The tax poll

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vic
IMO, gas taxes should pay for the roads, user fees for most services, property taxes for the schools, and sales tax for everything else.

I was trying to get at the cheapest possible tax collection method. Having a combination of those three would certainly not be the cheapest. Probably far above the $10 billion from the IRS. I agree that one source is bad, and therefore we won't be able to beat the low cost of the IRS. But I was just trying to point out that the IRS expense is insignificant in the overall federal outlays.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that the huge expense and burden of income tax collection is placed on the taxpayers, and not on the IRS.

The gas tax is collected like a sales tax (except per unit rather than per cost). Cost of collection is minimal, as calculating the tax is already a part of normal business accounting, i.e. something that businesses already do regardless of the tax.

User fees are simple. Pay at gate. Pay at time of service. Etc.

Sales tax is just like the gas tax but per cost. Gross sales times tax rate equal tax amount. Gross sales is already a part of normal business accounting, i.e. something that businesses already do regardless of the tax.

Property tax because it is the absolute fairest way to pay for schools and provides excellent benefits to the public good.

Income is also already calculated. It is writen write on the bottom of my pay check.

Congratulations. Most taxpayers in the US don't use the short form. And almost half are self-employed (or are business owners, partners, investors, stockowners, property owners, and/or have similarly complicated taxes). This is why (for the 10 gajillioneth time) it costs the taxpayers more than 200 billion dollars every year to calculate their income taxes. Have you ever seen a self-employed person's income tax return? The average size is about 30 pages long, and I have seen some over 100 pages. I think that beats your 1 page 9 line short form. Now thank you and shut up.

That has little to do with the taxation method. The goverment could make toll road have 100 pages of paper work.

Besides those people can affoard the paper anyways so why shouls I care.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Sorry....got tired after reading the first couple of pages and skipped to the end. I want to ask the couple that I saw advocating a sales tax as the "reasonable/fair" option a question.

You make $1,000,000/yr salary+investments and purchase say......$300,000 worth of taxable goods at 10%. Your taxes end up being 3% of your income.

You make $30,000/yr salary (probably no investments) and purchase say.....$20,000 worth of taxable goods at 10%. Your taxes end up being 15% of your income.

How is this fair or reasonable? This is just another giveaway to the wealthy that is framed in a way that seems to make sense until you actually look at the results.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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.

Dead people are not good for the growth so your comparision is fundimentially wroung. A property tax prevents property from being ignored. Of course as with any tax to high of a rate is bad.

huh?

When people starve to death it doesn't provided growth unlike when property is seized due to not paying taxes.

but people working extra hard to avoid starvation does provide growth.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Vic
I said more than just that the income tax is expensive to implement, I also said it was unfair. And it is subject to rampant abuse. In fact, the entire system of the income tax has become how politicians use it to sway votes. Tax redistribution here, tax cut there, tax break here, special deduction there, etc.

and you think any other form of tax would be any different? Wasn't someone lecturing someone else for being niave a few posts ago?

Yes, it is different. Income and so-called "sin" taxes are unique in their potential for abuse in a democracy. This is due to the fact that the taxes are collected unevenly and the largest burden of the taxation is always placed on a voting minority. So the average voter thinks, "Raise my neighbors' taxes and not my own? Sure!!" This is because the average person sees the opportunity to screw his neighbor and jumps at it without stopping to consider if the tax is really necessary.

I could screw my neighbors with any tax. Just make it have brackets. If land is worth more the 2 million dollars make the rate twice as high. If an item is worth more then 10K lets go with 50% sales tax.

and make land used for some uses exempt, and so on...

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Vic
I said more than just that the income tax is expensive to implement, I also said it was unfair. And it is subject to rampant abuse. In fact, the entire system of the income tax has become how politicians use it to sway votes. Tax redistribution here, tax cut there, tax break here, special deduction there, etc.

and you think any other form of tax would be any different? Wasn't someone lecturing someone else for being niave a few posts ago?

Yes, it is different. Income and so-called "sin" taxes are unique in their potential for abuse in a democracy. This is due to the fact that the taxes are collected unevenly and the largest burden of the taxation is always placed on a voting minority. So the average voter thinks, "Raise my neighbors' taxes and not my own? Sure!!" This is because the average person sees the opportunity to screw his neighbor and jumps at it without stopping to consider if the tax is really necessary.

