Tax Inversions Hinder Economy, Boost Large Caps

jaeger19 · Jan 29, 2016

iguanaman said:
A tax on wealth? Now that would be a better idea than penalizing consumer spending with a national sales tax. Taxing money not spent encourages spending and raises GDP growth. I would favor an annual 2% tax on all personal wealth over $2 million or so. That would get the economy going. Spend it or lose it is an easy choice.

A national sales tax IS a tax on wealth.

A tax on personal wealth by the way would kill the economy. Spend it or lose it? A wealth tax means I spend it and lose it. Screw it.. I'll move to another country.

iguanaman · Jan 29, 2016

jaeger19 said:
A national sales tax IS a tax on wealth.

A tax on personal wealth by the way would kill the economy. Spend it or lose it? A wealth tax means I spend it and lose it. Screw it.. I'll move to another country.

A sales tax is a tax on spending by definition. We tax things we want less of. Since spending makes up 75% of our GDP that is what controls our economic growth. The whole point of progressive taxes is to tax income NOT spent at a higher rate since that has no effect on consumer spending and therefore does not slow GDP growth. Your plan would tax most Americans on 100% of their income since they spend most all their income to live. The wealthy would only pay taxes on the money they spend leaving the other 90% tax free. Again I ask what makes the wealthy so needy?

jaeger19 · Jan 29, 2016

iguanaman said:
A sales tax is a tax on spending. We tax things we want less of. Since spending makes up 75% of our GDP that is what controls our economic growth. The whole point of progressive taxes is to tax money NOT spent at a higher rate since that has no effect on consumer spending. Your plan would tax most Americans on 100% of their income since they spend most all their income to live. The wealthy would only pay taxes on the money they spend leaving the other 90% tax free. Again I ask what makes the wealthy so needy?

GOSH DANG IT... I am really getting SICK of you liberals making up positions for me that I don't HAVE///

Is that it with you liberals? You can't take the facts and so you have to lie about peoples positions?

GO BACK and read my friggin POSTS... and if you have ANY ANY ethics at all you will apologize to me. I won't hold my breath though..

A national sales tax is a TAX ON WEALTH. You are middle class and you have saved up some money for your retirement.... A national sales tax taxes your wealth that you have saved. It taxes your savings. Whether you are rich or poor.. you pay the tax regardless of income.

ITS A TAX ON WEALTH.

MY PLAN? MY PLAN... I just stated that a national sales tax :

That would kill US business.. it would be a giant tax on wealth..we would have to expand the IRS.. its about the dumbest thing to do

JasperL · Jan 29, 2016

gdgyva said:
General Electric last 3 fiscal years

Income Before Tax 17,229,000 16,151,000 17,381,000
Income Tax Expense 1,772,000 676,000 2,534,000
effective rate 10.28% 4.18% 14.57%

none of those are zero as far as i can see

and since i am a shareholder, i kind of like them keeping their rate as low as possible

I don't want to get drug into a debate on this really side issue, but my guess is that's their book income tax rate but they paid closer to zero because of NOLs, but it doesn't matter. Point is their tax rate went up by over 10% (from 4.18 to 14.57) in a year, and there's no way in hell they just raise prices to offset that loss of after tax income. Competitive pressures dictate prices, not their marginal rate from year to year. Same with salaries.

iguanaman · Jan 29, 2016

jaeger19 said:
GOSH DANG IT... I am really getting SICK of you liberals making up positions for me that I don't HAVE///

Is that it with you liberals? You can't take the facts and so you have to lie about peoples positions?

GO BACK and read my friggin POSTS... and if you have ANY ANY ethics at all you will apologize to me. I won't hold my breath though..

A national sales tax is a TAX ON WEALTH. You are middle class and you have saved up some money for your retirement.... A national sales tax taxes your wealth that you have saved. It taxes your savings. Whether you are rich or poor.. you pay the tax regardless of income.

