73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[PLC1]

As much as is possible every tax needs to be connected to the activity that it relates to.

So a sin tax on cigarettes would be used to pay for any legitimate government expense that related to cigarettes. If an anti-smoking campaign were legitimate then it would be paid for through cigarette taxes. But roads would not be paid for with cigarette taxes.

An income tax would be connected only to the running of the the department of labor and enforcement of its necessary rules.

A national sales tax would be connected to the regulation of interstate commerce.

This kind of a system would make taxes more transparent, logical, and if they had punative effects then the punishment would be connected to the things that were punished.

Sounds good.

what tax would support the military?

What are the odds that Congress could actually come up with a logical, workable plan like that?

 

[GenSeneca]

What do you consider "punitive" taxation? Should all income be taxed at the same rate?

Every individual should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of income. Discriminating against people based on their income is still a policy of discrimination. Justice requires that every individual be given equal treatment at the hands of government and discriminating against certain individuals, for any reason, is a denial of justice.

 

[PLC1]

Every individual should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of income. Discriminating against people based on their income is still a policy of discrimination. Justice requires that every individual be given equal treatment at the hands of government and discriminating against certain individuals, for any reason, is a denial of justice.

um...so we take that 3.7 trillion dollar budget, trim the .7 (to make the math easier), and divvy it up evenly among the nation's 300 million, everyone pays ten grand apiece, and all is well.

Is that really what you're suggesting?

 

[Dr.Who]

Sounds good.

what tax would support the military?

I too think that one provides a challenge which is as part of why I did not mention it.

A few thoughts. It protects every individual not just homeowners and not just rich or poor folks and it protects them all equally. A head tax that included children and adults is the first thing that comes to mind except that that one is specifically prohibited in the Const.

A real estate tax ends up taxing everybody who lives on land somewhere but it taxes people who live in more dense households less than those who live in less dense households. They also tax more expensive homes more thanless expensive homes while the inhabitants each receive the same amount of protection.

Sales tax taxes spending and those who spend more would be taxed more.

A tax on a drivers license would only tax drivers and only adults.

How about a flat fee for each single tax return (which would no longer be called an income tax return since it just might include several different kinds of taxes on it) a double fee for those filing jointly, and a multiplier for every dependent? It would clearly be labeled "military support tax" and the total cost for the previous years military operations would be listed. Anyone who did not want to pay the military support tax could alternatively pay the "diplomatic support tax" which would be the same amount. Just brainstorming.

What are the odds that Congress could actually come up with a logical, workable plan like that?

Slim, it would be too hard to game.

 

[dogtowner]

"Sin taxes" are absurd. I haven't heard that term for a while.

if you buy cigarettes or alcoholic beverages you paid a sin tax.

Permits? I pay a fee to drive my car that non motorists don't pay. I buy a fishing license, that's a fee, for the privilege of fishing in the state of California. I don't have a problem with that. I think all of the fees so collected should go to roads and to improving fisheries, respectively, however. That's not the case currently.

Use taxes can be argued for but what about the assortment of fees and permits my brother has to pay just to dredge out at his boat dock ? No benefit or harm is in play, just milking the person seeking it. Shoot he m ight even accept that if they would just state whats required and stick to it. Obviously they have not been able to accomplish this in the past three years. And its exponentially worse for businesses.

Taxes collected for the purpose of running the government need to be more fair. Income is income, however it is earned. If it's an income tax, then that's how it should be levied. A national sales tax has been bandied about as an option, but that idea raises a lot of questions. What other tax could replace the income tax?

More fair ? Like a non-progressive as it relates to an income tax ? I prefer consumption tax over the maze of taxes we face today. It includes the underground that currently escapes taxation (except for Al Capone eventually) and makes it extrordinarily transparent one's contribution to the govrnment's coffers.

If there is one, then by all means, let's substitute it. After all, the best way to discourage something is to tax it, and the last thing we need to do is discourage people from earning an income.

I agree with not wishing to inhibit enterprise but why should the government seek to discourage anything.

 

[PLC1]

I too think that one provides a challenge which is as part of why I did not mention it.

A few thoughts. It protects every individual not just homeowners and not just rich or poor folks and it protects them all equally. A head tax that included children and adults is the first thing that comes to mind except that that one is specifically prohibited in the Const.

A real estate tax ends up taxing everybody who lives on land somewhere but it taxes people who live in more dense households less than those who live in less dense households. They also tax more expensive homes more thanless expensive homes while the inhabitants each receive the same amount of protection.

Sales tax taxes spending and those who spend more would be taxed more.

A tax on a drivers license would only tax drivers and only adults.

How about a flat fee for each single tax return (which would no longer be called an income tax return since it just might include several different kinds of taxes on it) a double fee for those filing jointly, and a multiplier for every dependent? It would clearly be labeled "military support tax" and the total cost for the previous years military operations would be listed. Anyone who did not want to pay the military support tax could alternatively pay the "diplomatic support tax" which would be the same amount. Just brainstorming.




