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.
To be fair a number of companies have negative tax rates right now. Basically we are paying for them to be in business even if we do not buy their products or services more than their income tax coming in. It's not just energy companies like we always think it is, it's more than that. Infact a study shows only one of the seven companies that effectively paid a negative tax rate is an energy company.
IF we are going to a no corporate tax world, we cannot give them subsidies paid by the tax payers who you shifted the entire burden for whatever government we need, to be in business. They already got a huge one by losing their tax burdens.
The only issues I can see is the free market can be fickle and for departments to dismantle it has to be slow and not a hard shift because with the 100K of the IRS removed (I honestly think it would be trimmed to about 2,000 or so but still under 5%) that's still about 90K people who are now in the job market that wasn't before. As we've seen in this most recent economic slowdown, when you have more people out of a job and looking for it, it allows companies to low-ball and look for the purple squirrel.
I don't disagree with what you say.
Nobody should have negative tax rates. The myriad of tax regulations allow for numerous loop holes to be taken advantage of - which is why I believe we need something ultra simple.
With regards to the IRS and the purple squirrel... I think everything is inflated right now... wages, prices to purchase goods, etc. So if wages come down some, prices will follow - as long as everything comes down in proportion, I think that would be OK. Maybe companies would return to manufacture here in the US if the manpower were available at affordable wages and without the burden of providing 401Ks and health benefits. All of that stuff (along with taxes and heavy regulation) makes companies want to move elsewhere.
Yep; everybody needs to have skin in the game. If they want something they should be willing to pay for part of it. Simplify taxes to a deduction per person only then check that against documents. That would allow IRS time to go after these who its says are not reporting income to the tune of 300 billion last year.
Yep; everybody needs to have skin in the game. If they want something they should be willing to pay for part of it. Simplify taxes to a deduction per person only then check that against documents. That would allow IRS time to go after these who its says are not reporting income to the tune of 300 billion last year.
Nobody should have negative tax rates. The myriad of tax regulations allow for numerous loop holes to be taken advantage of - which is why I believe we need something ultra simple.
With regards to the IRS and the purple squirrel... I think everything is inflated right now... wages, prices to purchase goods, etc. So if wages come down some, prices will follow - as long as everything comes down in proportion, I think that would be OK. Maybe companies would return to manufacture here in the US if the manpower were available at affordable wages and without the burden of providing 401Ks and health benefits. All of that stuff (along with taxes and heavy regulation) makes companies want to move elsewhere.
As for the 401ks, companies match to a point because it is cheaper than the pensions they use to offer and health was something that was nice to offer (plus it would mitigate risk if you believe that bad credit means more likelihood to steal) and now is mandated by law.
As for the 401ks, companies match to a point because it is cheaper than the pensions they use to offer and health was something that was nice to offer (plus it would mitigate risk if you believe that bad credit means more likelihood to steal) and now is mandated by law.
Has nothing to do with being stagnant. Wages has to do with value. A burger flipper is a burger flipper. What has increased so that when I did it in 1985, I was paid $3.85/hr - that it should now pay $10+/hr ?
All this does is make the CEO's charge more for their products. Everything keeps going up and up with no real increase in value. At some point - it costs too much to operate and your customers can't afford the higher prices. So you either close up shop, or you relocate services to a cheaper country.
Has nothing to do with being stagnant. Wages has to do with value. A burger flipper is a burger flipper. What has increased so that when I did it in 1985, I was paid $3.85/hr - that it should now pay $10+/hr ?
All this does is make the CEO's charge more for their products. Everything keeps going up and up with no real increase in value. At some point - it costs too much to operate and your customers can't afford the higher prices. So you either close up shop, or you relocate services to a cheaper country.
So do you want to get rid of minimum wage and see where the free market will allow? We've been there and we still had a major economic depression for our troubles. The New Deal included minimum wage to protect. The issue is we are no longer able to live off $7.50 an hour because costs are higher than that. I don't think collapsing wages to say $4.00 will honestly help things out. Maybe making waiting a more lucrative job.
It is only regressive for the rich. It cuts massively into their profits.
It is regressive for anyone who rents. I tink of it as an inndividual mandate larger than Obamacare - a mandate to own a home or else pay a huge tax penalty.
It is regressive for anyone who rents. I tink of it as an inndividual mandate larger than Obamacare - a mandate to own a home or else pay a huge tax penalty.
?????????? You are already paying tax if you are renting, both property and income.
?????????? You are already paying tax if you are renting, both property and income.
Consider the proposed FairTax as an example of a national consumption tax.
Homeowner buys existing home - no tax. Homeowner also gets preferential property tax rate.
Renter rents the same existing home pays 30% tax on the rent he pays. Rental property tax rate is higher than homeowner property tax rate, and as part of the rent he paysm he even pays 30% on top of the higher property tax.
A renter who pays over a lifetime an extra 30% to rent - if he can't afford to save money by buying a house he can't afford to retire either.
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.
Wages aren't inflated, in fact they are stagnant. Wages haven't grown unless you talk executive pay. Prices have gone up without wages keeping up.
