The tax poll

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: charrison
...... Excessive taxation is not good for any economy.

Define what in your view is excessive taxation.

Could it possibly be taxing $x and the Federal Gov spending $x+$400 billion?



My view is that excessive taxation is taxing more than spending by grotesque amounts.

Of course spending without taxing by grotesque amounts is equally objectionable.

 

[smack Down]

can anyone explain how personal income tax is bad for the exconomy?

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'd like to see a move to a pure income tax system. So many of our taxes are buried in user fees and the cost of goods that its nearly impossible to determine what the actual tax rate is among the various classes.

I'd totally opposed to property taxes. Once you own your property you shouldn't have to keep paying for it. I'd much prefer a county income tax or maybe a higher sales tax rate.

Get rid of the income tax and go with a natioanl sales tax.
Everyone will pay their fair share and the middle class won't keep getting screwed.

Yes property taxes punish the land owners when the non land owers get buy without paying their share. A sales tax would also fix this.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Train
Unfortunately the best way in the REAL WORLD is to tax everything. Look at countries that have tried to push all thier taxes into one form, for the sake of simplification or fairness.

High Income tax: people report less income, more work is "off the books"

High Sales Tax: more products move to the black market.

High Property Tax: less people own homes.

In each case, the govt is hurt more than it benifits. Spreading a minimal amount of taxes across many forms is the best way to keep everything legit.

good point.

Do way with the income, SS, and medicare tax from my pay check and a 23% sales tax would not hurt. In fact people would have more money why?

Under the current system if you make $500 a week you will have about 24% taken away in payroll taxes leaving you with only $380 per week.

Out of this $380 you need to take out housing costs, utilites, food, lesiure expenses, fuel for your car, ect. This does not leave you with a lot of buying power.

Now, under a natioanl sales takes issue you will not have any federal taxes taken out of your pay check. For easy math lets say you live in a state that has no income tax



If you make $500 a week you will take $500 home every week. Out of this money the only things that would be taxes are retail items and services. Your housing costs are not taxes. Money to pay of debts would not be taxes. The only things you would pay taxes on would be food, clothing, "luxury" items and beer.

Better yet at the end of each month you would recieve a rebate check for the amount of money paid on taxes for food and clothing(not exactly sure how this would be calucated because not everyone would have the same food expenses)



Before you start trashing the national sales tax work out your budget under the current system and under a no payrole tax, sales tax system. You will find you will have more money.

 

[Kibbo86]

Originally posted by: charrison
1. Remove all corperate income taxes. Removing this would would be a boom for this country.

2. Remove the personal income tax. The current implentation is costly and a great invasion of personal privacy. Does the goverment really need to know how much make and where you work. Remember that it was originally designed so that the top few percent would have to pay a few percent to the fed. Look at where we are now.

That being said, we still have to pay for goverment.

I would prefer a broad based sales tax. States that have sales tax find they have a hard time raising these as everyone has to pay them.

I dont really care for property tax as it destroys property rights(you are only renting from the goverment at this point). HOwever California does implement them in a sane manner as your tax paided are locked in with your sales price. Since you know the cost of taxes in advance, you at least have the option of locking in that rate.

You have built an excellent tax system in terms of economic efficiency. The only flaw in that regard is that locking in Property taxes essentially increases transaction costs by a large margin, leading to inflexible housing markets, and thus increasing shortage/surplus problems in a market that already tends to lag (due to construction times/costs).

In terms of equity, you've single handedly handed a huge tax burden onto the poor. Since one tends to save more as your income rises, a poor person will be taxed on close to 100% of their income, while a wealthier person will pay tax on a much smaller amount.

You've also ensured that a holiday in the Swiss Alps or the brothels of Bankok is effectively tax-free.

 

[piasabird]

I am for a Flat Tax and absolutely no incentives for Business. I think it should be illegally by federal law for any state county or municipality to give tax discounts to businesses or corporations. Over time you see some companies trying to get the best tax abatement form every community they consider. It is inherently against the equal opportunity concept to give tax exceptions to corporations when the average homeowners taxes are raised at the same time a company gets a tax abatement. If the tax burden is too high, then do the right thing and lower everyone's taxes. I am for equal treatment.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I am for a Flat Tax and absolutely no incentives for Business. I think it should be illegally by federal law for any state county or municipality to give tax discounts to businesses or corporations. Over time you see some companies trying to get the best tax abatement form every community they consider. It is inherently against the equal opportunity concept to give tax exceptions to corporations when the average homeowners taxes are raised at the same time a company gets a tax abatement. If the tax burden is too high, then do the right thing and lower everyone's taxes. I am for equal treatment.