Slim, it would be too hard to game.

I like the real estate tax idea. The flat fee sounds a lot like a per capita tax to me.

 

[dogtowner]

I too think that one provides a challenge which is as part of why I did not mention it.

A few thoughts. It protects every individual not just homeowners and not just rich or poor folks and it protects them all equally. A head tax that included children and adults is the first thing that comes to mind except that that one is specifically prohibited in the Const.

A real estate tax ends up taxing everybody who lives on land somewhere but it taxes people who live in more dense households less than those who live in less dense households. They also tax more expensive homes more thanless expensive homes while the inhabitants each receive the same amount of protection.

Sales tax taxes spending and those who spend more would be taxed more.

A tax on a drivers license would only tax drivers and only adults.

How about a flat fee for each single tax return (which would no longer be called an income tax return since it just might include several different kinds of taxes on it) a double fee for those filing jointly, and a multiplier for every dependent? It would clearly be labeled "military support tax" and the total cost for the previous years military operations would be listed. Anyone who did not want to pay the military support tax could alternatively pay the "diplomatic support tax" which would be the same amount. Just brainstorming.




Slim, it would be too hard to game.

Fair Tax. The legislation is already written and its impossible to game as written. That reason is why it will not pass. I believe "government" is latin for "enrich my benefactors".

 

[Openmind]

its a lie. at least buffett used a little thought crafting his sound bite.




I'm for allowing everyone the freedom to accomplish what they have the industry to attempt. This is right. Progressive taxation is wrong. Kill ALL subsidies and punitive taxation and I'll be happy as a clam.

"The industry to attempt?"

Did you read what I wrote? A good portion of the "poor" are unable (either because of disability or because of lower IQ to compete adequately.

So, because they are born with those characteristic, they have to suffer all their life, never knowing real security, and depending on "charity?"

 

[PLC1]

if you buy cigarettes or alcoholic beverages you paid a sin tax.



Use taxes can be argued for but what about the assortment of fees and permits my brother has to pay just to dredge out at his boat dock ? No benefit or harm is in play, just milking the person seeking it. Shoot he m ight even accept that if they would just state whats required and stick to it. Obviously they have not been able to accomplish this in the past three years. And its exponentially worse for businesses.



More fair ? Like a non-progressive as it relates to an income tax ? I prefer consumption tax over the maze of taxes we face today. It includes the underground that currently escapes taxation (except for Al Capone eventually) and makes it extrordinarily transparent one's contribution to the govrnment's coffers.



I agree with not wishing to inhibit enterprise but why should the government seek to discourage anything.

Consumption tax? Like a VAT or a sales tax? A national sales tax is one idea that has been discussed, the "fair tax". It would have to be pretty high to replace the income tax, and would have to cover everything. If we tax house sales, for example, we'd put a serious damper on the real estate market. If it only covered new houses, as old ones already have paid the tax once, it would discourage new construction. If real estate were not taxed, then the taxes on everything else would have to go up. Would we tax services? Medical care? Imagine the cost of medical care in such a scenario.

Why would the government want to discourage anything? I don't know... how about discouraging pollution, obesity, smoking, drug abuse. Wouldn't that be in the best interests of the nation as a whole?

 

[dogtowner]

Consumption tax? Like a VAT or a sales tax?

VAT is not a consumption tax. Sales tax is more like it.

A national sales tax is one idea that has been discussed, the "fair tax". It would have to be pretty high to replace the income tax, and would have to cover everything. If we tax house sales, for example, we'd put a serious damper on the real estate market. If it only covered new houses, as old ones already have paid the tax once, it would discourage new construction. If real estate were not taxed, then the taxes on everything else would have to go up. Would we tax services? Medical care? Imagine the cost of medical care in such a scenario.

23% does it and while you would not believe it (without reading the research) the cost of things would not really change given the underlying invisible taxes we all currently pay that are a component of the price you now see. Sounds crazy but once you educate yourself, crazy is exactly how the current maze of a tax code we currently have is.

Why would the government want to discourage anything? I don't know... how about discouraging pollution, obesity, smoking, drug abuse. Wouldn't that be in the best interests of the nation as a whole?

Pollution is illegal and rightly so as it produces definable damage to others. No discouraging required. It would also be in the best interests of the country to discourage non-marital sex, conspicuous consumption, immorality of any kind and a host of other things. Are you sure that a bar you want to set ?

 

[dogtowner]

"The industry to attempt?"

Did you read what I wrote? A good portion of the "poor" are unable (either because of disability or because of lower IQ to compete adequately.

hows about providing some quantification of what a good portion is.

So, because they are born with those characteristic, they have to suffer all their life, never knowing real security, and depending on "charity?"

Charity is a decided step up over how they would have been accommodated not so many generations ago. And I'll let you in on a little secret: nobody knows real security... no one is immune from losing everything.

