Will the proposed tax overhaul raise most Georgians' taxes? (credit, school)

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

now the super-rich...they can find ways to shelter their wealth. The problem is the definition. Folks like me who are supporting a family of 5 on my income get soaked. The guy with 50 million in a trust fund can figure out ways to reduce his tax liability. I still believe though they he should not have to pay a disproportionate amount, when 50% pay nothing. Everyone who can afford to do so needs to make a contribution.

fify.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by 912

But they ALWAYS create jobs. Remember that.

Well, who do you think owns businesses and invests in the economy? The problem here is the lack of definition around "rich" and the false connotations.

If we take the political bias out of the conversation and look at it as a purely economic exercise, if you understand how an economy functions, and how jobs are created, then you might have a different view. Government doesn't create jobs, evil rich people do.

I have yet to see too many low income people creating jobs. Of course nothing is ALWAYS or NEVER, but there are norms.

Originally Posted by bellhead

In fantasy land....

Spoken like someone with very little understanding of economics.

Originally Posted by toll_booth

fify.

Is that English?

[testa50]

With regard to the "who should pay taxes?" question, I am a fan of Milton Friedman's idea. Give everyone a certain cash payment on a monthly basis to ensure a certain standard of living. From the guy supporting three kids on minimum wage to the $20 million banking executive.

Then, do the following things:

1) Start taxing everyone at dollar 1. You can have a progressive structure, but assume that the flat cash benefit covers all deductions. Do everything you can to minimize cost of compliance.

2) Elminate nearly all social welfare and conventional safety net programs. No food stamps, no subsidized housing, no TANF, no social security, no unemployment insurance, etc. The only ones this might not be sufficient to address are medicare and medicaid, since our healthcare system is so messed up and will continue to be for the forseeable future.

This has several benefits, one of the largest of which is that it eliminates perverse incentives not to work. There is a certain income range and life situation that faces extremely high marginal tax rates (sometimes well over 50%) due to the double-whammy of (1) suddenly having to pay taxes on income and (2) suddenly becoming ineligible for social welfare programs. Under this proposal, everyone always has an incentive to earn more money.

I also like Hong Kong's "If you're not going to tax poor people, then just leave them out of the tax system altogether and let them work without the burden of compliance" approach. There's really not much point having a hundred-odd-million people churn through the income tax system when they aren't going to pay anything anyways, and having employers face the costs of compliance that discourage them from hiring workers.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

fify.

Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
now the super-rich...they can find ways to shelter their wealth. The problem is the definition. Folks like me who are supporting a family of 5 on my income get soaked. The guy with 50 million in a trust fund can figure out ways to reduce his tax liability. I still believe though they he should not have to pay a disproportionate amount, when 50% pay nothing. Everyone who can afford to do so needs to make a contribution.

Please don't change my quotes and put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself.

Everyone should make a contribution. We have 50% of wage earners in this country who pay no federal income tax. They want and they take, but they make no contribution.

[912]

Originally Posted by bellhead

In fantasy land....

Seriously?

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by 912

Seriously?

Yea,

Paris Hilton one of the richest women in America is a real jobs creator isn't she. The trust fund heiress directly employees several people to meet her needs while traveling around the world partying nonstop. Outside of her short lived reality TV show and her porn tape what has she done to stimulate the economy. I know her family owns the hotels but Paris didn't earn one cent of that money.

Oh maybe Alice Walton is who you meant the heiress to the Walmart who has built one of the nicest museums in the country. Link to it...

Wal-Mart heiress roils art world - Entertainment - The Arts - TODAY.com..

At least she has provided a few jobs to art majors...But on a ROI front I would say she's a bigger fail than Paris...

Rich people don't create jobs. Inventive and hungry people do, aka Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerburg...

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by testa50

With regard to the "who should pay taxes?" question, I am a fan of Milton Friedman's idea. Give everyone a certain cash payment on a monthly basis to ensure a certain standard of living. From the guy supporting three kids on minimum wage to the $20 million banking executive.

Then, do the following things:

1) Start taxing everyone at dollar 1. You can have a progressive structure, but assume that the flat cash benefit covers all deductions. Do everything you can to minimize cost of compliance.

2) Elminate nearly all social welfare and conventional safety net programs. No food stamps, no subsidized housing, no TANF, no social security, no unemployment insurance, etc. The only ones this might not be sufficient to address are medicare and medicaid, since our healthcare system is so messed up and will continue to be for the forseeable future.

This has several benefits, one of the largest of which is that it eliminates perverse incentives not to work. There is a certain income range and life situation that faces extremely high marginal tax rates (sometimes well over 50%) due to the double-whammy of (1) suddenly having to pay taxes on income and (2) suddenly becoming ineligible for social welfare programs. Under this proposal, everyone always has an incentive to earn more money.

I also like Hong Kong's "If you're not going to tax poor people, then just leave them out of the tax system altogether and let them work without the burden of compliance" approach. There's really not much point having a hundred-odd-million people churn through the income tax system when they aren't going to pay anything anyways, and having employers face the costs of compliance that discourage them from hiring workers.

Milton Friedman's = supply side FAIL!!!

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Well, who do you think owns businesses and invests in the economy? The problem here is the lack of definition around "rich" and the false connotations.

If we take the political bias out of the conversation and look at it as a purely economic exercise, if you understand how an economy functions, and how jobs are created, then you might have a different view. Government doesn't create jobs, evil rich people do.

I have yet to see too many low income people creating jobs. Of course nothing is ALWAYS or NEVER, but there are norms.



Spoken like someone with very little understanding of economics.



Is that English?

Unlike you I didn't go to a state funded college and received a good education....HAH!!!

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by bellhead

Unlike you I didn't go to a state funded college and received a good education....HAH!!!

Um yeah....you're obviously a Rhodes Scholar. I'm doing just fine with my mediocre education, but thanks for your concern.

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Please don't change my quotes and put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself.

Everyone should make a contribution. We have 50% of wage earners in this country who pay no federal income tax. They want and they take, but they make no contribution.

So 1/2 of the country = fail???