Flat or Sales tax instead of current system...agree or disagree?

[dmcowen674]

2-14-2004 Corporations Don't Pay A Blessed Dime Of Income Tax

Our annual survey of real estate investment trusts could give great inspiration to a populist denouncing corporate greed. Loopholes? Why, these corporations don't pay a blessed dime of income tax. Their profits, from shopping malls and office buildings and what have you, flow straight through to shareholders.

There's a risk, though. What would happen if someone like John Kerry got wind of what's going on? What if he ended this "loophole"? Typical of the man's pronouncements on taxation, from a campaign press release: "Kerry Calls for Crack Down on Corporations That Avoid Taxes." If you think he has a shot at winning this November, you should hold off buying REITs--or any other investments.

In a fairer tax system every single corporation would be taxed just like REITs. The business would pay no income tax, and instead its shareholders would owe personal tax on their share of the profits, whether those profits were distributed as dividends or not. Bill Gates would owe 35% on his share of Microsoft's net; the starving widow with 100 shares would owe nothing on hers. The dividend tax, recently cut to 15%, would be abolished altogether.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-14-2004 Corporations Don't Pay A Blessed Dime Of Income Tax

Our annual survey of real estate investment trusts could give great inspiration to a populist denouncing corporate greed. Loopholes? Why, these corporations don't pay a blessed dime of income tax. Their profits, from shopping malls and office buildings and what have you, flow straight through to shareholders.

There's a risk, though. What would happen if someone like John Kerry got wind of what's going on? What if he ended this "loophole"? Typical of the man's pronouncements on taxation, from a campaign press release: "Kerry Calls for Crack Down on Corporations That Avoid Taxes." If you think he has a shot at winning this November, you should hold off buying REITs--or any other investments.

In a fairer tax system every single corporation would be taxed just like REITs. The business would pay no income tax, and instead its shareholders would owe personal tax on their share of the profits, whether those profits were distributed as dividends or not. Bill Gates would owe 35% on his share of Microsoft's net; the starving widow with 100 shares would owe nothing on hers. The dividend tax, recently cut to 15%, would be abolished altogether.

The title is right, corperations pass their tax cost onto the consumer.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LunarRay
dissipate,

Well, we will see who loses when the government loses its ability to tax people's incomes. Financial privacy is on its way in the form of alternative currencies and unregulated banking on the Internet.

That will require the building of more prisons to house all the criminals involved with not reporting their income. Geeze... what you're almost suggesting is that folks with the need to 'hide' income will do so cuz they are inherently criminal. The statutes require reporting all the income derived from what ever source.
But, the silver lining is in the construction of the prisions and the staffing of them. Jobs..!! We do need jobs.. we win!

Speaking of jobs. A lot of wealthy people are business owners, when they go to prison the business you work for goes bankrupt and you have no job. Sounds like a great solution to me. Have fun on the streets.
See how the rich folks act. They get their wealth and disregard the worker who enabled them to acquire it. They'd rather go to prison then comply with the law. This is why Unionization is needed in an effort to protect the rights of the worker.
I assume just folks like me will be on the street cuz folks otherwise stead will no doubt have availed themselves of some other means of providing for their needs.

They won't hide their income because they are criminal. They will hide their income because of criminals like yourself who want to unfairly tax their income away. The higher their taxes the more lucrative their income hiding will be, it will be a cat and mouse game and everyone will lose.
Hehehehe, criminals like me... harsh words from such a nice person. Be nice and push your point. Be mean spirited and you'll lose the point by tangential interference. It is the law to tax as the statute provides. If folks don't like it they can seek legislative remedy.

This is a moot point though because financial privacy is already here for those who really want it, and as time goes on will be even more readily available for everyone. The income tax is doomed. You can already have part of your income dumped into offshore accounts, you get a credit card for it and off you go around town buying stuff tax free.
Now that is a sad state of affairs. Criminal actions to save a buck. I guess they have lots of time on their hands.. 'don't do the crime unless they can do the time' Don't they care about their families and fellow citizens? Guess not!

You are basically saying that just because voters in a democracy voted to have a tax system that puts a huge burden on wealthy people everything is on the up and up. You are wrong. The founding fathers called this the "mob rule" and they were afraid of it. The tax code we have today is the product of a "mob rule". There are certain inaliable rights that no amount of people should be able to take away from another person. Freedom of speech being the most common one.

