it's fair that everybody pays the same sales tax. (that's the whole idea behind the fair tax...everybody paying in the same sales tax)

[Guest]

torbs;191643 wrote:
we can thank hilary/the dems for the woodstock museum...

The Woodstock project's main backer, Alan Gerry, is a registered Republican

However, you are right, Hilary and Schumer proposed the bill that was shot down by Democrats & Republicans (52-42).

Not saying you were wrong torbs, just making sure you are presenting 100% of the truth.

[Guest]

the problem with both of the "fair" taxes presented (Daves & Torbs) is making it feasible.

In theory, Dave's works great IF we can cut gov't spending dramatically so that everyone isn't required to pay a large sum (Currently that would be $17127.80/person to keep up with last years spending.....EXTREMELY unrealistic...not to mention would it would take to get us out of debt to other countries) I'd come out ahead on this, but how many others would on here?

Torb's, the problem with your idea is that if everyone saves (as you are hoping they would) it would actually cause 2 major problems:

1. Businesses would fail horribly causing higher unemployment, etc...
2. The Gov't would need to increase the percentage rate that it taxes at to compensate for the lack of funding it would have due to all the spending....which would cause problem #1 to become even worse, causing #2 to become worse causing #1 to become worse, etc, etc, etc...

[StangerBanger96]

And you're a damned fool if you think 90% of Americans are smart enough to save in large quantities. Current CC debt figures are proof that we would have no lack of $$ rolling in if a 23% across the board sales tax was our governments only revenue source.

[Guest]

ahhh...you are right there Dustin....however the lowest of the classes would pay a hugely disproportionate share of the taxes (most people who earn less than $45,000 Household income spend a LARGE portion of their income whereas those who earn higher incomes often are more frugal, in relation to income/wealth, and would pay a much lower portion compared to their earnings). So, if you feel comfortable taxing the lowest income earners proportionally more then this is a great tax incentive.

[Guest]

The other side of this is that it would actually hurt larger businesses that are normally able to write off their large purchases on their federal taxes (Machinery, Mills, Presses, Security, Vehicles, etc...) They would no longer be able to write off their expenses which "could" lead to more risk to equipment operators and/or shoddier products.

[thrash]

Businesses are already exempt from many forms of sales taxation. Why would you assume that would no longer be the case? And why would you assume that business income tax would go away with personal income tax?

As I said elsewhere, only 1/3rd of the federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. We could eliminate it entirely if we could manage to spend 1/3rd less. The notion that changing the personal income tax would bankrupt the government immediately is plain fear-mongering. The 0maximum possible damage it could do would be to leave us with a 33% shortfall. Of course, think of all of the money we'd save by dismantling the IRS (which costs several hundred billion dollars to run, IIRC).

It's also possible to amend fair/flat tax schemes such that they have an income floor and a negative tax below that floor. That is, people making below a certain amt of money receive money from uncle sam. As the amount of money they actually earn increases, the amount of credit they receive decreases, but at rate such that they are always better off making more of their own money than they are trying to remain on tax credit.

I think it is reasonable to reconsider the mechanisms and "goals" of our personal income tax system. Putting money back in people's hands is good for lots of reasons.

[Guest]

Businesses are already exempt from many forms of sales taxation. Why would you assume that would no longer be the case? And why would you assume that business income tax would go away with personal income tax?

Because they are exempt from state taxes, not federal taxes. I guess I just assumed it would be the same for both business and personal income taxes.

As I said elsewhere, only 1/3rd of the federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. We could eliminate it entirely if we could manage to spend 1/3rd less. The notion that changing the personal income tax would bankrupt the government immediately is plain fear-mongering. The 0maximum possible damage it could do would be to leave us with a 33% shortfall. Of course, think of all of the money we'd save by dismantling the IRS (which costs several hundred billion dollars to run, IIRC).

Oh, I know that it wouldn't bankrupt the gov't, I know that the average person wouldn't stop spending...see post a few post up where I address this.

It's also possible to amend fair/flat tax schemes such that they have an income floor and a negative tax below that floor. That is, people making below a certain amt of money receive money from uncle sam. As the amount of money they actually earn increases, the amount of credit they receive decreases, but at rate such that they are always better off making more of their own money than they are trying to remain on tax credit.

But, how do you amend a sales tax? Make everyone carry a card that is digitally encrypted so they only pay based on what they've already purchased or based on a previous years income statement? Seems like a huge loophole either way.

I think it is reasonable to reconsider the mechanisms and "goals" of our personal income tax system. Putting money back in people's hands is good for lots of reasons.

I can agree with that statement whole heartedly. I just don't think that Dave's flat tax or Torbs fair tax will do that any better than what we currently have.

[DaveH]

torbs;191643 wrote:
Dave, are you saying that you don't think it's fair that you along with everybody else in Fargo now pays a 6.5% sales tax?...from the way I read what you just posted, it looks as though you don't think it's fair that everybody pays the same sales tax. (that's the whole idea behind the fair tax...everybody paying in the same sales tax)

Correct. Any tax should be paid equally between all the people. If you are taking more money from some people and less from other people based on how much money they make, or how much money they spend, I would not call that fair. It's wealth re-distribution.

[thrash]

Suppose somebody decides that you need to buy $10k worth of crap in a year to stay alive. (I'm making up a number).

Further suppose that the national sales tax rate is 20% (I'm making up a second number).

Great. At the beginning of the year, give everyone $2000. Now everybody buys stuff just like they always have.

The people least able to spend (presumably, the poorest people), who buy exactly the $10k in goods we think they need in order to make it, pay no effective tax.

(If someone figures out how to be more spendthrift than the government... well, they get free money!! woo woo!!)