ITS A TAX ON WEALTH.

MY PLAN? MY PLAN... I just stated that a national sales tax :

Please explain how a sales tax applies to savings or any income that is not spent. You are making no sense. All employed Americans pay tax right now. They pay State sales taxes, DMV fees, property taxes, and withholding taxes. How will taking more taxes from those that spend all their income to live help the economy? It is sure to reduce those consumers spending by the % of the tax. People can't spend money that the Govt. takes. Even you should understand that.

jaeger19 · Jan 29, 2016

iguanaman said:
Please explain how a sales tax applies to savings or any income that is not spent. You are making no sense. All employed Americans pay tax right now. They pay State sales taxes, DMV fees, property taxes, and withholding taxes. How will taking more taxes from those that spend all their income to live help the economy? It is sure to reduce those consumers spending by the % of the tax. People can't spend money that the Govt. takes. Even you should understand that.

AAHHHH..

simple.. under the current system.. you are only taxed on income. Little to no income.. no federal tax. What you have saved.. is not subject to tax.

Under a national sales tax.. if you have savings but little or no income (disabled, retired etc) then you PAY FEDERAL TAX on that wealth every time you purchase food, or clothing or gas.

THATS a tax on wealth. No income and your wealth continues to be taxed and you have less year after year.

How will taking more taxes from those that spend all their income help the economy? IT WON"T YOU.... (deleted because moderators will ban me)... I NEVER EVER SAID IT WOULD...

GOD.. do you have ANY READING COMPREHENSION AT ALL? Not only does it reduce consumer spending.. but a national sales tax would affect sales on US
PRODUCTS THE MOST..

And that's because US products general cost more (and are of better quality) .. a national sales taxes is based on price. So a 50 dollar china made cooler will go up 12.5 dollars with a 25% sales tax,

An American made 100 dollar cooler will now go up 25 dollars with a 25% sales tax. Now the price difference between the cheap Chinese cooler and the American cooler is 62.5 dollars rather than a 50 dollar price break it was before. At that price break.. the American cooler will be less competitive despite its better quality.

If you have any integrity at all you will apologize for lying about my position.

ludin · Jan 29, 2016

iguanaman said:
That's because you are in favor of taxing the poor instead of the wealthy. Regressive taxes that penalize consumption would wreck our consumer economy. But it would be a huge windfall for the wealthy who only be taxed on a small % of their income. Why are the wealthy so needy?

Payroll taxes are the most regressive tax there is. taking money from people before they even get it.
Actually it doesn't as you see most states that have don't have income tax and only sales tax do very well for themselves.

Actually if you knew the math the rich would pay about 22% while the poorer person would pay either nothing or have a negative income tax.
as they pay no tax up to the poverty level.

given that those evil rich people you complain about pay very little in the way of payroll taxes unless us working people.
you are actually hurting the people you claim you care for, but liberals don't really care for poor people unless it is to pander them.

ludin · Jan 29, 2016

jaeger19 said:
That would kill US business.. it would be a giant tax on wealth..we would have to expand the IRS.. its about the dumbest thing to do.

no it wouldn't as it hasn't killed states that do it now. businesses would gladly welcome it.
as it would lower their costs greatly as corporate taxes would go away along with payroll taxes.

iguanaman · Jan 29, 2016

ludin said:
Payroll taxes are the most regressive tax there is. taking money from people before they even get it.
Actually it doesn't as you see most states that have don't have income tax and only sales tax do very well for themselves.

Actually if you knew the math the rich would pay about 22% while the poorer person would pay either nothing or have a negative income tax.
as they pay no tax up to the poverty level.

given that those evil rich people you complain about pay very little in the way of payroll taxes unless us working people.
you are actually hurting the people you claim you care for, but liberals don't really care for poor people unless it is to pander them.

