Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
corporations have employees that pay income taxes and that is for the military. when you used roads and airports, im thinking you were talking about businesses using these things specifically to conduct business. well, they pay for them. corporations are made up of employees and they pay income taxes for the military that we all benefit from.
i would agree corporations should pay taxes and/or fees for services they specifically utlilize. but when it comes to general expenses like military and courts, that should come from income taxes of humans.
I just reject the idea that the taxes paid by employees somehow covers the cost of the resources used by the corporation itself.
The employees' taxes pay for the employees' personal share of federal resources alone. I simply don't understand your logic of tacking on the costs of the employer's resource usage onto the backs of individual workers.
If the corporate entity's cash was "owned" by its employees, and if corporations were not allowed to own assets, and if they weren't allowed any involvement in the political process, and if the corporation disbursed 100% of its profits to employees, then I'd follow your logic... but obviously none of those things are true.
I just reject the idea that the taxes paid by employees somehow covers the cost of the resources used by the corporation itself.
The employees' taxes pay for the employees' personal share of federal resources alone. I simply don't understand your logic of tacking on the costs of the employer's resource usage onto the backs of individual workers.
If the corporate entity's cash was "owned" by its employees, and if corporations were not allowed to own assets, and if they weren't allowed any involvement in the political process, and if the corporation disbursed 100% of its profits to employees, then I'd follow your logic... but obviously none of those things are true.
i reject the notion that corporations are receiving greater tax benefit than they pay out. these taxes are used to fund less productive sectors of the economy/society not to recover costs government spends to maintain things corporations use.
it also isnt on the backs of individuals. ultimately, we are all individuals and must pay for the revenue of the government. that corporate profit will either be taxes as income or be invested in the business. by eliminating corporate taxes, you encourage economic growth and reduce the expendistures of the government while increasing government revenue.
Since the wealthy buy more, they will pay more in sales tax. However one needs to keep in mind that the marginal propensity to consume is higher among the poor. The flat tax idea is just fine however to keep it from being too regressive, don't start from 0. Simply make it start above the poverty line. Thus the first $22,000 in a family of 4 in the lower 48 will have that exempt.
This is the problem with the plan. The ultra rich will end up paying even less. The bottom 50% will end up paying more since the majority of what they earn will be spent on items that will be taxed including food and clothing.
Since the wealthy buy more, they will pay more in sales tax.
Not in proportion to their income/wealth.
However one needs to keep in mind that the marginal propensity to consume is higher among the poor.
Propensity? Rent, groceries, clothing, etc are not a propensity.
The flat tax idea is just fine however to keep it from being too regressive, don't start from 0. Simply make it start above the poverty line.
Which poverty line? and besides once you start with "except X or Y... it isn't long before you're right where we are now.
Thus the first $22,000 in a family of 4 in the lower 48 will have that exempt.
Thus what? Oh yeah, I remember you. You are feeling dizzy and want to make another contribution to the vomit bucket.
The level one consumes is a propensity. That is what higher marginal propensity to consume means. The poor will pay higher taxes because they consume more relative to income.
You are not literate?
They can already jack with the tax, only without the loop holes that only the wealthy can afford.
I also stated which poverty line , the one for the lower 48. Its a shade over 22,000 for a family of 4. Look it up. It literally means those in poverty pay no taxes.
For the record, not for the sales tax. No new channels of taxation without removing one.
This is the problem with the plan. The ultra rich will end up paying even less. The bottom 50% will end up paying more since the majority of what they earn will be spent on items that will be taxed including food and clothing.
Hi Lincolnian,
Removing the capital gains tax is lunacy. It should be slightly lower than taxes on labor at exactly the inflation rate, meaning money that earns 3% due to inflation isn't a gain.
I was under the impression that the AMT will catch an exploit of the Capital gains loophole...say someone has $500,000 in a year solely through long -term cap gains, he will be switched to the AMT so he cannot just pay 15% tax on it...
Its a good plan but it needs a standard deduction of like 30k (tax free) and maybe like 100k for businesses or something like that. I have no problem with people paying no taxes as long as the tax code is fair to everyone. First 30k tax free then remaining income 9% tax. That's fair. As far as the 9% sales tax, that will just give people an incentive to invest their money instead of blow it on stupid stuff. Also it would be a good idea to make certain items tax free like fruit, milk and other, "essential" items.
If you don't think you are paying enough taxes then its called charity. If you think the rich aren't paying enough taxes, then encourage them to donate their money. Using the tax system to FORCE them out of their money is simply wrong. Especially if you aren't willing to pay the same tax % as them. I know most people who advocate for higher taxes on the rich don't even pay 5% of their income in taxes. Talk about hypocrites.
Quote:
Removing the capital gains tax is lunacy. It should be slightly lower than taxes on labor at exactly the inflation rate, meaning money that earns 3% due to inflation isn't a gain.
Hardly a bad idea. Removing capital gains tax will encourage more people to invest their money. Remember, when it comes to capital gains people have to RISK (ie. risk of loss) their money to make capital gains. Investing is all about making profit and if you are getting less profit (after tax) from your investment then there is less incentive to risk that money in the first place. Just imagine if the capital gains tax was 100%. Do you think anyone would want to risk losing their money in the stock market or risk losing their money by investing?
Capital gains is not the same as earned income. At least with earned income you aren't risking your savings account. With capitals gains, one year you could make 1 million in gains and the next year lose 15$ million. Assuming it was a bad year and your investment went bust or something like that. Happens all the time. Everyone just likes to look at the winners and say, "see, look how great that person has it, he made 1$ billion in capital gains." Meanwhile the guy who lost a billion in a bad real estate deal doesn't get one thought.
Last edited by a34dadsf; 10-18-2011 at 05:26 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