Wealth in my opinion is another one. Wealth is key in liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is what immigrants from Europe and hundreds of other countries have sought in America. The problem is that taxes must be paid, and now those such as yourself have used this fact to make it so that earned wealth is some kind of privilege and not a right. If taxes did not have to be paid, there is no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers would have made the pursuit of wealth an inaliable right.

Sure, if millions of voters go to the polls and vote to soak the "rich" this is considered democracy because unfortunately earned wealth is not considered an inaliable right, it can be taxed away to no end. However, that doesn't make it ethical. It is akin to a mob bursting into a rich man's counting house as he is counting his gold pieces and plundering. So, I ask you, who are really the criminals? The wealthy people or the mob of voters?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LunarRay
dissipate,

Well, we will see who loses when the government loses its ability to tax people's incomes. Financial privacy is on its way in the form of alternative currencies and unregulated banking on the Internet.

That will require the building of more prisons to house all the criminals involved with not reporting their income. Geeze... what you're almost suggesting is that folks with the need to 'hide' income will do so cuz they are inherently criminal. The statutes require reporting all the income derived from what ever source.
But, the silver lining is in the construction of the prisions and the staffing of them. Jobs..!! We do need jobs.. we win!

Speaking of jobs. A lot of wealthy people are business owners, when they go to prison the business you work for goes bankrupt and you have no job. Sounds like a great solution to me. Have fun on the streets.
See how the rich folks act. They get their wealth and disregard the worker who enabled them to acquire it. They'd rather go to prison then comply with the law. This is why Unionization is needed in an effort to protect the rights of the worker.
I assume just folks like me will be on the street cuz folks otherwise stead will no doubt have availed themselves of some other means of providing for their needs.

They won't hide their income because they are criminal. They will hide their income because of criminals like yourself who want to unfairly tax their income away. The higher their taxes the more lucrative their income hiding will be, it will be a cat and mouse game and everyone will lose.
Hehehehe, criminals like me... harsh words from such a nice person. Be nice and push your point. Be mean spirited and you'll lose the point by tangential interference. It is the law to tax as the statute provides. If folks don't like it they can seek legislative remedy.

This is a moot point though because financial privacy is already here for those who really want it, and as time goes on will be even more readily available for everyone. The income tax is doomed. You can already have part of your income dumped into offshore accounts, you get a credit card for it and off you go around town buying stuff tax free.
Now that is a sad state of affairs. Criminal actions to save a buck. I guess they have lots of time on their hands.. 'don't do the crime unless they can do the time' Don't they care about their families and fellow citizens? Guess not!

You are basically saying that just because voters in a democracy voted to have a tax system that puts a huge burden on wealthy people everything is on the up and up. You are wrong. The founding fathers called this the "mob rule" and they were afraid of it. The tax code we have today is the product of a "mob rule". There are certain inaliable rights that no amount of people should be able to take away from another person. Freedom of speech being the most common one.
I'm basically saying what I said. And that is, that folks elect folks who will enact what laws inure to their benefit, make policy decisions that comport with their ideology and like that. 'Mob' rule did not enact the 16th Amendment. It was ratified by the 3/4ths of the various states and is in addition to the taxation provided for in the Articles. It is what is. The best argument is that the 16th was not properly ratified and that Article 3 obviates the taxing authority.

Wealth in my opinion is another one. Wealth is key in liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is what immigrants from Europe and hundreds of other countries have sought in America. The problem is that taxes must be paid, and now those such as yourself have used this fact to make it so that earned wealth is some kind of privilege and not a right. If taxes did not have to be paid, there is no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers would have made the pursuit of wealth an inaliable right.
That statement opens the door for the argument that only the rich are suitable possessers of those inalienable rights. For, as you say, with out wealth one does not have the key to obtain or enjoy those rights. I don't follow the last sentence. First, it is the key to liberty and pursuit of happiness and now also a right. If it is a right then everyone should have it and should demand more wealth from the employer. That makes it his, the employers, duty to provide this wealth and in so doing lessen his own (and his taxable base).

Sure, if millions of voters go to the polls and vote to soak the "rich" this is considered democracy because unfortunately earned wealth is not considered an inaliable right, it can be taxed away to no end. However, that doesn't make it ethical. It is akin to a mob bursting into a rich man's counting house as he is counting his gold pieces and plundering. So, I ask you, who are really the criminals? The wealthy people or the mob of voters?
The folks breaking into the man's home are the criminals. The man not paying his tax according to the law is the criminal.
The person who calls taxation unethical while denying his employees the ability to earn the key to enjoying their inalienable rights does not deserve to enjoy his if he has a duty to perform relative to this and reneges on it.

