Here we go!

[cobben]

Re: Here we go!

"All poor countries (debt) eventually get a GST or VAT ( consumption tax ),"

Why do you say that about all poor countries? just curious.

why only 10%??!! ha! - try 25% on for size, as in Sweden.

The VAT in Sweden (probably similar throughout the EU) is a bureacratic burden for all companies, but generally works well and is a major source of income for the state.

Of course it can be and is gamed in all sorts of ways, a lot of the biggest scams are VAT-related.

When you export something you get the VAT back from the state, I recall a scam (before EU) when gold was still under VAT in Sweden where gold was exported to Denmark I believe it was, the VAT recovered, the gold smuggled back into Sweden, and then re-exported again . . . quite a nice racket.

I consider the VAT a good tax, if it were the only tax (no income tax or capital gains tax at all) and kept at a reasonable level, say < 10%.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Here we go!

Income inequality! LOL. But the tax burden inequality is of no concern to you?

It just serves to prove my point...you can redistribute all you want and the money will find its way back to the wealth creators. Push too far and we're leaving. Check this out... http://www.chancelitton.com/?p=77

If the money is going to find its way back to the wealth creators anyway, why not initially give the money to the not-rich and then let the rich earn it back? Instead, what we have is astronomically large amounts of money being given to the rich (e.g., banking system bailouts) while everyone else must wait for the money to circulate. Not only do the banks get a free ride (borrow at nearly zero percent, lend out at six percent or higher, and lever-up through the fractional reserve system), the banks also get the first use of the inflated dollars, which hurts savers who are not politically connected.

There are other taxation rules which are grossly unfair to the non-rich; for example, the Social Security tax. Regardless of one's income, the Social Security tax is 12% of one's gross income up to approximately $100,000. For the average person in the U.S. who earns roughly $40,000 per year, $4,800 is a lot of money to pay for a program that could have a real-adjusted return of -100% at the time of retirement. Furthermore, 12% to a poorer person makes a much greater impact on his life than 12% to a truly wealthy person.

That's just one thing that is unfair about the Social Security tax. What about the seemingly arbitrary cap of ~$100,000, above which one pays no more Social Security taxes? Why not eliminate this cap? I would imagine that taking 12% of the total earned income of the rich and putting it into the Social Security fund could very well keep it from going bust (or at least keep the boondoggle going longer).

Finally, to address the issue of the wealth creators leaving. The U.S. should not encourage true wealth producers to emigrate through a punitive tax policy. It's difficult to rationally begrudge the large fortunes made by entrepreneurs whose wealth is tied to the fact that they own large percentages of the companies they found. Tax law should be such that people who create these businesses are taxed at a favorable rate for the equity they hold in their companies.

What needs to be stopped, though, are ridiculous tax policies such as allowing hedge fund managers to be taxed at a capital gains rate instead of an earned income rate would be a start. It is clear that while earned income taxes are progressive, tax policy as a whole is not [as I hope I've made clear through the Social Security example].

[flintlock]

Re: Here we go!

Prediction: Look for a tax on retirement accounts in the next 2-5 years. This may come in the form of eliminating tax deductions or it may be a straight percentage off the top. They'll exempt smaller balances of course.

As baby boomers retire they'll no longer have the high incomes to tax but WILL have high savings balances to go after. The monster must be fed.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Here we go!

Income inequality! LOL. But the tax burden inequality is of no concern to you?

rjwjr; are you saying that an unfair system generating massive wealth and income inequalities should not be addressed?

Even if the tax paid by the rich is higher in nominal terms than let say the entire "middle class" (or whatever is left of it), that does not means it is just on a percentage basis.

Again, my point is this: our governments gave the money to the rich by bailing out various companies and supporting their stock prices (low income earners usually do not own GS shares for example) and now they want to have all the citizen to pay for it?

The problem here is obviously the government and its power and willingness to tax (via inflation or otherwise) for such ridiculous purposes. Maybe this situation would not exist under a metallic currency at least the government would think twice before acting in such fashion.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Here we go!

Griping about taxes right now is like complaining about a fart during a hurricane.

The Wall Street Model got its welfare check and food-stamps big time. Moral hazard is real and here are the consequences.