So you are in favor of removing the income cap on payroll taxes and I applaud you for that but we cannot end payroll taxes without ending Social security and Medicare so any "flat" tax would be in addition to them. Then there is the reduction in tax revenue that an end to progressive income tax would bring especially if it included a deductable for low income people. The whole idea is simply unworkable and unfavorable to economic growth. Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare of having to keep track of all those purchases and deductions? It would also create a "shadow" industry to get around paying the tax.

OpportunityCost · Jan 29, 2016

iguanaman said:
So you are in favor of removing the income cap on payroll taxes and I applaud you for that but we cannot end payroll taxes without ending Social security and Medicare so any "flat" tax would be in addition to them. Then there is the reduction in tax revenue that an end to progressive income tax would bring especially if it included a deductable for low income people. The whole idea is simply unworkable and unfavorable to economic growth. Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare of having to keep track of all those purchases and deductions? It would also create a "shadow" industry to get around paying the tax.

Anyone on government assistance receives an ID card with their tax reduction amount.

Last year of doing income taxes assign a card to each filer with their assigned tax amount.

Implement it on a census year.

Make the reductions voluntary---IE the people that want reductions in taxes have to file paperwork.

Our current tax system is full of loopholes that is institutionalized and favors those able to lobby for it the hardest. We have a shadow industry now, people hide income every which way they can! Id rather have crooks/crooks, than lobbyist/lawyer/political favor crooks.

jaeger19 · Jan 29, 2016

ludin said:
no it wouldn't as it hasn't killed states that do it now. businesses would gladly welcome it.
as it would lower their costs greatly as corporate taxes would go away along with payroll taxes.

Number one.. not all states have sales taxes. Two.. you would be replacing Federal income taxes with a sales tax.

Business would absolutely HATE it. as it would INCREASE their costs not decrease their costs. It would be an just like an excise tax on luxury items affecting the most expensive items. Take a look at what the excise taxes (which are a form of sales tax) did to the boat building industry.

And the proposal would NOT supplant payroll taxes. Payroll taxes would continue..

If not it the percentage that would have to be collected would by even higher...hurting business even more.

ludin · Jan 29, 2016

iguanaman said:
So you are in favor of removing the income cap on payroll taxes and I applaud you for that but we cannot end payroll taxes without ending Social security and Medicare so any "flat" tax would be in addition to them. Then there is the reduction in tax revenue that an end to progressive income tax would bring especially if it included a deductable for low income people. The whole idea is simply unworkable and unfavorable to economic growth. Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare of having to keep track of all those purchases and deductions? It would also create a "shadow" industry to get around paying the tax.

sure we can because the tax would cover SS etc.

no reduction in tax revenue because revenue would actually increase. according to the latest report the government in 2010 I think would have brought in 200b more than what the income tax did.

yea I know people keeping more of their money totally is just unworkable and unfavorable to economic growth (where do liberals come up with this nonsense).
not at all businesses already keep track of sales tax now.

nope no shadow industry at all.

ludin · Jan 29, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Number one.. not all states have sales taxes. Two.. you would be replacing Federal income taxes with a sales tax.

Business would absolutely HATE it. as it would INCREASE their costs not decrease their costs. It would be an just like an excise tax on luxury items affecting the most expensive items. Take a look at what the excise taxes (which are a form of sales tax) did to the boat building industry.

again you don't know what you are talking about.
almost all states have sales tax. and there are some states that only have a sales tax and no income tax and they do just fine.

yea I know what I would be doing and it makes sense.

no corporate tax and no payroll tax would not increase their costs it would decrease them again you have no clue.

And the proposal would NOT supplant payroll taxes. Payroll taxes would continue..

no they wouldn't.

If not it the percentage that would have to be collected would by even higher...hurting business even more.

again no it wouldn't you don't know what you are talking about.

iguanaman · Jan 30, 2016

ludin said:
sure we can because the tax would cover SS etc.

no reduction in tax revenue because revenue would actually increase. according to the latest report the government in 2010 I think would have brought in 200b more than what the income tax did.

yea I know people keeping more of their money totally is just unworkable and unfavorable to economic growth (where do liberals come up with this nonsense).
not at all businesses already keep track of sales tax now.

nope no shadow industry at all.

