You Can't Fix Stupid

[BigRob]

What he said. . .is what I said earlier:

Buffett cannot purchase $2 million of food per year. . .so he doesn't pay sales tax on that amount. . .he probably pays about as much sales tax for his food as his secretary does.

He probably pays property taxes. . .on a house that is over 30 years old where he has lived all that time, a modest house, one that is not that different from where his secretary might live, so he probably pays about the same amount of property tax than she does. . .which is a lot for her, and peanut for him.

Now, obviously, if he lived "UP" to his social standing. . .he would have a half dozen mansions all over the U.S and over the world, and would pay more property taxes. . .then again, he would have a home office in each one, maybe even a staff, and would have LOADS of write offs. . .including the interest write offs on their multi-million dollars mortgages!

If we really want to make the tax rates fair, how about we implement a flat tax, causing each person to pay the same percent?

 

[Lagboltz]

In actual dollars, there can be no doubt that Buffett paid more than his secretary. How about we implement a flat tax, and then each Buffett and his Secretary can pay 15% (or whatever) each?

Nope I prefer a progressive tax on both income and capital gains.

 

[ProudLefty]

In actual dollars, there can be no doubt that Buffett paid more than his secretary. How about we implement a flat tax, and then each Buffett and his Secretary can pay 15% (or whatever) each?

Why? We all pay the same tax on each dollar, as it is. Its already a flat tax of sorts.

We each pay the same amount on the first $50k we make, and on the first 100K we make, and on the first $1,000k that we make. In fact, Buffett pays less on his capital gains, and he pays a lower percent on his FICA than most of us pay (which, by the way, I agree with).

So what is the problem, in your opinion?

 

[BigRob]

Why? We all pay the same tax on each dollar, as it is. Its already a flat tax of sorts.

We each pay the same amount on the first $50k we make, and on the first 100K we make, and on the first $1,000k that we make. In fact, Buffett pays less on his capital gains, and he pays a lower percent on his FICA than most of us pay (which, by the way, I agree with).

So what is the problem, in your opinion?

My problem is that it seems those who have no skin in the game want to force those who do to bear the entire burden. Why not simply 15% of your income is taken period. No deductions, no anything. 15%, period.

 

[Openmind]

My problem is that it seems those who have no skin in the game want to force those who do to bear the entire burden. Why not simply 15% of your income is taken period. No deductions, no anything. 15%, period.

So, no even deductions for children?

Well, that would take care of the US population! Except that. . .the only children being born might be in the very lower class, less educated, less intelligent, very young mothers.

But I'd like to know what arguments like "children are our future" and "heterosexual couples have the right to marry because they produce children, homosexual don't, so they do not provide a service to the State, and shouldn't get any of the marriage advantages!"

 

[Lagboltz]

Why not simply 15% of your income is taken period. No deductions, no anything. 15%, period.

Has anyone done a macroeconomic analysis of that? I would be curious to see how that would impact the lowest wage earners who are living on a near subsistent level.

 

[PLC1]

Has anyone done a macroeconomic analysis of that? I would be curious to see how that would impact the lowest wage earners who are living on a near subsistent level.

Currently, the federal government is receiving just over 17% of the GDP. If the tax were to be lowered to a flat 15%, then government revenues would go down.

Back in 2000, the federal "share" of the GDP was nearly 21% of GDP. If it were that much again, the government would have nearly 4% of that 14 trillion GDP more than they have now.

4% of 14 trillion amounts to $560 billion dollars.

If we had that much in extra taxes, and then cut another trillion, the budget would be balanced. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[BigRob]

So, no even deductions for children?

Well, that would take care of the US population! Except that. . .the only children being born might be in the very lower class, less educated, less intelligent, very young mothers.

But I'd like to know what arguments like "children are our future" and "heterosexual couples have the right to marry because they produce children, homosexual don't, so they do not provide a service to the State, and shouldn't get any of the marriage advantages!"

No deductions for children...no deductions at all.

As for gay marriage, you will find that gay marriage doesn't bother me, and I could support such a thing becoming legal.

 

[BigRob]

Currently, the federal government is receiving just over 17% of the GDP. If the tax were to be lowered to a flat 15%, then government revenues would go down.

Back in 2000, the federal "share" of the GDP was nearly 21% of GDP. If it were that much again, the government would have nearly 4% of that 14 trillion GDP more than they have now.

4% of 14 trillion amounts to $560 billion dollars.

If we had that much in extra taxes, and then cut another trillion, the budget would be balanced. Sounds like a plan to me.

So, the reality is we need to grow GDP.

I have seen no evidence that raising taxes does that...have you?

 

[ProudLefty]

My problem is that it seems those who have no skin in the game want to force those who do to bear the entire burden. Why not simply 15% of your income is taken period. No deductions, no anything. 15%, period.

For several reasons.