Gettting rid of all income taxes(Corp and Personal) and payroll taxes(Medicare and SS) and replace it with a national sales tax would do away with political pandering.

The only money that would be taxed is money spent for retail goods/services.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: piasabird
I am for a Flat Tax and absolutely no incentives for Business. I think it should be illegally by federal law for any state county or municipality to give tax discounts to businesses or corporations. Over time you see some companies trying to get the best tax abatement form every community they consider. It is inherently against the equal opportunity concept to give tax exceptions to corporations when the average homeowners taxes are raised at the same time a company gets a tax abatement. If the tax burden is too high, then do the right thing and lower everyone's taxes. I am for equal treatment.

Gettting rid of all income taxes(Corp and Personal) and payroll taxes(Medicare and SS) and replace it with a national sales tax would do away with political pandering.

The only money that would be taxed is money spent for retail goods/services.

There is a good point in that, if we could end a lot of the special tax incentives and exceptions, perhaps we could clean up a good amount of corruption and lobbying in Congress. ( Never will you end all of it, but at least remove some of the main targets.)
Who knows....

 

[YoshiSato]

There is a good point in that, if we could end a lot of the special tax incentives and exceptions, perhaps we could clean up a good amount of corruption and lobbying in Congress. ( Never will you end all of it, but at least remove some of the main targets.)
Who knows....


The national sales tax would not nor do I think is it intended to stop wasteful spending.
What it will do is simplify the tax code and give the population more spending power and put a balance tax burden on the population. If all you do with you money is save it and buy basic needs you will not pay taxes. If you spend on your money on "luxury" items (yes, your beer and TV is a luxury item, as is my Super computer ) you will fuel the feds

At the same time it would end the class warefare tactic so many politicans use to stay in office.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Income tax is one of the cheapest, easiest, and least intrusive of taxes, especially when compared to property taxes or the hidden costs of sales taxes.

You are on crack and living up to your username.

The personal income tax is the most expensive, most difficult, and most intrusive of all taxes. Just complying with it costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year.


My answers were:
- User fees (by far the fairest system of taxation, pay only for what you use).
- Income tax (by far the least fair, most expensive, and most intrusive of privacy).
- Personal income tax.

After user fees, the 2nd best system of taxation is real estate property taxes. It forces landowners to put their property to work (i.e. in the "highest and best use"), and helps to keep land values stable.

I'd have to disagree with you on the property tax. What the best use for land is is highly subjective. If a family inherits $5 million in mountain property, should they be forced to commercialize it in some way in order to enjoy it. Such a tax system would force all privately owned recreation land to either be commercialized in some way or into the hands of those who are rich enough to afford the taxes.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i'm kind of surprised that so many people think income tax is less of a burden on growth than the property tax. Between corporate and persoanl income taxes its leading 18 to 6.

Property tax is good for growt. It forces people to put there land to work. Use it or lose it.

thats equivilent to saying that the income tax forces people to work more to have the same level of income. (and saying implicitly that that is a good thing)

income tax is good for growth. It forces people to work more and think creatively for new ways to make money. Work or starve.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Income tax is one of the cheapest, easiest, and least intrusive of taxes, especially when compared to property taxes or the hidden costs of sales taxes.

You are on crack and living up to your username.

wow thats original. :roll:

The personal income tax is the most expensive, most difficult, and most intrusive of all taxes. Just complying with it costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

thats strange, every econ class i've taken has said the opposite. The irs has a pretty low budget compared to the revenue it brings in.

My answers were:
- User fees (by far the fairest system of taxation, pay only for what you use).
- Income tax (by far the least fair, most expensive, and most intrusive of privacy).
- Personal income tax.

You have an interesting definition of fairness. Perhaps if we could assess some kind of fee based of the marginal utility one derives from using the public good i could give this a little bit of consideration, but otherwise no.