I could screw my neighbors with any tax. Just make it have brackets. If land is worth more the 2 million dollars make the rate twice as high. If an item is worth more then 10K lets go with 50% sales tax.

and make land used for some uses exempt, and so on...

And can't forget giving your favorit corporations 30 years with out paying taxes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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.

Excessive taxation is when goverment starts to crowd out private investment. Yes our goverment is spending too much, but at the same time it must be noted that this year our debt to gdp ratio started to decline again.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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.

So far I have only spoken about about an ideal tax system, and as they say the devil is in the details. ANy tax system can be made progressive or regressive. Most states that have a sales exempt the basics from being taxed. But a luxory tax can kill an industry(boat industry of the northeast is a fine example).

States already effectively handle the transaction costs of propety taxes, so that is a non issue.

 

[JLGatsby]

Everyone can now rest assured.

I have the solution to America's problems.

1. Implement "balanced budget" amendment, requiring a balanced budget at all times.

2. Rid/minimize the IRS, install flat 10% across the board income tax.

3. Privatize Social Security, it's a rip off. The government steals your money and pays you 2% interest, which is about the same as savings account, when you can earn 4 or 5% with no risk in triple A corporate bonds. Also, make a law that says if you die without using up all your SS money, that money is put into your heirs SS fund (or to a charity of your choice) for use when they retire, the money just keeps piling up. This builds wealth in the middle class and will end 75% of poverty with one or two generations.

4. Force the government to ONLY provide absolutely ESSENTIAL services. This will allow the government to operate on the lower amount of tax revenue they will receive.

5. Finally, remember and never EVER forget what Barry Goldwater said many years ago, "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

Important: The government cannot fix everyone's problems. The government is not here to babysit you. The government is not here to entertain you. The government has too much power. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "The government that
governs least governs best."

We don't need a bunch of Massachusetts trust fund baby political family politicians, southern good ol' boy crooked POSes, power hungry liars, wannabe televangelists, and jealous class warfarists stealing from us and telling us how to run our lives. Wake up people.

Washington DC, consider yourself pwned.

EDIT: And as I sit here listening to Morrissey, the greatest singer who ever lived, the song's lyrics should not be left out, as it applies to my post.

"So, the choice I had made,
may seem strange to you,
but, who asked you anyway?!?
It's my life, to wreck, my own way..!"
Artist: Morrissey Album: Maladjusted Song: Alma Matters

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
1. Implement "balanced budget" amendment, requiring a balanced budget at all times.

Very bad for the US and for the economy. Disasters happen. We need the flexibility to deal with them. Suppose we are 90% through the year and all the money is earmarked in programs that can't end. Then we are invaded. Oops, we just have to sit back and lose since we can't spend another dime to defend ourselves. :roll:

Instead, a much better plan is balanced every 5 years or so (over the next 5 years we have to tax as much as we spend in the next 5 years). The 5 year time span allows for us to absorb disasters, wars, and recessions. When times are good, tax a bit more than we spend and build up a safety net. Then when times are good, tax less than we spend and use up that safety net of money. That'll minimize problems and minimize recessions.

2. Rid/minimize the IRS, install flat 10% across the board income tax.

Gains us next to nothing, but I'm not going to argue it here.

3. Privatize Social Security, it's a rip off. The government steals your money and pays you 2% interest, which is about the same as savings account, when you can earn 4 or 5% with no risk in triple A corporate bonds.

Unless you are <25 years old, you are earning far more than 2%. It isn't intended to be a great investment, it is intended to make certain everyone can survive throughout their life. That is a noble and worthwhile cause. If you want more than 2%, you have dozens of methods to invest on your own (many with special tax incentives).

4. Force the government to ONLY provide absolutely ESSENTIAL services. This will allow the government to operate on the lower amount of tax revenue they will receive.

Yes, government should be cut back. But really, many services that you want to cut are essential. For example, our economy would be distroyed when the roads disintegrate in 5-10 years as there is no money to repair them. If you think about it, many of the costly programs are essential. Yes there is tons of waste. Trim the fat. But much of what you think is non-essential will distroy America if it is cut.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: smack Down
That has little to do with the taxation method. The goverment could make toll road have 100 pages of paper work.

Exactly. Yes, the current IRS may be costly to people (not the government). But nothing says it has to be. That is why I'm ignoring Vics attempt to blast income tax. Income tax can be simple.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: 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.

