U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2012, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Sputnik Planitia
6,899 posts, read 9,677,632 times
Reputation: 7598

Advertisements

We all know the current tax system is hugely partial towards the rich, infact the rich are getting away with murder literally because they make most of their income through capital gains and pay a pittance in taxes and this is after all the myriad of deductions that they claim as "expenses" which may be suspect! In my view income is income no matter how it is made and all should pay their fair share. There is something fundamentally WRONG with Mitt Romney paying 14% tax on his millions and someone making $100,000/yr paying 35-40% tax.

Let's use this thread to throw out some ideas of how YOU would tackle this unfair situation. Would you tax income, consumption or both? What else would you do?

Personally, I favor a consumption side tax and nothing else. I think everything can be handled at the consumption side of the equation and this prevents anyone from escaping from taxes. It also makes thing fair.

With this approach we have to tackle the poor, so we don't encumber them with a disproportionately high tax burden. We do this by eliminating taxes on certain product categories for all - food, health care, insurance etc. products that are to be purchased as "essentials".

If a POOR person CHOOSES to buy an iPod touch then that is his problem, he will pay the consumption tax. The more he decides to indulge in products that are *wants* not *needs*, the more his effective tax will go up.

The beauty of this thing is that it is totally elective for the poor, they can literally choose to pay no tax by sticking to essential tax free products or they can spend on taxable items. Conversely if the rich want to play they will have to pay, there is no way around it.

Another issue that will be completely resolved is that tax-compliance is hugely simplified, because there is none The IRS can be reduced to a fraction of it's size and tax compliance costs for non-business filings can be vastly reduced.

Obviously this is not a new idea but a great idea in my view, it definitely needs to be fine tuned to work well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2012, 03:24 PM
 
19,337 posts, read 16,934,141 times
Reputation: 7515
Just nationalize the mortgage industry. Pretty simple.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Atlantis
3,017 posts, read 3,484,643 times
Reputation: 8849
The problem with "fixing" the tax code now - in 2012 is:


Now that (in the last 30 years), the economic elite which includes the top 4% - in the US already own over 78% of all existing wealth (money, bank accounts, stocks, mutual funds, real estate, etc etc) and have positioned themselves to earn over 50% of all income. . . . .

It does not matter what changes are made to the tax code at any time from this point forward. The existing wealth and resources will still stay in the hands of those that posses it all - even more so if the tax code is changed and the middle class is convinced that those changes will benefit them.

The dynamics that enable there to be such a vast difference in terms of income and owned wealth in the US will not change because of a change in the tax code. The top 4% already made their money and secured the assets and wealth they have before any changes to the tax code would tax place and changing the tax code will not cause a shift in that in any way unless of course their money and wealth was just directly confiscated by the government, which would never happen.

How the economic elite are taxed at this point is irrelevant since any changes in taxes in the future will only affect future income and not the wealth that was already obtained.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 03:44 PM
 
19,337 posts, read 16,934,141 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydive Outlaw View Post
The problem with "fixing" the tax code now - in 2012 is:


Now that (in the last 30 years), the economic elite which includes the top 4% - in the US already own over 78% of all existing wealth (money, bank accounts, stocks, mutual funds, real estate, etc etc) and have positioned themselves to earn over 50% of all income. . . . .

It does not matter what changes are made to the tax code at any time from this point forward. The existing wealth and resources will still stay in the hands of those that posses it all - even more so if the tax code is changed and the middle class is convinced that those changes will benefit them.

The dynamics that enable there to be such a vast difference in terms of income and owned wealth in the US will not change because of a change in the tax code. The top 4% already made their money and secured the assets and wealth they have before any changes to the tax code would tax place and changing the tax code will not cause a shift in that in any way unless of course their money and wealth was just directly confiscated by the government, which would never happen.

How the economic elite are taxed at this point is irrelevant since any changes in taxes in the future will only affect future income and not the wealth that was already obtained.
Which is why taxing any goods and services simply makes it worse. They can essentially just sell access to greater swaths of North America. That was why we became a colony in the first place because all the resources were owned by an oligarchy. Not a progressive capital gains tax in sight or any tax treatment separating profits from say cancer research and a buy and hold land speculator that put us in this mess.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 05:11 PM
Status: "But in the aggregate..." (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
31,335 posts, read 69,506,041 times
Reputation: 37344
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
Let's use this thread to throw out some ideas of how YOU would tackle this unfair situation.
Ever read any Tom Clancy novels?
In Debt of Honor a plane crashes into the Capitol building
which kills about half of the of the House and Senate...
thus requiring a replacement of a very large number in very quick order.

