View Poll Results: Which do you prefer:

Voters
197. You may not vote on this poll
  • Income tax - no changes in the status quo

    39 19.80%
  • Flat tax - Everyone pays the same %

    67 34.01%
  • National sales tax - don't spend, you don't pay taxes

    47 23.86%
  • No tax - Unconstitutional - rely on private donations

    10 5.08%
  • Other - explain

    21 10.66%
  • Cookies!

    13 6.60%
Page 89 of 90 FirstFirst ... 397987888990 LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 899

Thread: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

  1. #881
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    This analysis 1998, but the economics are pretty much/remarkably the same in the recent analyses I will post below.

    The 23 Percent Solution
    NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED
    Thank you for sharing this. I was not aware. I don't think it should be dismissed quite yet (though possibly), but I do think those who are trying to intentionally deceive the public should no longer be the ones pushing this legislation. If they try to trick us once, why wouldn't they try again. If the data can't stand for itself to push the position, then the position should change. The data cannot change. This is corrupt.

  2. #882
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    agreed. A flat tax with no loop holes. If you maintain a progressive income tax without loopholes, you will only increase the amount of tax fraud or mass layoffs (or both). The high-wage earners won't simply start paying more and give themselves a pay cut. They will compensate to maintain the lifestyle. You may disagree with their decision, but that is what will happen. And frankly, most of them have earned the position to make that decision for themselves.
    No. No loop holes limits the ability for fraud. Fraud can be committed with any system, including a flat tax. With both, no loop holes, likely no deductions, the fraud would be in reporting income.

    And the wealthy do this nayway, just as they would with a flat tax. Nothing there would change.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #883
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Honestly, to rein in a spendthrift Congress, I think we'll need a Constitutional amendment that restricts Congress's duties to a strict interpretation of what the Constitution dictates and b) otherwise prohibits any disbursement of taxpayer monies or any Federal policy that does not benefit all citizens, rich and poor alike, equally.

    If we did that, we would immediately reduce the needs of the Federal government by a substantial percentage and thus reduce the amount of revenues necessary to fund it, and we eliminate 99% of the corruption that is now built into the system and that is demonstrated in those who dispense government benevolence and those who receive it.

    It would require easing into it to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering, but we sure as heck could turn it around and start the process.
    They aren't suppose to collect money that benefits anyone (personally). They are suppose to defend the country, and collect taxes for that purpose only.
    Last edited by American; 02-03-11 at 12:28 PM.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #884
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,982

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Do you folks really and truly believe that Congress appropriates money for things that they believe are NOT authorized by the Constitution?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #885
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Do you folks really and truly believe that Congress appropriates money for things that they believe are NOT authorized by the Constitution?
    Yes I do .
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #886
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No. No loop holes limits the ability for fraud. Fraud can be committed with any system, including a flat tax. With both, no loop holes, likely no deductions, the fraud would be in reporting income.

    And the wealthy do this nayway, just as they would with a flat tax. Nothing there would change.
    Fraud can be committed with any system. And yes, it will be more difficult with a 'no loop holes system'. My point isn't that there will be more fraud because it is easier. My point is that you are giving high income earners incentive for fraud (by cutting their pay) and incentive to lay off workers so that they maintain their net lifestyle. Which they will inevitably do. i.e. If you have 10 workers and make $150k net dollars after taxed say 25% (so a pay of $200k gross) and the government forces you to pay another 10% of your income to them, your net pay is now $130k. So your net pay has decreased 13.33% from a 10% tax hike. Ouch. So how do you make back that 13.33%? Perhaps you put more of your own sweat and blood into your job again the way you did when it first started and lay off one person. Perhaps you fire one person and distribute their work among the others. Perhaps you start asking for cash payments and keep your profits off the books, if you are so inclined. Such a drastic action as your suggestion will have consequences. The people of the US need to admit that every plan has consequences. Including mine. I know what they are. We need to discuss the consequences and figure out which is the higher priority to each of us. Denying consequences as you are will not get us any closer to finding the answer.

    And your broad generalization on the wealthy committing tax fraud is indicative that you are not trying to find a reasonable answer. You're trying to bicker among partisan lines.