After user fees, the 2nd best system of taxation is real estate property taxes. It forces landowners to put their property to work (i.e. in the "highest and best use"), and helps to keep land values stable.

don't simple supply and demand for property do the same thing? If someone has something better to do with your property, they can try to meet your price, which is what happens. I don't see this whole "highest and best" use arguement being very strong. I think its a little strange coming from someone who i thought was a more laissez fair type.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

don't simple supply and demand for property do the same thing? If someone has something better to do with your property, they can try to meet your price, which is what happens. I don't see this whole "highest and best" use arguement being very strong. I think its a little strange coming from someone who i thought was a more laissez fair type.

You must be living in a cave or under a rock. If a corpration comes in and says it can generate more tax money than Joe Blow can with his 100 Acre piece of land the GOVERNEMT will comdem your land and give you squat for it and GIVE it to the corp.


Yea you are a idiot.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: piasabird
I am for a Flat Tax and absolutely no incentives for Business. I think it should be illegally by federal law for any state county or municipality to give tax discounts to businesses or corporations. Over time you see some companies trying to get the best tax abatement form every community they consider. It is inherently against the equal opportunity concept to give tax exceptions to corporations when the average homeowners taxes are raised at the same time a company gets a tax abatement. If the tax burden is too high, then do the right thing and lower everyone's taxes. I am for equal treatment.

Gettting rid of all income taxes(Corp and Personal) and payroll taxes(Medicare and SS) and replace it with a national sales tax would do away with political pandering.

The only money that would be taxed is money spent for retail goods/services.

Then get rid of the payroll along with the payroll tax that pays out only to a select elitist batch of Americans.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

don't simple supply and demand for property do the same thing? If someone has something better to do with your property, they can try to meet your price, which is what happens. I don't see this whole "highest and best" use arguement being very strong. I think its a little strange coming from someone who i thought was a more laissez fair type.

You must be living in a cave or under a rock. If a corpration comes in and says it can generate more tax money than Joe Blow can with his 100 Acre piece of land the GOVERNEMT will comdem your land and give you squat for it and GIVE it to the corp.


Yea you are a idiot.

what does that have to do with what i said?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
thats strange, every econ class i've taken has said the opposite. The irs has a pretty low budget compared to the revenue it brings in.

That's because it shifts the burden of the cost of taxation onto the taxpayers. As has already been noted repeatedly in this thread, personal income tax recordkeeping and preparation costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Have you never heard of a tax accountant? A tax attorney? H&R Block? That the tax code could nearly fill a entire library?

You have an interesting definition of fairness. Perhaps if we could assess some kind of fee based of the marginal utility one derives from using the public good i could give this a little bit of consideration, but otherwise no.

What could possibly be more fair than paying only for what you use unless your agenda is to receive more than what you pay for? And how fair is that?

don't simple supply and demand for property do the same thing? If someone has something better to do with your property, they can try to meet your price, which is what happens. I don't see this whole "highest and best" use arguement being very strong. I think its a little strange coming from someone who i thought was a more laissez fair type.

A vacant lot in a crowded city center is a perfect example of how real estate taxes can be effective. Just because someone can "meet your price" does not mean that you will sell. But if the property is taxed for market value (i.e. for that price), then the owner is much more likely to use that property to its highest and best use or sell it to someone who will.
Even with laissez fair there are such concepts as public good and public nuisance.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison
1. Remove all corperate income taxes. Removing this would would be a boom for this country.

explain.

2. Remove the personal income tax. The current implentation is costly and a great invasion of personal privacy. Does the goverment really need to know how much make and where you work. Remember that it was originally designed so that the top few percent would have to pay a few percent to the fed. Look at where we are now.

Income tax is one of the cheapest, easiest, and least intrusive of taxes, especially when compared to property taxes or the hidden costs of sales taxes.

Just dont know if I buy that considering the infrastructure required to process and validate the returns. I would think a sales tax would be the easiest way to do this because it is charged and collected up front and on the books immediately.

Personally I would say get rid of personal income tax and increase sales tax. This is a consumption tax and will target people who do the most consuming. But it doesnt hurt people who decide to save their money and put it into the stock, bank, bond markets.