This sort of scenario... *might* work.
But I have my doubts.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,618 posts, read 3,229,079 times
Reputation: 2464
Maybe you could answer some of these questions. Did anyone else notice their refund, if you are entitled to one, was less than last year? I paid more taxes, yet got less money back. On average I pay 10-12% of what I make and being married with NO children, get back about half of my money. (I use single, 0 dependents for the year, not sure if a good idea?)

Answer me this, how can someone who pays about 2,000 in taxes get a refund of 4 or 5,000? What's the point of taxes then? Paying taxes doesn't affect them and they get more back, it's like not getting taxed and getting a bonus?!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 08:52 AM
 
297 posts, read 669,258 times
Reputation: 304
The way our system of government works is corporations, rich people, and special interest groups like farmers donate millions of dollars to the politician's campaigns.

Then in return they get tax break laws passed.

So these folks have spent a LOT of money to get all these obscure tax breaks here and there. They would be quite ticked to see them removed!

Also foreign governments contribute to politician's campaigns. Then the U.S. sends these countries billions in "foreign aid".

"We the People" do not contribute much of anything to politician's campaigns (relatively speaking), so they could care less what we want. FYI - I recall reading somewhere that it costs about $160 million to buy off congress.

The way to change all this is to have free TV time for all politicians running for office. Then they would not need to raise all that money. And could then be free to do what is best for the people and the country.

FYI - I like to read biographies about politicians. It is not uncommon for them to suddenly change their "views" once they are no longer in office. So they are in Congress voting AGAINST their own views as well as against what is best for the country. But if they want to be re-elected, they must "deal with the devil" and do their bidding!

It is a sorry state of affairs.

The thing to do is for each American to buy stock in national TV networks. Then if "we" own a network, we could then insist a network provide free TV time to politicians. That is the only thing I can think of which could change this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 10:27 AM
 
Location: NJ
29,529 posts, read 34,010,786 times
Reputation: 21943
i do think capital gains rates and income should be the same. but it should be flat across the board and income rates should be brought down to capital gains, not the other way around. no deductions (like dependents, mortgage interest, 401k's).

its kind of funny to suggest the tax code favors the rich, since half of americans dont pay federal income tax. the tax code favors politicians.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Here.
15,454 posts, read 14,018,025 times
Reputation: 18080
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
We all know the current tax system is hugely partial towards the rich, infact the rich are getting away with murder literally because they make most of their income through capital gains and pay a pittance in taxes and this is after all the myriad of deductions that they claim as "expenses" which may be suspect! In my view income is income no matter how it is made and all should pay their fair share. There is something fundamentally WRONG with Mitt Romney paying 14% tax on his millions and someone making $100,000/yr paying 35-40% tax.
In order to make capital gains, one must first make income which is then TAXED and invested. At some later time, those investments are sold and TAXED AGAIN.

So, Romney may only be paying 15% long term capital gains tax on his investments, but he paid normal tax rates on that income before it was invested. (At least this is how it typically works. Romney's tax preparer may know some tricks that I don't ).

So the question should be: is it really fair that someone who invests their money supposedly to fund the building of America should be TAXED TWICE, when someone who doesn't invest their money is only taxed once? I think not.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 09:17 PM
 
143 posts, read 346,420 times
Reputation: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
In order to make capital gains, one must first make income which is then TAXED and invested. At some later time, those investments are sold and TAXED AGAIN.

So, Romney may only be paying 15% long term capital gains tax on his investments, but he paid normal tax rates on that income before it was invested. (At least this is how it typically works. Romney's tax preparer may know some tricks that I don't ).

So the question should be: is it really fair that someone who invests their money supposedly to fund the building of America should be TAXED TWICE, when someone who doesn't invest their money is only taxed once? I think not.
Not to mention that corporations are taxed on their income before the investors see a cent of it. So, that income is actually taxed three times.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:53 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top