You don't get the point that there is no longer any Private owership of land!

If you are not selling and Walmart wants your land they will have the City take your land. Then you get NOTHING!

Check the latest court ruling on the subject. You may learn a thing or two.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Everyone can now rest assured.



4. Force the government to ONLY provide absolutely ESSENTIAL services. This will allow the government to operate on the lower amount of tax revenue they will receive.


q]

The only to fix this problem is a complete purge of D.C and every state captial. NO Congressmen or Senator will give up their ability to get re-ellected year after year without a fight(hence the need for a great purge).

The wasteful spending is how they say in office by pandering to their voter base. If they don't pander with money they are out of office.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
Corporations to be taxed as individuals. All earned money is taxed (regardless if comes from stocks, bonds, etc.)

FYI - Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass the cost of taxes on to consumers, stock holders, employees.

John Linder's Fair Tax Proposal all the way IMHO.

 

[Forsythe]

That income taxes inhibit growth is the most stupid thing ever.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: 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.

You don't get the point that there is no longer any Private owership of land!

If you are not selling and Walmart wants your land they will have the City take your land. Then you get NOTHING!

Check the latest court ruling on the subject. You may learn a thing or two.

i'm well aware of it. Thanks. Now can we get back on topic?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
That income taxes inhibit growth is the most stupid thing ever.

Heh. That you proudly display soundly disputed statistics in your sig is the "most stupid thing ever."

And it's not income taxes per se that inhibit growth, but progressive income tax rates that inhibit growth. This has been economically and factually proven. Taxpayers always move in the direction that allows them to acheive what they want while paying as little in taxes as possible. Always. It has been demonstrated that people will even revert back to the barter system should the tax rates get too high.

Reality > ideology

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: smack Down
That has little to do with the taxation method. The goverment could make toll road have 100 pages of paper work.

Exactly. Yes, the current IRS may be costly to people (not the government). But nothing says it has to be. That is why I'm ignoring Vics attempt to blast income tax. Income tax can be simple.

With a zero deduction flat tax. Good luck with that. Unlike most other forms of taxation, it is the nature of the income tax that it never stays simple or flat rate.

 

[HardWarrior]

Nice poll, mike. :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: ScottyB
Corporations to be taxed as individuals. All earned money is taxed (regardless if comes from stocks, bonds, etc.)

FYI - Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass the cost of taxes on to consumers, stock holders, employees.

John Linder's Fair Tax Proposal all the way IMHO.

Some people don't understand basic economics. They think money is magic. They think they can "fsck over" those "evil corporations" by giving each one a uniform competitive disadvantage, as though the cost of such wouldn't be passed on to the consumers.

 

[HardWarrior]

I stated my preferences, but I hasten to add that ANY approach to taxation has to be predicated by fed\state\local governments drastically reducing spending that can't be easily justified as good for the American people ONLY.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down
And can't forget giving your favorit corporations 30 years with out paying taxes.

I have discovered that your favorite argument is to pretend your opponent's argument is other than what it actually is. FYI that is a logical fallacy known as strawman.

 

[zebano]

 

[zebano]

Edit: I argue taxes at least once/ week at work so I am going to avoid this.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
And can't forget giving your favorit corporations 30 years with out paying taxes.

I have discovered that your favorite argument is to pretend your opponent's argument is other than what it actually is. FYI that is a logical fallacy known as strawman.

i'mnot quite sure how that was a strawman, but ok.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: ScottyB
Corporations to be taxed as individuals. All earned money is taxed (regardless if comes from stocks, bonds, etc.)

FYI - Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass the cost of taxes on to consumers, stock holders, employees.

John Linder's Fair Tax Proposal all the way IMHO.

Some people don't understand basic economics. They think money is magic. They think they can "fsck over" those "evil corporations" by giving each one a uniform competitive disadvantage, as though the cost of such wouldn't be passed on to the consumers.

tax gets taken out somewhere, whether its corporate, sale, etc. As far as i can tell, a certian amount of possible production is going to be taken, and a certain amount won't. I'm not sure if or how a particular tax would lead to a changed production possiblility, but i definately won't throw it out the window. Really the consumers pay all taxes if you want to look at it that way, a tax at any point makes it more expensive at the end, whether is be during, etc.