I say get rid of the estate tax as I really believe it hurts middle income people more than it does the rich. Until they raised the ceiling to 1.5 million I believe it used to be 360,000 dollars. Many people in the middle income bracket retired and died with more in assets than 360,000 and the govt raped them for 50% of it over that threshhold, effectively keeping their loved ones in their bracket.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I say get rid of the estate tax as I really believe it hurts middle income people more than it does the rich. Until they raised the ceiling to 1.5 million I believe it used to be 360,000 dollars. Many people in the middle income bracket retired and died with more in assets than 360,000 and the govt raped them for 50% of it over that threshhold, effectively keeping their loved ones in their bracket.

Been there, done that........ and survived. Now it's someone eles's turn.

In other news.....

The government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

Damn, it just doesn't get more accurate than that!

 

[Genx87]

thats strange, every econ class i've taken has said the opposite. The irs has a pretty low budget compared to the revenue it brings in.

What econ class are you taking?

And the budget for the IRS vs revenue intake doesnt make it cheap to do. What other govt agency has a revenue stream? The job of the IRS is to collect taxes for the govt. Of course they are going to show a profit compared to their budget. But that doesnt mean it is efficient.

 

[Genx87]

The government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

That is sig material right there

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
Get rid of all sales taxes. Raise/lower income taxes to the following:

0-$25,000 (of total income) -- 15%
$25,001-$50,000 -- 15%
$50,001-$100,000 -- 15%
$100,001-$1,000,000 -- 15%
$1,000,001-$100,000,000 -- 15%
$100,000,001+ -- 15%

Corporations to be taxed as individuals. All earned money is taxed (regardless if comes from stocks, bonds, etc.) One tax exception: Personal property can be sold without taxation if it is owned for at least one year (three years for land and/or houses).

I basically feel the same, I've edited to what I think is fair.

 

[Legend]

Keep getting taxes from all sources.

Flat income tax starting at about 40k (but not brackets, let's use a fair math function to smooth it out). Have a flat tax for people over 40k at about 20%.

Destroy Social Security. Limit government spending. People are not entitled to prescription drugs to mask non-fatal problems. Instead, do away with all of that and educated our children about health. PE classes don't cut it.

If you eat junk all day, and have health problems, that's too bad, but you're not entitled to syphon away money from everyone else.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
And the budget for the IRS vs revenue intake doesnt make it cheap to do. What other govt agency has a revenue stream? The job of the IRS is to collect taxes for the govt. Of course they are going to show a profit compared to their budget. But that doesnt mean it is efficient.

What you said has nothing to do with efficiency, Genx87. Good job dancing around the subject instead of dealing with it. Lets actually look at the issue.

The IRS itself has just under a $10 billion/year budget. The US has a ~$2.2 trillion yearly budget. Thus 0.45% of federal funds go to IRS tax collection. $10 billion is a significant number, but eliminating it will have a near negligible impact on the federal budget. It just isn't a major waste compared to the other wastes. Basically they collect two numbers: how much the employer said you got and how much you said you got. Then there are a few people checking those numbers. It isn't too complicated.

But what would it cost to replace the IRS? I really don't know. But think about the possibilities.

(1) Sales tax. What would it cost for the IRS to keep track and process a trillion+ transactions each year? I don't know. At one penny per transaction for paperwork, you end up costing as much if not more than the IRS. Is one penny too high or too low? I don't have the numbers. But it doesn't seem too unreasonable. Some national sales tax plans are quite complex. For example, some still require the IRS to keep track of income so they can return sales tax to the poor. You basically have all the IRS expenses plus the sales tax expenses. Other plans are less complex and just pay each person a monthly check. What does it cost to print/mail 3 billion checks a year? What does it cost to keep records of every person and every business and every transaction (is it food or clothing or other non-taxed goods)? Add in costs to enforce collection (do you trust the businesses, what about all the new black markets that develop?). I just can't see this being much less than $10 billion.

(2) Property type taxes. What would it cost for the IRS to assess each and every property? This would have to be done periodically, probably every 2-3 years. An accurate assessment takes hours and runs in the hundreds for just a simple building. Will this be cheaper than $10 billion? I don't know. Probably not much cheaper if it were.

(3) User fees. Toll booths everywhere (since the federal government DOES pay for roads) - that would certainly cost a lot. An added layer of government for education use fees. How do we fee for military protection? Do we charge user fees for NO hurricane cleanup? How do we delegate these fees, and make certain that everyone pays them? Talk about a lot of work, and money to collect it on every use. Would it be cheaper than $10 billion? I don't know. Do you have any estimates?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
thats strange, every econ class i've taken has said the opposite. The irs has a pretty low budget compared to the revenue it brings in.