The people that spend $20k on stuff ? They've paid an effective tax of $2k. That's an effective rate of 10%. The people who spend 100k? They've paid an $18k tax.

One person who spends $100k in a year (and thus pays $20k in gross taxes, or 18k net taxes), has provided the $2k credit for 9 people who manage to spend less than the $10k value that we figure is the lowest possible amount of money you could live on (or whatever we define as the tax-floor-threshhold)

I think the ratio of people who spend $100k / year to people who spend less than $10k a year is better than 1:9, honestly. And in reality, all of the spending segments above and below the $100k mark will be contributing tax revnues that go into paying the normal government business and this $2k tax credit.

In regards to how you'd collect a national sales tax, typically the suggestion is that you collect it the exact same way a state tax is collected -- at the register.

When you consider that tax is an efficiency penalty in performing a certain activity (an income tax is an efficiency penalty you pay when working.. a sales tax is an efficiency penalty you pay when buying...), one wonders if we want to punish people for "working" or for "buying" ?

I'm not espousing any particular plan, but I am attempting to convince you that plans other than the current one are workable.

You might be interested to know that Ron Paul introduced legislation to make tips tax-exempt (HR 3664), to try and help out the hard working people that depend on tips for their income. Someone on the local Ron Paul meetup group forwarded the Bill # to Coleman. Coleman, of course, says he is against it.

[thrash]

DaveH;191730 wrote:
Correct. Any tax should be paid equally between all the people. If you are taking more money from some people and less from other people based on how much money they make, or how much money they spend, I would not call that fair. It's wealth re-distribution.

To be fair, if person A spends 10x as person B, irrespective of taxes, you're already seeing wealth re-distribution.

I'm far from socialist, and I don't want you to think that I'm arguing against you, but I'd make the point that wealth and spending inequality is only really possible in a society.

Every man, no matter how rich or poor, basically needs the same amount of food, water, shelter, and clothing. The very wealthy can get grossly more of those things than they could ever use, or could require the quality of those things to be grossly higher than what a single man could realistically produce for himself in his lifetime (i.e. a tailor might make a garment of such quality that it takes them 10 years to produce, but a wealthy person can buy that garment in a matter of seconds).

What I am getting at is that, as a practical matter, it is impossible to live a grossly high standard of living without depending on and interacting with other members in a society. If you take the most productive man to have ever lived, he is not even 1000 times as productive as even the laziest or most disabled person to have ever lived. Yet it is common to find people who are at least 1000 times as wealthy as even the average man, and certainly the poorest man.

Generally, this is possible only with the tremendous division of labor that results from a large population.

Given all of this, one can make the argument that the wealthy man benefits from society tremendously more than the average man. The common farmer, who, if need be, can be mostly self sufficient, is impacted considerably less if the rest of the world stopped than the guy on wallstreet that doesn't know how to wipe his own ass, much less grow his own food, mend his clothes, and raise his own shelter.

If you're still following me (wealthy people benefit more from society than average people do), you can draw a dotted line to the conclusion "let's make wealthy people bear more of the burden of keeping a society running, since they benefit from a functioning society more than the average man does"

Warren Buffet says essentially this, actually. He's said something to the effect of, without all those people out there willing to pay him to do what he does.. he's nobody. In that sense, he's got a great debt to society.. to those people.

What I've attempted to provide is a rational argument that can be used to justify taxation in proportion to wealth. It's common to argue against conclusions but more interesting to argue for or against the line of reasoning that gets you to a given conclusion.

[DaveH]

thrash;191735 wrote:
To be fair, if person A spends 10x as person B, irrespective of taxes, you're already seeing wealth re-distribution.

I guess I should have been clearer and said government wealth distribution ie: socialism.

thrash;191735 wrote:
Given all of this, one can make the argument that the wealthy man benefits from society tremendously more than the average man.

This is where we differ, in general I would say the wealthy man contributes to, rather than benefits from society much more than the "average" man. How many moderate/poor people do you see starting businesses and creating jobs and products, how many moderate/poor people have come up with new inventions and improved ways of doing things? If a moderate/poor person did/does these things, then he shortly would no longer be in the moderate/poor category.

thrash;191735 wrote:
<snip> you can draw a dotted line to the conclusion "let's make wealthy people bear more of the burden of keeping a society running, since they benefit from a functioning society more than the average man does".

I think that suggesting that taxes keep our society running is, well funny. In general the ballooned government and taxes are what is holding our society down from being the best it could be.

[MisterCMK]

I make 3 peanuts a day working for NDSU. Fuckers took 1 of my peanuts.

[Guest]

DaveH;191778 wrote:
This is where we differ, in general I would say the wealthy man contributes to, rather than benefits from society much more than the "average" man.

I think it works both ways honestly. It is probably fairly balanced on the contributes/benefits for the wealthiest of Americans and their businesses.

How many moderate/poor people do you see starting businesses and creating jobs and products, how many moderate/poor people have come up with new inventions and improved ways of doing things?
**
How many have the capital needed to start a new business? If they do, how likely are they to be a large enough company to get tax incentives from cities/counties/states? How many can afford to put their guaranteed income from their present job on the line to start a new business venture that could end up costing them all of their possessions (house, car, etc....)? **

If a moderate/poor person did/does these things, then he shortly would no longer be in the moderate/poor category.

Agreed, but as stated above, the risk is great, more so than if you are upper-middle class to wealthy

All things said, in theory I agree with a lot of what Dave and thrash have stated.

[Guest]

MisterCMK;191781 wrote:
I make 3 peanuts a day working for NDSU. Fuckers took 1 of my peanuts.

But, if you made 30000 peanuts a day, would it bother you as much if they took 10000 of them?