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.
Huh? A national sales tax doesn't exist, and I don't support it -- so how on earth is that arguing for "additional support?"
Didn't read the OP? No wonder you're lost.
Quote:
I don't think a regressive tax rate is the solution that problem.
Let me guess... you think that throwing even more money at the dependent class will somehow *miraculously* cause them to stop outbreeding their taxpaying supporters at a rate of 3 to 1. That makes NO sense. They're outbreeding everyone else because they get PAID by the government's liberal policies to do so. Giving them any additional means of support will exacerbate the problem.
I'm talking about why we should calculate taxation as a share of someone's income, rather than taxing people regressively at a fixed amount. I don't know what the hell you're babbling about. You have de-railed.
We already have a dependent class we support, and I'm describing ways we can shrink that class. Giving them sh*t jobs is better than giving them welfare.
we agree on this
get rid of welfare (completely) and have workfare
but the liberal politicians dont ever want to do that..if they EMPOWER the people, they lose control and votes
The networth tax would mean double taxation with a income tax also. It would really make not earnign more attrctive once a person has so much;also. A pure income based tax would be much better with elimnation of all loophole deductions for all individuals. It would include all compensation not just actaul money.
Any attempt to increase taxes as a way to make the Big Government model work is doomed to fail.
Our nation can no longer afford Big Government. Thanks to Free Trade and Big Business wealth consolidation over the last 3 decades, our nation's workers do not collectively have the incomes that would be needed to support the extreme size of Big Government (let alone the inevitable growth inherent in governments that are not purposely prevented from growing).
Politicians do not limit their spending to what they can confiscate. So why are we even talking about trying confiscate so much income that politicians can continue their insane spending spree? It's not like the spending of Big Government has saved our economy--in fact, now liberals are reduced to the absolutely foolish argument "It would have been even worse if government hadn't given trillions to the richest Big Businesses." I guess there's not much else to say when you got your way and spent trillions that will have to repaid with interest, and every single measure of economic health is MUCH worse than when you started.
It should be obvious to all by now that no matter how much money it confiscates, government will spend that, then borrow or print however much extra it needs to pay for the unlimited "Wish List" spending they call a budget. Without requiring that politicians only spend what they can confiscate, there is no such thing as a stable and sustainable government. And Big Government is so far beyond the control of the people that balanced budget requirements will never be passed. In any case, the size of the federal debt (over $14.6 trillion already) is so excessive that balanced budgets in the future are meaningless--unless we simply default on the debt and allow the 60% held by American investments to collapse (meaning goodbye pensions, stock market, etc.).
The silver lining is that Big Government is the enemy of freedom and prosperity, and America will be FAR better off when working Americans are no longer enslaved to pay for the huge army of bureaucrats that oversee their every move and tax their every bit of income. Forget keeping the entire world flooded with high-tech arms and weapons of war; forget trying to police the world after making sure even starving nations have plenty of guns; forget the average worker paying for everyone who can't or won't work; and forget the working class paying for those who make their lives miserable by requiring government permission and micro-management of any move the citizen might try to make.
The Founding Fathers would be sickened to know that a citizen today who wishes to go out and shoot a turkey to feed his family, must buy a license from the government to hunt turkey, must wear specified colored gear, must only hunt on the specified days of the year for turkey hunting, can only shoot a male turkey, can only shoot after sunrise and before sunset, with the weapon exactly specified by government for that time period, and is only allowed one bird. We have taken "The King's deer" to the extreme that government now "owns" every animal, even in cases where government does absolutely nothing to stock or manage the resource.
Net worth tax? So all the retirees and those trying to save for the future lose another 1% of their savings to government (as if dollar devaluation, inflation and collapse of housing and investment assets weren't enough), while the truly rich continue to keep their assets overseas and in foreign currencies that are not being constantly devalued? Plus, has ANY government tax stayed at the low levels used to get them approved? How long before all savings are confiscated by government at rates of 20% a year (aka, close to 100% confiscation over 5 years?).
Another 3% sales tax, on top of the sales taxes already from state and local government (so California will be at over 12% sales tax total) will crush the retail economy even more, while making internet sales VERY attractive, as well as travel to the 5 states with no sales tax (since 3% is much better than 12%). Any extra income from this would be negligible anyway, no matter what the rate, since politicians cannot limit their spending.
As for an additional 5% income tax (it must be additional, since a straight 5% income tax on every worker isn't nearly enough to pay for massive Big Government), this number is thrown out because it seems like a small number that wouldn't even be noticed. The trouble is all the other deductions to the paycheck: SS and Medicare (15.3% of your income, with half hidden under the illusion of an "employer's share), state and local taxes, health care insurance, etc. In the aggregate, most Americans simply cannot afford yet another 5% taken from their paycheck to be handed to the Ivory Tower Spendthrifts in Washington.
Although I agree that 1/2 of those paying SS/Medicare taxes pay NO federal income taxes at all, and this is a huge problem since these people vote and in fact are giving away other people's money. I would support a 5% federal income tax on all those who pay no federal income tax today, so long as this money went towards our insane national debt and was combined with a balanced budget requirement that could not be circumvented by government.
Since even those who pay no federal income tax pay SS and Medicare taxes, and this applies to every worker no matter how poor, an additional 5% would bring the rate of federal taxation to 20.3% of every penny earned for the poorest Americans. This is ridiculous, and a great disincentive to work in the regular economy.
Big Government has failed us utterly in every way, and now its extreme cost has bankrupted the entire economy. Instead of trying to find ways to confiscate even more money from an economy that is in its death throes, we need to be thinking of what kind of structure we want after the inevitable collapse of the currency, the economy, and the corrupt government.
One thing is sure: Big Government doesn't work. It NEVER works.
I was kind-of with you until this "clarification".
Frankly, I think 1% is too high, and it, like the other items in your list, should apply to all of us, and be paid annually.
Like others have said, I'm not sure about your numbers, but it's a "framework".
yeah i think there is $200 trillion in total dollar denominated assets. 1% of that is quite a good bit of money.
You'd either have to lower the rate, or narrow down what kind of assets you included, rather than attempting to calcluate 'net worth'. Some of these entities in question are in the public and quasi-public sector and aren't used to getting taxed, it would certainly shock the system.. One way or another, settling on the details of a wealth-based tax is not a simple and easy thing to do.
You mean those of us who arent easily flawed by ridiculous ideas?
Still waiting for you to present a better one that you could get passed in the House (if you were a Congressperson trying to get support for the same idea).
I was kind-of with you until this "clarification".
Frankly, I think 1% is too high, and it, like the other items in your list, should apply to all of us, and be paid annually.
Like others have said, I'm not sure about your numbers, but it's a "framework".
The problem, as presented by others in this thread, is that the wealthier you are the less weight you should have to pull to help fix our debt and deficit crisis.
A net worth tax is a non-starter because the wealthy would have to pay a lot of money to the federal government.
I say that is fine as long as every cent is used to pay off our debts and not to grow more wasteful social programs.
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.