 

[IGBT]

Flat income tax and dump property tax..long over due.....

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

That is insane.

That is a clear and well-thought-out argument. Thanks for your insight.

This plan is more agressive than what sweden used to kill its economy.

unemployment in sweden is 5,9%


link

they are doing just fine

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

That is insane.

That is a clear and well-thought-out argument. Thanks for your insight.

This plan is more agressive than what sweden used to kill its economy.

unemployment in sweden is 5,9%


link

they are doing just fine

They also greatly reduced their tax burdon.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

That is insane.

That is a clear and well-thought-out argument. Thanks for your insight.

This plan is more agressive than what sweden used to kill its economy.

unemployment in sweden is 5,9%


link

they are doing just fine

They also greatly reduced their tax burdon.

... that is still one of the highest in the world.

Sweden is still one of the most "socialized" countries in the world and have one of the highest standards of living for decades now.

there is no denying that

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Dman877
If income < 30k, you pay no taxes

You then pay 20% on anything between 30k and 60k

You then pay 30% on anything between 60k and 90k

You then pay 40% on anything between 90k and 120k

You then pay 50% on anything between 120k and 150k

You then pay 70% on anything between 150k and 200k

You then pay 90% on anything between 200k and 500k

You then pay 95% on anything over 500k

That is insane.

That is a clear and well-thought-out argument. Thanks for your insight.

This plan is more agressive than what sweden used to kill its economy.

unemployment in sweden is 5,9%


link

they are doing just fine

They also greatly reduced their tax burdon.

... that is still one of the highest in the world.

Sweden is still one of the most "socialized" countries in the world and have one of the highest standards of living for decades now.

there is no denying that

You are right, but it is now 50% rather than the 95% that caused their economy to collapse when all the capital left the country. The overtaxation proposed in this thread does not work.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Flat income tax and dump property tax..long over due.....

Reasonable real estate property taxes in urban areas promote proper development to the highest and best use. After all, if you're paying taxes on it, you're not gonna leave it as an eye-sore vacant lot, are you?
Unfortunately, excessive property taxes have the same effect as no property taxes, where improvement is discouraged as property owners seek to avoid having their taxes raised.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: Dman877
Yes, privacy is a good thing. I don't think a sales tax, no matter how broad, would ever come close to covering government spending though.

Then let's reduce the spending

 

[Spencer278]

For some reason it tends to be the rich that want sales tax or flat tax I wonder why that might be?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
For some reason it tends to be the rich that want sales tax or flat tax I wonder why that might be?

Huh?

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim?

 

[LunarRay]

You'd think that with all the brainy Financial and Economic types on the payroll back in Washington and all the time between then and now we'd have figured out the best taxing system for this nation. Could it possibly be that what we have is the best we can use for the dynamics involved?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
For some reason it tends to be the rich that want sales tax or flat tax I wonder why that might be?

People against a nosey goverment are for a sales tax as well. The goverment really does not need to know how much a person makes.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278
For some reason it tends to be the rich that want sales tax or flat tax I wonder why that might be?

People against a nosey goverment are for a sales tax as well. The goverment really does not need to know how much a person makes.

Amen to that!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The man not paying his tax according to the law is the criminal.

Either you don't understand my arguments at all or you want to pretend not to because you know it damages your arguments greatly. I'm done with you. You fail to grasp the basic concept that just because a majority votes for something, it doesn't make it ethical. Law and ethics are two very intertwined concepts. Laws are supposed to be ethical. A majority voting to take wealth from a minority is not ethical by any means, it doesn't matter how many gold seals or rubber stamps of approval the law has.

Look at a lot of middle eastern countries that have Muslim rulers. These rulers may have the support of the majority of the population and they pass laws that censor and violate freedoms of religion. If someone does not obey these laws are they criminal? According to your false logic they are because the majority voted for these laws. Ethics tells us otherwise.

This is simple logic.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The man not paying his tax according to the law is the criminal.

Either you don't understand my arguments at all or you want to pretend not to because you know it damages your arguments greatly. I'm done with you. You fail to grasp the basic concept that just because a majority votes for something, it doesn't make it ethical. Law and ethics are two very intertwined concepts. Laws are supposed to be ethical. A majority voting to take wealth from a minority is not ethical by any means, it doesn't matter how many gold seals or rubber stamps of approval the law has.

Look at a lot of middle eastern countries that have Muslim rulers. These rulers may have the support of the majority of the population and they pass laws that censor and violate freedoms of religion. If someone does not obey these laws are they criminal? According to your false logic they are because the majority voted for these laws. Ethics tells us otherwise.