  7. #887
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Do you folks really and truly believe that Congress appropriates money for things that they believe are NOT authorized by the Constitution?
    No. I think they have themselves convinced that they could interpret the constitution in a not-so-straight forward way to back their agenda. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily against some of the ways they are spending money (though mostly I am), I am just against a not-so-straight forward interpretation of the constitution. Congress once believed we needed an amendment for prohibition. Now we don't believe we need an amendment to force health insurance on every American. The constitution hasn't changed. The interpretation has. If society supports such change, we need to update the constitution. Allowing the government to do whatever it wants under the guise that the constitution's meaning can be altered leaves us with a government with limitless power over the people. We need to adhere to a governing document with strict interpretation or we will have a tyranny eventually (today we are still moral enough that we have most of our freedoms, but as the power grows, the morals will decrease as they always have. Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this (see Hitler and Stalin))

  8. #888
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    Fraud can be committed with any system. And yes, it will be more difficult with a 'no loop holes system'. My point isn't that there will be more fraud because it is easier. My point is that you are giving high income earners incentive for fraud (by cutting their pay) and incentive to lay off workers so that they maintain their net lifestyle. Which they will inevitably do. i.e. If you have 10 workers and make $150k net dollars after taxed say 25% (so a pay of $200k gross) and the government forces you to pay another 10% of your income to them, your net pay is now $130k. So your net pay has decreased 13.33% from a 10% tax hike. Ouch. So how do you make back that 13.33%? Perhaps you put more of your own sweat and blood into your job again the way you did when it first started and lay off one person. Perhaps you fire one person and distribute their work among the others. Perhaps you start asking for cash payments and keep your profits off the books, if you are so inclined. Such a drastic action as your suggestion will have consequences. The people of the US need to admit that every plan has consequences. Including mine. I know what they are. We need to discuss the consequences and figure out which is the higher priority to each of us. Denying consequences as you are will not get us any closer to finding the answer.

    And your broad generalization on the wealthy committing tax fraud is indicative that you are not trying to find a reasonable answer. You're trying to bicker among partisan lines.
    Anyone can use any reason to commit fraud. It is a lame excuse to sugegst a proggressive tax encourages the wealthy to commit fraud. And I gave no broad generalization. It is a fact that we have fraud now, and fraud committed by the wealthy. Crime is not limited to one economic class. It just seems to me you're trying to excuse crimes by those with wealth.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #889
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,982

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    fredmertz (great screen name by the way)

    Almost everybody sees it exactly the way you would hope they see it. Almost everyone believes that their interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one - or "straight forward" as you put it.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #890
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Anyone can use any reason to commit fraud. It is a lame excuse to sugegst a proggressive tax encourages the wealthy to commit fraud. And I gave no broad generalization. It is a fact that we have fraud now, and fraud committed by the wealthy. Crime is not limited to one economic class. It just seems to me you're trying to excuse crimes by those with wealth.
    I'm not saying that a progressive tax encourages the wealthy to commit fraud. I'm suggesting that your tax solution will encourage the wealthy to commit fraud. I'm speaking in relative terms. Relative to where we are now (a progressive system with loopholes) to the system you suggest (a progressive system without loopholes) will significantly impact the net income on the wealthy. The result is an incentive for fraud. In no way at all am I saying that they have an excuse for this fraud or that they are justified in committing fraud. I'm not saying that it will be easier to commit fraud. Please read what I'm writing. I'm spending more time explaining what I'm NOT writing because you're jumping to conclusions that I'm not trying to make. I'm just explaining what the consequences of your plan are.

    And you did write "and the wealthy do this nayway, just as they would with a flat tax. Nothing there would change." -- when I read "the wealthy" I assumed you meant all of the wealthy since you didn't have a qualifier. This is the logical conclusion. I cannot assume your qualifiers; you must state them. If you meant 'some' so be it. Correct yourself. Don't deny what you wrote. Explain what you meant - it's fine. An honest mistake. I understand now. Just because we're on different sides doesn't mean that I'm trying to attack you. I simply misunderstood what you meant because you didn't write what you actually meant.
    Last edited by fredmertz; 02-03-11 at 01:53 PM.

Page 89 of 90 FirstFirst ... 397987888990 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •