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.
Here in NC they do it on cars. The dummies think paying less in LESS excise tax at time of
purchase saves them something... then the annual PP assessment bill comes year after year.
I'd prefer to pay more upfront.
My friend lived in NC for a few years, he complained about it constantly. He said he had to pay taxes on his TV, stereo, even his dog. That is messed up. I guess where I live we technically have a dog tax. They call it a yearly license. Same da*n thing.
Which is why I think a flat tax might work better in practice until we can combat tax evasion more effectively before implementing my "ideal" tax plan..
Flat taxes as usually presented do exactly the opposite -- they concentrate huge amounts of tax burden at the point of final sale. Incentives for tax evasion are positively huge. Fortunately, there are lots of other reasons why flat taxes as usually presented are a bad idea, so it's not at all likely that we'll ever need to worry about them.
Since most of the serious wealth in this county takes the form of corporation stock, wealth is already taxed via the corporate income tax.
I assume you are joking. The value of privately held stock portfolios is subject to exactly no corporate taxation whatsoever. Taxes to the corporation are simply a cost of doing business, no different from paying the electric bill. Why not claim credit for that when cutting a check to your local utility?
Quote:
Originally Posted by celcius
Consider that a third-to-half of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all. Not to overly burden the low-income, but everyone should have some skin in the game.
How do these "no skin in the game" Americans make out on payroll taxes? How about on federal excise taxes? How about on state and local taxes?
I agree the wealthy actually pay for much of what we get in government services already. To over tax them means the destruction of them creating wealth which is what most of us actually do for a living. one only has to look at present and the obvious problem; wealth is not being invested in amount need to create real growth that benefits those at bottom to middle. Whether we like it or not most depend on wealthy paying for service we all get and to provide jobs we all want.The further down the latter the more dependent one is and destroying that wealth means you suffer the most because at some point its not risked any more.
The problem is that the wealthy don't have enough money to invest?
Companies aren't building new malls, houses, stores, amusement parks, factories, etc. because they don't have the money to build these things? Because taxes are too high?
People are sitting around waiting to spend money at these places but they're not getting built because the wealthy don't have enough money to build them? Corporations are calling factories asking them to ship them more goods but the factories can't because they don't have enough money to produce the goods?
Quote:
Corporations are hoarding cash: despite dividends and buybacks, cash is likely to hit another record high.
Cash set a record in the first quarter of 2013 on an absolute basis: $1.093 trillion in the S&P 500. It has set a record for 18 of the last 20 quarters.
With 47 percent of the S&P 500 reporting,we are once again on track for record cash levels.
The actual reason growth is slow is because the average person doesn't have any money to spend. They can't afford to go out to eat. They can't afford to buy a new a house. They can't afford to take a vacation. Take a look at a chart of consumer spending, it fell off a cliff during The Great Recession.
Corporations are sitting on record boatloads of cash that they're not investing because consumer spending has remained weak. There's no point in building a gigantic new shopping complex if you can't get enough people to spend money there. Consumer spending is weak because middle class America's wages declined and unemployment increased, and The Great Recession is still fresh in people's minds so they're more careful with their money.
"If you build it, they will come" is a tagline from a baseball movie, not a valid business strategy.
My friend lived in NC for a few years, he complained about it constantly.
He said he had to pay taxes on his TV, stereo, even his dog.
He exaggerates.
To be clear... the net cost for the initial title work + annual tag registration + annual safety
inspection (another complete farce) + annual personal property tax on vehicles over the course
of X years is not significantly different than what it costs to own and keep a car in other states.
It's just a tedious PITA that does cost marginally more.
My biggest problem with the tax code is that trust fund babies who have never worked a day in their life are paying a lower percentage than middle class people who work 40-50 hours a week.
Are you saying Paris Hilton never worked? She was working it pretty hard in that internet video I saw.
Well, either that or it would encourage them to save even more in order to maintain their savings accrual rates. Ever think of that? No?
Lovely example of Romneyism.
Yada-yada-yada. Why do we prohibit the wealthy from paying FICA taxes on wages over $113,700? These are people making millions every year, and the most they can possibly get from SS is a crummy $3,350 per month, and that's if they wait until age 70 to file. At 66, they're stuck with a paltry maximum of $2,533. Do know what $2,533 per month means to a rich person? Nothing, that's what! How about we stop discriminating against the wealthy by allowing them to pay FICA taxes on all their income thereby earning pension benefits more suitable to their station!
You don't seem to get how social security works either
Your benefit is progressively indexed your earnings over 55K get a 15% factor whereas earnings up to 10K get a 90% factor
The poor do quit well under SS and they are subsidized by the rich. If not for the rich SS would go bankrupt
Your ignorance shows in every post
You seem to want to take from one group to give free stuff to another. You don't seem to understand how wealth is earned taxes are destroying the economy and job creation
Ignoramuses like yourself are the reason america is in the toilet
I assume you are joking. The value of privately held stock portfolios is subject to exactly no corporate taxation whatsoever. Taxes to the corporation are simply a cost of doing business, no different from paying the electric bill. Why not claim credit for that when cutting a check to your local utility?
How do these "no skin in the game" Americans make out on payroll taxes? How about on federal excise taxes? How about on state and local taxes?
Wrong again
As an owner of the public ally traded company the stockholders pay income tax
The value of a stock is its discounted future earnings and dividends those earnings are diminished by taxes paid by the corporation
Some of the extra earnings would go towards paying employees but some would also go to the owners ie the stockholders
How about you take an introductory economics class before you post more of this drivel?
Taxing household wealth reduces the incentive to acquire wealth and probably will lead to more consumption and less investment. Taking income reduces both.
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.