This is simple logic.

I assume these comments to be rhetorical or directed at the broader audience herein attentive. I do so given your statement, "I'm done with you".

 

[Tom]

for most of us a national sales tax and/or flat tax that replaces the current graduated income tax makes NO SENSE.

All either one will accomplish is lower the tax burden the wealthier you are, compared to today's system; which means it would increase the tax burden for everybody else, which means YOU !!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
for most of us a national sales tax and/or flat tax that replaces the current graduated income tax makes NO SENSE.

All either one will accomplish is lower the tax burden the wealthier you are, compared to today's system; which means it would increase the tax burden for everybody else, which means YOU !!

It would also accomplish making goverment responsable to those who pay taxes. Right now those that dont pay vote to services paid for by others.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
for most of us a national sales tax and/or flat tax that replaces the current graduated income tax makes NO SENSE.

All either one will accomplish is lower the tax burden the wealthier you are, compared to today's system; which means it would increase the tax burden for everybody else, which means YOU !!

It would also accomplish making goverment responsable to those who pay taxes. Right now those that dont pay vote to services paid for by others.

If you pay taxes or not, you are affected by this government's laws. Therefore everyone has the right to vote on how they are governed. That is a unalienable right if we are to respect the Founding Fathers' wishes. Paying taxes is a duty that society has deemed some people of incapable of performing due to insufficient money.

Zephyr

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
for most of us a national sales tax and/or flat tax that replaces the current graduated income tax makes NO SENSE.

All either one will accomplish is lower the tax burden the wealthier you are, compared to today's system; which means it would increase the tax burden for everybody else, which means YOU !!

It would also accomplish making goverment responsable to those who pay taxes. Right now those that dont pay vote to services paid for by others.

If you pay taxes or not, you are affected by this government's laws. Therefore everyone has the right to vote on how they are governed. That is a unalienable right if we are to respect the Founding Fathers' wishes. Paying taxes is a duty that society has deemed some people of incapable of performing due to insufficient money.

Zephyr

I would guess our founding fathers would be shocked by our current tax structure. All citizens should be taxed at an equal rate, as they all vote at an equal rate.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
for most of us a national sales tax and/or flat tax that replaces the current graduated income tax makes NO SENSE.

All either one will accomplish is lower the tax burden the wealthier you are, compared to today's system; which means it would increase the tax burden for everybody else, which means YOU !!

It would also accomplish making goverment responsable to those who pay taxes. Right now those that dont pay vote to services paid for by others.

If you pay taxes or not, you are affected by this government's laws. Therefore everyone has the right to vote on how they are governed. That is a unalienable right if we are to respect the Founding Fathers' wishes. Paying taxes is a duty that society has deemed some people of incapable of performing due to insufficient money.

Zephyr

I would guess our founding fathers would be shocked by our current tax structure. All citizens should be taxed at an equal rate, as they all vote at an equal rate.

Taxing everyone at an equal rate would be impossible if we wanted to keep 1/3 of our federal state and local budgets. The rhetoric thrown around such as the top 50% paying 95% are indicative of this. The poor could simply not pay enough for all Americans to provide enough revenue at a flat rate. So unless you want to drastically sacrifice your standard of living and have unpaved roads, no running water, no military, no police, no education, etc. taxes must be unequal. What are the alternatives to having government provide the services I just described? Local services by private companies? Sounds like the best way to make America a fractured anarchy.

Zephyr

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
for most of us a national sales tax and/or flat tax that replaces the current graduated income tax makes NO SENSE.

All either one will accomplish is lower the tax burden the wealthier you are, compared to today's system; which means it would increase the tax burden for everybody else, which means YOU !!

It would also accomplish making goverment responsable to those who pay taxes. Right now those that dont pay vote to services paid for by others.

I'm limiting my comments to reality, not anti-government rhetoric based on anti-democratic principals like voting should be based on income.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
for most of us a national sales tax and/or flat tax that replaces the current graduated income tax makes NO SENSE.

All either one will accomplish is lower the tax burden the wealthier you are, compared to today's system; which means it would increase the tax burden for everybody else, which means YOU !!

It would also accomplish making goverment responsable to those who pay taxes. Right now those that dont pay vote to services paid for by others.

I'm limiting my comments to reality, not anti-government rhetoric based on anti-democratic principals like voting should be based on income.

How about we all compromise on this issue. Voting will be based on race. Anyone darker than cappuchino can't vote.

Zephyr