Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue

[Hobo1]

Hobo1, based on your comment about taxes and the mythological "greater burden on the poor", you have obviously not read the Fair Tax Plan. I will also add that the "poor" don't pay any taxes to begin with, so any "tax burden" on the poor is a figment of your imagination.

The FairTax is a proposed change to the federal government tax laws of the United States intended to replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales..

That kind of tax is just about as regressive and over-taxing of poor people as any other kind of tax imaginable. Who spends all of their money on retail products? The poor people. The rich make investments with their and earn income from those investments.

 

[Dr.Who]

Y'all need to expand your definition of taxes. For instance, if the Fed keeps steathily buying Treasuries through the Primary Dealers, essentially monetizing the debt and increasing the money supply, then the resultant inflation of commodity prices (oil, food, etc.) IS as good as a tax. It MEANS that your paycheck (income) quite simply won't go as far. And it DOES hit the lower classes harder than the higher ones because the basics of life consume a much higher percentage of their discretionary spending.

So... from that basis, the current Obama Administration is already out-taxing every past administration--they're just doing it by stealth. And, right now, they're literally beating the living H*ll out of The Poor like nobody's business.

As far as a comparison to what amounts to The Fair Tax, though... you have to understand that payscales would shift to make up the difference, Pocket. The Poor would end up going a tad upwards in pay to make up for it. One of the things that y'all AREN'T getting, though, is that if we simplified the tax code to The Fair Tax, there's one whole H*lluva' lot of attorneys, CPA's, accountants and whatnot that would be unemployed relatively quickly.

Thank you for pointing out what should be in every newspaper.

 

[Dr.Who]

We haven't had inflation during the Obama Administration.

We have horrible inflation right now. Of course if when you measure it you pretend that food and energy don't exist then the number is much lower. But food and energy are the largest parts of the economy. They also hit the poor hard.

Second point: I am not a big fan of flat tax or Fair Tax because non-progressive taxes impose a greater burden on the poor. If I make $20,000 per year, the 10% tax you impose on me is going to hurt a lot more because my budget is already tight. If I make $100,000 per year, I can pay the 10% in a heart beat, particularly if you take away all my other taxes.

If a person pays 10% of 20k he has paid $2000 and another pays 10% of 100k he has paid $10,000. That is progressive enough!

A progressive tax with NO DEDUCTIONS, levied on all people with incomes above the poverty line makes more sense to me.

We need a tax that is applied equally and has the same rate and the same deductions for all.

A person who earns $20K with a $12k deduction at a rate of 10% would only pay $800 in a whole year (given that even the more poor own tv's and homes and air conditioners that is not unreasonable). While a person who earns 100k with a 12k deduction would pay $8800. And since there are far more people earning 20k the government revenue would go up while all americans would have skin in the game and ownership of their government. (I think some playing with both the rate and the universal deduction may still be in order) This is a system that is both regessive and progressive but is so simple too.

 

[Dr.Who]

That kind of tax is just about as regressive and over-taxing of poor people as any other kind of tax imaginable. Who spends all of their money on retail products? The poor people. The rich make investments with their and earn income from those investments.

It is less regressive than government actions that cause HIDDEN inflation of prices and depreciation of assets.

It is more avoidable too since people can choose to save money rather than spend it and save the tax. Then they can get ahead in life and stop being at the lower end of the income scale.

If a rich person makes an investment that should be treated as a purchase - he did buy something after all.

And what of those people who spend ALL of their money on retail products? Each product should be taxed at its own rate so that things needed by the most desperate would not be taxed at all. Couple that with the universal deduction mentioned a moment ago and the poor will have an incentive to better their lives while at the same time they are given a break. Contrast that to the present system which encourages dependence, discourages bettering your life and treats all people unequally.

 

[Rick]

That was a good one from pidgey - we don't have inflation under obozo. Minus food and energy, we don't have inflation because obozo has unnecessarily deepened and lengthened a recession.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The FairTax is a proposed change to the federal government tax laws of the United States intended to replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales..