• First, 15% won't get the job done. It has to be in the 20s, possibly as high as 27%, if you use that solution.
• Second, like it or not, there has to be a redistribution of income. Every civilization has learned the hard way that just letting wealth concentrate in the hands of fewer and fewer people, over time, results in revolution and the wealthy losing both their wealth and their heads. Right or wrong, it is a fact of life.
• Third, sellers need buyers. Henry Ford realized if his workers could not afford his cars then he couldn't sell cars in the volumes he wanted to sell cars. In other words, the wealthy need a strong middle class for their own good.
• Fourth, the wealthy are huge, huge consumers of government services. We don't have a mighty military to protect hovels and dust bowls. We have an Interstate System so trucks can move the goods of the wealthy to market. The poor with no cars do not need a fancy highway system. In other words, the rich consume services, they should pay for them
• Fifth, the rich are not complaining. They generally agree that they have been fortunate, and they expect to pay more. It is only a few pigs like the Koch brothers who feel entitled to everything.
• Sixth, many of the wealthy in this country are wealthy by luck or accident of birth, not by any great efforts on their part. Again, the Koch brothers were born on third base and they seem to believe that means they hit a triple.

 

[Lagboltz]

Currently, the federal government is receiving just over 17% of the GDP. If the tax were to be lowered to a flat 15%, then government revenues would go down.

Back in 2000, the federal "share" of the GDP was nearly 21% of GDP. If it were that much again, the government would have nearly 4% of that 14 trillion GDP more than they have now.

4% of 14 trillion amounts to $560 billion dollars.

If we had that much in extra taxes, and then cut another trillion, the budget would be balanced. Sounds like a plan to me.

I heard that 50% of people are on a low enough income or have enough deductions that they pay no taxes. How can they survive being hit with a 15 to 20% tax?

 

[PLC1]

So, the reality is we need to grow GDP.

I have seen no evidence that raising taxes does that...have you?

Yes, we need to grow the GDP. I have seen no evidence that anything the government is doing does that.

Plugging loopholes and bringing American industry back to America might help.

Government spending has doubled in 11 years, too. In addition to raising taxes, we have to cut back the out of control growth of government.

 

[BigRob]

For several reasons.

• First, 15% won't get the job done. It has to be in the 20s, possibly as high as 27%, if you use that solution.
• Second, like it or not, there has to be a redistribution of income. Every civilization has learned the hard way that just letting wealth concentrate in the hands of fewer and fewer people, over time, results in revolution and the wealthy losing both their wealth and their heads. Right or wrong, it is a fact of life.
• Third, sellers need buyers. Henry Ford realized if his workers could not afford his cars then he couldn't sell cars in the volumes he wanted to sell cars. In other words, the wealthy need a strong middle class for their own good.
• Fourth, the wealthy are huge, huge consumers of government services. We don't have a mighty military to protect hovels and dust bowls. We have an Interstate System so trucks can move the goods of the wealthy to market. The poor with no cars do not need a fancy highway system. In other words, the rich consume services, they should pay for them
• Fifth, the rich are not complaining. They generally agree that they have been fortunate, and they expect to pay more. It is only a few pigs like the Koch brothers who feel entitled to everything.
• Sixth, many of the wealthy in this country are wealthy by luck or accident of birth, not by any great efforts on their part. Again, the Koch brothers were born on third base and they seem to believe that means they hit a triple.

I was just using 15% as an example, it could be adjusted when economic studies are done.

As for the highway system, that is supposed to be maintained by taxes on gas correct? If a poor person is not driving, then they are not paying a gas tax.

I agree, that many rich won't complain about paying a little more. I would ultimately be happy to pay more, if the government could get serious about balancing the budget. Without doing that, I have to ask what I am paying more for?

As for being born on third base, you may not have earned it persay, but it doesn't mean you are not on third base still either. I readily admit, I inherited a ton of money, but I have also built up businesses etc outside of that. Just because you inherited something doesn't mean you feel entitled.

 

[Openmind]

No deductions for children...no deductions at all.

As for gay marriage, you will find that gay marriage doesn't bother me, and I could support such a thing becoming legal.

Good, (about gay marriage!). We agree on that point at least.

re: children. IF children are an asset for the future of this country, and IF every child should have a chance to fulfill his/her potential, and since every mother/father is not able to provide equally for a child, shouldn't there be some responsibility carried by our society to move our society to the future with children who are taken care off?

Aren't parents providing a great service to our society by raising those children, free of charge until they are 18 years old. . . instead of giving them up to CPS, place them in foster homes, and let the government take care of them entirely?

I could see why maybe there would be a maximum in "child credit" allowed. . .like maybe, you get credit for up to 2 or 3 children, but it is taken away from 4, to 15 children!

 

[PLC1]

I heard that 50% of people are on a low enough income or have enough deductions that they pay no taxes. How can they survive being hit with a 15 to 20% tax?

Even the lowest wage earner pays SS and payroll taxes. The idea that many get away with no taxes is a misconception.

But, and extra 15% on top of what they're paying would make a difficult life even more difficult.