The more I hear from you the more convoluted it sounds. "People keeping money" does not improve economic growth. People SPENDING money does. Your plan to allow everyone to keep unlimited amounts of income tax free as long as they don't spend it" goes against the very heart of the American economic engine. It will never EVER happen and if it did the best thing to do would be to move.

iguanaman · Jan 30, 2016

OpportunityCost said:
Anyone on government assistance receives an ID card with their tax reduction amount.

Last year of doing income taxes assign a card to each filer with their assigned tax amount.

Implement it on a census year.

Make the reductions voluntary---IE the people that want reductions in taxes have to file paperwork.

Our current tax system is full of loopholes that is institutionalized and favors those able to lobby for it the hardest. We have a shadow industry now, people hide income every which way they can! Id rather have crooks/crooks, than lobbyist/lawyer/political favor crooks.

I thought Conservatives say that "when we tax things we get less of them"? Penalizing spending will kill GDP growth. Besides, where will the lost revenues from our current Progressive tax system come from? Not from the ones who currently owe nothing in income tax because of their income bracket I hope. They already spend all they earn and any money you take from them would come right out of GDP and put us into recession or worse. There is no blood in stones.

OpportunityCost · Jan 30, 2016

iguanaman said:
I thought Conservatives say that "when we tax things we get less of them"? Penalizing spending will kill GDP growth. Besides, where will the lost revenues from our current Progressive tax system come from? Not from the ones who currently owe nothing in income tax because of their income bracket I hope. They already spend all they earn and any money you take from them would come right out of GDP and put us into recession or worse. There is no blood in stones.

People that currently are not net contributors will pay less in sales tax than they do now. People that are net contributors will pay more in sales tax.

Payroll taxes will disappear but medicare and SS contributions will remain. Its really a matter of numbers. But flattening the tax rate while eliminating loop holes should result in positive revenue if the numbers are worked properly and not subject to easy increases or decreases.

iguanaman · Jan 30, 2016

OpportunityCost said:
People that currently are not net contributors will pay less in sales tax than they do now. People that are net contributors will pay more in sales tax.

Payroll taxes will disappear but medicare and SS contributions will remain. Its really a matter of numbers. But flattening the tax rate while eliminating loop holes should result in positive revenue if the numbers are worked properly and not subject to easy increases or decreases.

Most studies have found that the rate for a flat tax would need to be 30% to come close to current revenues. Can you imagine what that would do to consumer purchases? We are a consumer economy that depends on spending for 75% of our GDP so the concept that people can keep unlimited income tax free as long as they don't spend it is counterproductive.

James972 · Jan 30, 2016

iguanaman said:
. "People keeping money" does not improve economic growth. .

sure it does! People who keep their hard earned money spend it wisely while lib bureaucrats waste other people's money. Make sense?

ludin · Jan 30, 2016

iguanaman said:
Most studies have found that the rate for a flat tax would need to be 30% to come close to current revenues. Can you imagine what that would do to consumer purchases? We are a consumer economy that depends on spending for 75% of our GDP so the concept that people can keep unlimited income tax free as long as they don't spend it is counterproductive.

well unless they are keeping it in the mattress at home it does help the economy.
banks have more money to lend.

people have better access to credit and or spending.

people in general have more money than they did and only pay tax on things they buy.

so the rich guy that buys the lambo will pay way more tax than the guy that buys the used ford truck who pays no tax at all.

James972 · Jan 30, 2016

ludin said:
well unless they are keeping it in the mattress at home it does help the economy.
banks have more money to lend.

yes!! and banks lend money sustainably,i.e, they need to get it back with interest while liberals in govt tax and waste it on crippling welfare programs, for example, which only create the need for even more crippling welfare thus dragging down the economy by discouraging more and more people from participating at all. This is part of the reason labor force participation is going down ,not up.