 

[Openmind]

hows about providing some quantification of what a good portion is.

Would this report from the American Psychological Association do? Or do you need a reference from Fox News or Limbaugh to believe it?

SES Impacts the Lives of the People With a Disability
Persons with a disability are likely to have limited opportunities to earn income and often have increased medical expenses. Disabilities among children and adults may affect the socioeconomic standing of entire families. It is estimated that over 40 million people in America have some level of disability, and many of these individuals live in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Although the Americans with Disabilities Act assures equal opportunities in education and employment for people with and without disabilities and prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, people with disabilities remain overrepresented among America’s poor and undereducated. Some data suggest causal relationships between low SES and the development of disability in late adulthood (Coppin et al., 2006). These barriers contribute to discrepancies in wealth and socioeconomic opportunities for persons with a disability and their families.

Income and Poverty for People With a Disability

The Federal government has two major programs to assist persons with disabilities. Supplemental Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is an insurance program for workers who have become disabled and unable to work after years of paying Social Security taxes. In this program, a higher income yields higher SSDI earnings. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a welfare program for individuals with low income and poor resources. Despite these and other forms of assistance, persons with disabilities are more likely to be unemployed and live in poverty. The American Association of People With Disabilities (AAPD) estimates that two thirds of people with disabilities are of working age and want to work. The high incidence of poverty among persons with a disability fuels doubts about the sufficiency of public assistance to these individuals.

Results from the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) reveal significant disparities in the median incomes for those with and without disabilities. Median earnings for people with no disability were over $28,000 compared to the $17,000 median income reported for individuals with a disability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
In an effort to investigate unemployment disparities, a recent study surveyed Human Resources and project managers about their perceptions of hiring persons with disabilities. Results indicated that these professionals held negative perceptions related to the productivity, social maturity, interpersonal skills, and psychological adjustment of persons with disabilities (Chan, 2008)
For individuals who are blind and visually impaired, unemployment rates exceed 70% (American Psychological Association Task Force on Socioeconomic Status, 2007).
Among older veterans living below the poverty level, over 50% have a disability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).

[/QUOTE]Charity is a decided step up over how they would have been accommodated not so many generations ago. And I'll let you in on a little secret: nobody knows real security... no one is immune from losing everything.[/QUOTE]

Well, do you think this is why the tea party would love to go back a few generations? Because "life was so much better and fairer then?"

You are correct, security is NEVER a certainty. . .however, living EVERYDAY without knowing where the next meal will come from and depending on "charity" for survival is a little more stressful than getting into one's Lexus and knowing that one could have a fatal accident, or getting to an airport, passying "security" and still wondering if the plane will be highjacked or crash!

Many of the poor have in fact nothing much to lose. . .only their life!
I guess we all know how stressful it is to risk losing 50% of our 401K if the stock market crash! That is soooo much more stressful than. . .not having a 401K!

 

[Dr.Who]

I like the real estate tax idea. The flat fee sounds a lot like a per capita tax to me.

Its "ok" but every person has but one life to be protected yet those who own larger homes would pay more. This would be true even if the person with the larger hose earned less than a person with a smaller house but just chose to spend more of his money on housing. And what of the people who own hunting cabins? They would pay twice to protect their one life. Landlords would pass the cost on to their tenants but in times of high vacancies they would be paying much more to protect their one life.

It makes sense to use real estate to pay for fire protection because each house is what is being protected and larger houses would be more expensive for a fire company to protect. It does not make as much sense when we are talking about the people inside the houses.

 

[Dr.Who]

"The industry to attempt?"

Did you read what I wrote? A good portion of the "poor" are unable (either because of disability or because of lower IQ to compete adequately.

So, because they are born with those characteristic, they have to suffer all their life, never knowing real security, and depending on "charity?"

You seem tho think that charity means hoping people give you money when you stand on the street. Which as a social worker is not possible to believe.

What makes you think that the support a disabled person gets from gov would be more secure than the support he gets from a non-profit private social service agency? I used to be the director for a non profit social service agency that served the same group of people from its inception in the 70's and still does. In all that time the agency never shut its doors but the gov did hold checks periodically. In fact, it was common practice for medicaid to just cancel people seemingly at random perhaps knowing that some would not jump through all the hoops it would take to re-apply. Without me as an advocate these mentally disabled people would never have been able to compete to get their medicaid.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why would the government want to discourage anything? I don't know... how about discouraging pollution, obesity, smoking, drug abuse. Wouldn't that be in the best interests of the nation as a whole?

I understand that a gov would want to. But does it have the authority to?

It does have the authority to punish wrongdoers. One could argue that a polluter is a wrongdoer. A smoker is a wrongdoer but the argument is shaky. Is an obese person a wrongdoer? Only in socialized medicine.

No, even if our gov wants to and even if it is for the most benevolent of reasons it simply does not have the authority to use the tax code to discourage or encourage anything to do with obesity.