That kind of tax is just about as regressive and over-taxing of poor people as any other kind of tax imaginable. Who spends all of their money on retail products? The poor people. The rich make investments with their and earn income from those investments.

Like I stated before, you have obviously not read The Fair Tax Plan in it's entirety.

You are simply spewing the same false rhetoric and lies about the Fair Tax Plan that all of the other "tax and spend" crowd does.

 

[Hobo1]

Well, if the fair minded and generally well-informed members of this forum can't agree on how we should reform our tax code, then I am afraid nothing serious is ever going to get accomplished to make it fairer for all citizens.

The current system generates enough income for the US government to function well if the waste and inefficiencies of the current programs were eliminated. Right now the US government is fat and flabby - it needs to get into shape; not by eliminating programs but by making them more efficient.

Even if we did get a better tax code and the result was more money pouring into the US Treasury, history has shown that Congress would use the money to increase spending. My priority is to see the government become more efficient before Congress starts messing around with the tax code.

I have no faith that this Congress and the current President are capable of producing a better tax system.

 

[Dr.Who]

Even if we did get a better tax code and the result was more money pouring into the US Treasury, history has shown that Congress would use the money to increase spending. My priority is to see the government become more efficient before Congress starts messing around with the tax code.

I have no faith that this Congress and the current President are capable of producing a better tax system.

Agreed.

No matter how much of our money they collected, without spending limits, they would still spend more than they take in.

Politicians have less understanding than the least informed on this forum.

Some of them even think that if they reduce tax rates they have spent money.

 

[GenSeneca]

Right now the US government is fat and flabby - it needs to get into shape; not by eliminating programs but by making them more efficient.

Exactly how do you make a Ponzi Scheme more efficient?

 

[Hobo1]

Exactly how do you make a Ponzi Scheme more efficient?

Sorry, I don't understand your sarcasm. Having served in the military during the Vietnam era, I know the military goes out of its way to waste money. One example is a constant re-assignment of duty stations to places all over the globe. Not only does the soldier or sailor get moved, the Pentagon budget pays for his family, and and all his household furniture to be shipped over on military transport planes. The only thing they didn't ship by air was my car. They sent my VW Bug half-way around the world on a cargo ship.

And Medicare is just as inefficient. We have all heard the stories of 80 year old widows getting their third hip replacement operation at Medicare's expense. Or the extensive use of CT scan devices and MRI scans simply so the hospital can justify buying these massively expensive machines.

Inefficiencies in the US government have been thoroughly documented. The efficiency reforms just never get implemented.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Expecting the politicians to enact some sort of "efficiency" legislation is like expecting an alcoholic to pour all of his booze down the drain because it's the best thing for him to do.

It just isn't going to happen, unless there are "incentives" for the politicians to do so, and I am not talking about the "ballot box". The "ballot box" has been corrupted.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sorry, I don't understand your sarcasm.

I was referring to the Ponzi Scheme known as Social Security, the single largest drain on the federal budget. If you don't know how a Ponzi Scheme works, money from the large number of people at the bottom is funneled up to the much smaller number of people at the top, like a pyramid.

Ponzi Schemes require ever increasing numbers of people at the bottom to support the ever growing number of people moving to the top, otherwise the pyramid becomes inverted and collapses. That's exactly what's happening with Social Security, there simply aren't enough workers at the bottom to support the retirees at the top and as a result, the pyramid is becoming top-heavy.

The only "solution" for Social Security considered "Pragmatic" requires transforming the Ponzi Scheme into legalized theft, aka, the forced redistribution of wealth.

Now as far as the rest of government goes, you'll get no argument from me that there is plenty of fat to be trimmed. In fact, I believe the only legitimate function of government to be the protection of individual rights, so I consider more than 75% of the federal budget to be beyond the scope of legitimate spending.

However, even in the limited scope of defense spending, there are billions upon billions of dollars spent that have NOTHING to do with actually protecting the Individual Rights of the American people, a No Fly Zone in Lybia being just the most recent example.

 

[Pidgey]

Currently, tax receipts and revenues are underfunding the government's total payouts by some 40%. ~70% of the current budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare and Extended Unemployment benefits combined. It's important to note that in order to align perceptions with reality.

Our worst problem currently is that too much of the economy is FIRE (Finance-Insurance-Real Estate), where money is essentially "moved" around but true wealth is not generated per se. Real wealth (and organic growth) comes from mining, manufacturing and agriculture. In financial movements from FIRE, wealth is "mined" by way of fees, commissions, eminent domain and the like from the many to the few with little or no actual generation of wealth. The addition of personnel tracking and regulating all of that simply adds to the burden--personnel like more government agencies, lawyers, accountants, etc--and can continue until the system collapses. It's only happened in history a few thousand times, after all...

Obama has added scores of Goldman Sachs personnel to the country's payroll. No president in history has given more in bailouts and such to the banksters than Obama.

None.

Zip.

Zilch.

Nada.

The rest of them have been a bit bad (especially Bill) but none of them hold a candle to Obama for selling out all of us (including the poor) to the banksters. Oh, well... when you get THAT much campaign money from THOSE people, I guess you BETTER do what they tell you or your chances of continuing breathing are probably pretty low.

 

[Gipper]

Currently, tax receipts and revenues are underfunding the government's total payouts by some 40%. ~70% of the current budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare and Extended Unemployment benefits combined. It's important to note that in order to align perceptions with reality.

Our worst problem currently is that too much of the economy is FIRE (Finance-Insurance-Real Estate), where money is essentially "moved" around but true wealth is not generated per se. Real wealth (and organic growth) comes from mining, manufacturing and agriculture. In financial movements from FIRE, wealth is "mined" by way of fees, commissions, eminent domain and the like from the many to the few with little or no actual generation of wealth. The addition of personnel tracking and regulating all of that simply adds to the burden--personnel like more government agencies, lawyers, accountants, etc--and can continue until the system collapses. It's only happened in history a few thousand times, after all...

Obama has added scores of Goldman Sachs personnel to the country's payroll. No president in history has given more in bailouts and such to the banksters than Obama.

None.

Zip.

Zilch.

Nada.

The rest of them have been a bit bad (especially Bill) but none of them hold a candle to Obama for selling out all of us (including the poor) to the banksters. Oh, well... when you get THAT much campaign money from THOSE people, I guess you BETTER do what they tell you or your chances of continuing breathing are probably pretty low.

Agreed. Many Americans can see this about Obama, but somehow many can't. How ignorant must one be not to see it?

The dumbing down of America and the constant cheer leading by the media has deceived many.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Currently, tax receipts and revenues are underfunding the government's total payouts by some 40%. ~70% of the current budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare and Extended Unemployment benefits combined. It's important to note that in order to align perceptions with reality.

Our worst problem currently is that too much of the economy is FIRE (Finance-Insurance-Real Estate), where money is essentially "moved" around but true wealth is not generated per se. Real wealth (and organic growth) comes from mining, manufacturing and agriculture. In financial movements from FIRE, wealth is "mined" by way of fees, commissions, eminent domain and the like from the many to the few with little or no actual generation of wealth. The addition of personnel tracking and regulating all of that simply adds to the burden--personnel like more government agencies, lawyers, accountants, etc--and can continue until the system collapses. It's only happened in history a few thousand times, after all...

Obama has added scores of Goldman Sachs personnel to the country's payroll. No president in history has given more in bailouts and such to the banksters than Obama.

None.

Zip.

Zilch.

Nada.

The rest of them have been a bit bad (especially Bill) but none of them hold a candle to Obama for selling out all of us (including the poor) to the banksters. Oh, well... when you get THAT much campaign money from THOSE people, I guess you BETTER do what they tell you or your chances of continuing breathing are probably pretty low.

In the interest of being "fair" here, it was President G.W. Bush who was responsible for quite a number of bailouts and "loans":

1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

2. AIG

3. FHA

4. JP Morgan Chase

5. General Motors

6. Chrysler

Remember that half of the TARP money approved by Congress and signed by Bush ($350 million), was spent by the Bush administration, and the other half was spent by Obama.