In any case the income tax makes no sense in a global economy. Government, what ever its flavor, is first and foremost about mitigating catastrophic failure now whether at the individual level (welfare) or at a national level (war). Only a transaction tax (like HR 1068) will work for the entire economy. I am sure "they" are laying the narrative ground work as I type.

[Ghent12]

Re: Here we go!

It would spell certain political doom for President Obama in 2012 if he allows income tax rates to rise for those people that he promised the rates wouldn't.

"Read my lips, no new taxes" ring a bell?

At least 36 Senate seats are up for grabs in 2012.

That was certainly a reason why the first President Bush was not re-elected, but I think Ross Perot had more to do with it than anything. There would need to be a significant draw away from the current President's base in order to repeat that event, even if the President's approval rating is not the highest in history going into the election year. I just don't see a "true liberal" independent party or the Socialist Party taking that many votes away, yet it I think it might be more likely than ever to have a "true conservative" independent party eat away at the Republican base.

[jtabeb]

Re: Here we go!

You got an off-grid power system in your bunker that will run that beast for more than 5 hours ?

I got a slightly used RTG (Radio-Isotope-Thermal-Generator) for a song. Still has 25 years left to next half-life.


(Plus, it's a great heater! Just wonder why my hair keeps falling out:p)

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Here we go!

I work

I'm rich

I pay all my taxes which are due and they are very few!

I frequently read the tax code and have planned around it for decades.

For example: Income = tax deferred or non-taxable/expenses = tax deductable. Its not that complicated.

[peakishmael]

Re: Here we go!

I got a slightly used RTG (Radio-Isotope-Thermal-Generator) for a song. Still has 25 years left to next half-life.

(Plus, it's a great heater! Just wonder why my hair keeps falling out:p)

Cool! Hang on to it, pretty soon my office at NASA will be rolling out ASRGs (advanced stirling radioisotope generators). More juice, less hair loss!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance...tope_Generator

I'll try to hold one for you and give you a good trade-in on your RTG.

[RebbePete]

Re: Here we go!

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up

President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2-Obam...&asset=&ccode=

I hear the frantic whoosh of politicians backpedaling as fast as they can as they smell the scent of burning tar and spy a feather or two drifting through the stagnant DC summer air: :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090803/...us_obama_taxes

- Pete

[rjwjr]

Re: Here we go!

rjwjr; are you saying that an unfair system generating massive wealth and income inequalities should not be addressed?

Even if the tax paid by the rich is higher in nominal terms than let say the entire "middle class" (or whatever is left of it), that does not means it is just on a percentage basis.

Again, my point is this: our governments gave the money to the rich by bailing out various companies and supporting their stock prices (low income earners usually do not own GS shares for example) and now they want to have all the citizen to pay for it?

The problem here is obviously the government and its power and willingness to tax (via inflation or otherwise) for such ridiculous purposes. Maybe this situation would not exist under a metallic currency at least the government would think twice before acting in such fashion.

First of all, I HATE the bailouts. They are unfair and unnecessary in my opinion. You can't just look at that one example of corporate welfare as the basis for any argument. That being said, my overriding message is that we should have...

Equality of opportunity with equality of responsibility.

Equality of opportunity includes...
No special interest laws or assistance that tilts the playing field.
No discrimination but no affirmative action either.
Fairness in all laws.
Property rights protected.
Etc.

Equality of responsibility includes...
No bailouts regardless of politcal connections.
No progreesive tax code, rather a national consumption/sales tax.
No tax loopholes for wealthy or special interests.
Legal equality with no special treatment for celebrities, etc. Blind justice.
A commitment to the US Constitution.

These are just a couple of examples off the top of my head. Don't get distracted by arguments on the finer details one way or the other. My main point is that the rich should not be treated any differently than the poor, men any differently than women, skinny any differently than fat, white any differently than black, handsome any differently than ugly.

We should be committed to a level playing field. We should celebrate success. We should celebrate individual charity; of heart, of effort, of money. We should celebrate honesty and good citizenship.

A level playing field and equal opportunity leaves the matter of success and shared responsibility up to the individual. Government intervention, unfair laws, unequal justice, social programs, and the like makes for a "not getting my fair share" mindset and a "special interest" environment that is ripe for manipulation, blame, and dissatisfaction. I'd prefer the government our forefathers envisioned of limited federal powers and strong States rights, with as much local governance as is practicable.