That's because it shifts the burden of the cost of taxation onto the taxpayers. As has already been noted repeatedly in this thread, personal income tax recordkeeping and preparation costs the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Have you never heard of a tax accountant? A tax attorney? H&R Block? That the tax code could nearly fill a entire library?

then clean up the tax code. Quick fix.

You have an interesting definition of fairness. Perhaps if we could assess some kind of fee based of the marginal utility one derives from using the public good i could give this a little bit of consideration, but otherwise no.

What could possibly be more fair than paying only for what you use unless your agenda is to receive more than what you pay for? And how fair is that?

paying for the benefit you recieve? very fair imo.

don't simple supply and demand for property do the same thing? If someone has something better to do with your property, they can try to meet your price, which is what happens. I don't see this whole "highest and best" use arguement being very strong. I think its a little strange coming from someone who i thought was a more laissez fair type.

A vacant lot in a crowded city center is a perfect example of how real estate taxes can be effective. Just because someone can "meet your price" does not mean that you will sell. But if the property is taxed for market value (i.e. for that price), then the owner is much more likely to use that property to its highest and best use or sell it to someone who will.
Even with laissez fair there are such concepts as public good and public nuisance.

if he isn't selling then the market is by definition not meeting his price. the land is worth more to him in its derelict state than the money and goods being offered in exchange.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
What you said has nothing to do with efficiency, Genx87. Good job dancing around the subject instead of dealing with it. Lets actually look at the issue.

The IRS itself has just under a $10 billion/year budget. The US has a ~$2.2 trillion yearly budget. Thus 0.45% of federal funds go to IRS tax collection. $10 billion is a significant number, but eliminating it will have a near negligible impact on the federal budget. It just isn't a major waste compared to the other wastes. Basically they collect two numbers: how much the employer said you got and how much you said you got. Then there are a few people checking those numbers. It isn't too complicated.

But what would it cost to replace the IRS? I really don't know. But think about the possibilities.

(1) Sales tax. What would it cost for the IRS to keep track and process a trillion+ transactions each year? I don't know. At one penny per transaction for paperwork, you end up costing as much if not more than the IRS. Is one penny too high or too low? I don't have the numbers. But it doesn't seem too unreasonable. Some national sales tax plans are quite complex. For example, some still require the IRS to keep track of income so they can return sales tax to the poor. You basically have all the IRS expenses plus the sales tax expenses. Other plans are less complex and just pay each person a monthly check. What does it cost to print/mail 3 billion checks a year? What does it cost to keep records of every person and every business and every transaction (is it food or clothing or other non-taxed goods)? Add in costs to enforce collection (do you trust the businesses, what about all the new black markets that develop?). I just can't see this being much less than $10 billion.

(2) Property type taxes. What would it cost for the IRS to assess each and every property? This would have to be done periodically, probably every 2-3 years. An accurate assessment takes hours and runs in the hundreds for just a simple building. Will this be cheaper than $10 billion? I don't know. Probably not much cheaper if it were.

(3) User fees. Toll booths everywhere (since the federal government DOES pay for roads) - that would certainly cost a lot. An added layer of government for education use fees. How do we fee for military protection? Do we charge user fees for NO hurricane cleanup? How do we delegate these fees, and make certain that everyone pays them? Talk about a lot of work, and money to collect it on every use. Would it be cheaper than $10 billion? I don't know. Do you have any estimates?

I'd say you're off-base and over-simplifying here. Let's re-look.

As I already said, the IRS passes off the cost of the income tax onto the taxpayer. In reality, it is MUCH more complicated that you make it out to be. A large percentage of America is either self-employed, a business owner, or otherwise has complicated taxes for some reason or another. Not everyone is a W-2 wage-earner doing the short form.

(1) Sales taxes are collected like property taxes. A penny a transaction is FAR too high. All that is required is a computerized record of the sales transaction (which every store already has as a part of doing business). Done. Most states in the country already have a sales tax system in place.

(2) Property-type taxes are already collected in every locality in the US. I mean every. I challenge someone to come up with a single county in the US that does not already have a property tax system in place.

(3) Strawman. Road user fees are already collected via an at-the-pump gas tax. Toll booths not required.