OpportunityCost · Jan 30, 2016

iguanaman said:
Most studies have found that the rate for a flat tax would need to be 30% to come close to current revenues. Can you imagine what that would do to consumer purchases? We are a consumer economy that depends on spending for 75% of our GDP so the concept that people can keep unlimited income tax free as long as they don't spend it is counterproductive.

Id love to see those studies, please.

I believe they are wildly overstating the rate needed. There is also a $9Billion industry that is strongly invested in keeping things as complicated as possible as well as multiple special interest groups.

I think if we are truly interested in less corrupt government, this would be a step in the right direction.

iguanaman · Jan 31, 2016

OpportunityCost said:
Id love to see those studies, please.

I believe they are wildly overstating the rate needed. There is also a $9Billion industry that is strongly invested in keeping things as complicated as possible as well as multiple special interest groups.

I think if we are truly interested in less corrupt government, this would be a step in the right direction.

I can't imagine anything more prone to abuse than an exorbitant tax on living. It gives a whole now meaning to GW's "go to the mall" admonishment. :lol:

James972 · Jan 31, 2016

OpportunityCost said:
Id love to see those studies, please.

I believe they are wildly overstating the rate needed. There is also a $9Billion industry that is strongly invested in keeping things as complicated as possible as well as multiple special interest groups.

I think if we are truly interested in less corrupt government, this would be a step in the right direction.

Well honestly, if every person paid a consumption tax and there was no other tax, the tax would be huge, people would then realize the true cost of govt, and no longer support big liberal govt. Now, liberal politicians exploit the system by promising you welfare that they will tax away from somebody else. Everybody thinks they are ripping off the other guy and if they are not they hire politicians and lobbyists to get their fair share. This is not at all what our Founders intended or what any sane person would want. It is the perfect example of liberal corruption.

SocialD · Jan 31, 2016

OpportunityCost said:
Id love to see those studies, please.

I believe they are wildly overstating the rate needed. There is also a $9Billion industry that is strongly invested in keeping things as complicated as possible as well as multiple special interest groups.

I think if we are truly interested in less corrupt government, this would be a step in the right direction.

The problem with most of the 'studies' is that they assume to keep on spending like the government has been. They assume everything will remain the same except the tax bracket will be X percent.
But any real flat tax plan changes a lot of things. Steve Forbes had a flat tax plan years ago that was 17% and was very detailed and the model covered everything.

Things like a consumption or Fair Tax have some plusses, but I see that as having a good chance of stifling spending from legit sources. it would entice a lot more gray and black market purchasing.

JasperL · Jan 31, 2016

OpportunityCost said:
Id love to see those studies, please.

I believe they are wildly overstating the rate needed. There is also a $9Billion industry that is strongly invested in keeping things as complicated as possible as well as multiple special interest groups.

The promoters of the FAIR tax put the rate at 30%/23% depending on how you measure it. If it's like a traditional "sales tax" the rate is 30% - $100 prices, $30 tax, pay $130. So that's in a perfect world, with literally ALL consumption of goods and services taxed - medical care, housing, all food, all drugs, etc. The assumption is such a broad base wouldn't last, exemptions for "essentials" put in the law, so a more realistic rate is closer to 40%.

I think if we are truly interested in less corrupt government, this would be a step in the right direction.

My basic problem with the FAIR tax is proponents don't identify any losers, and claim the FAIR tax has such a huge trickle down effect that almost immediately every income group from the poor to the wealthy have more disposable income. I've never heard of anything in life with those kinds of impacts that is free of downsides, so I'm skeptical to say the least. And I don't think it's possible politically either. Can't imagine a couple out looking for a house, the price is $200,000, then having to borrow $260,000 to pay the FAIR tax....