• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax Loopholes

Would you support eliminating every tax loophole?

  • Total voters
    20
obvious Child said:
So you think a system which disallows losses and costs to sell something is a good one?

I don't see how many businesses can survive a high gross tax.
Click to expand...

There's no way a business could survive a gross tax.
 
apdst said:
That's never work, but who cares, right?
Click to expand...
I have to disagree after reading the Fair Tax book, normally I would have balked at that idea as well but when the breakdown of it is in front of you it starts to make sense. The catch though is that the income tax has to be repealed and no flat tax with the NST replacing it, the idea being that when hidden taxes are taken out of everything profits start to inch up and competitiveness then would demand that companies would get into a price slashing war for consumer dollars.
 
apdst said:
A loophole is any deduction that people don't think should be allowed.
Click to expand...

I love it. I may steal and use this line myself. When you get one right, you do nail it.
 
obvious Child said:
So you think a system which disallows losses and costs to sell something is a good one?

I don't see how many businesses can survive a high gross tax.
Click to expand...

:shrug: why not lower the nominal rate to the effective rate under the previous system, so that your effect is simply to strip out the complexity and compliance costs?
 
There are a few deductions I support keeping, but none that I would call loopholes. For example, I support having the first $25k be tax free. I support a business tax that's only applied after expenses have been deducted. You could, of course, pay your employees more and count it as expenses, but since income taxes would be higher than business taxes in my model, that wouldn't accomplish much. There are probably a few others I can't think of off the top of my head, but I would eliminate all the things about charity or buying an SUV or a hybrid or whatever else. There are better ways to provide incentives than by making the tax code horrendously complicated.
 
IMO, the ONLY reason to tax is to raise the revenues needed to run the government (unless you include such things as protective tarrifs). If you accept that premise, this should be axiomatic: taxes should be imposed in the manner that is most cost-efficient. (Tax evasion is a form of "cost".)

I'd eliminate the system of income taxation we have now -- which is used at local, county and state levels, BTW, not just at the federal level. I'd tax every single human being or entity with income of its own. Yes, I mean churches, too. I would tax every accretion to wealth -- proceeds of life insurance policies, social security income, retirement funds, education funds, municipal bonds.....EVERYTHING.

I don't favor a tax on consumption -- though I see its appeal -- as an alternative to a tax on income. I don't think you can achieve the same level of third party reporting with it, and I don't think you can avoid complexity. For example, what to do with money spent that is the proceeds of a loan, and therefore, not income?

No person or business would pay tax on its gross income.....by definition, gross income is income plus the cost of production or sales. But I don't think allowing this one adjustment is fatal to the simplicity that'd make my system achieve the goals I hope for.

When government wants me to have more kids, or adopt some, or buy energy efficient appliances, or just wants to reward me for drawing breath, IMO, taxation is the LEAST EFFECTIVE and MOST EXPENSIVE manner of getting me motivated to do so. There should be no deduction for mortgage interest; home ownership should be a choice people make without any inducements from the government.

I feel the same way about sin taxes. Don't want me to smoke, drink, etc.? IMO, it'd be far better to offer me smoking cessation aids....and government wouldn't be so dependent on my continuing to smoke.

I don't agree with Fluffy about taxing food stamps, etc. I get his point, but it is very costly to do what he's suggesting....and COST EFFECTIVE taxation is my goal.
 
Pinkie said:
IMO, the ONLY reason to tax is to raise the revenues needed to run the government (unless you include such things as protective tarrifs). If you accept that premise, this should be axiomatic: taxes should be imposed in the manner that is most cost-efficient. (Tax evasion is a form of "cost".)

I'd eliminate the system of income taxation we have now -- which is used at local, county and state levels, BTW, not just at the federal level. I'd tax every single human being or entity with income of its own. Yes, I mean churches, too. I would tax every accretion to wealth -- proceeds of life insurance policies, social security income, retirement funds, education funds, municipal bonds.....EVERYTHING.

I don't favor a tax on consumption -- though I see its appeal -- as an alternative to a tax on income. I don't think you can achieve the same level of third party reporting with it, and I don't think you can avoid complexity. For example, what to do with money spent that is the proceeds of a loan, and therefore, not income?

No person or business would pay tax on its gross income.....by definition, gross income is income plus the cost of production or sales. But I don't think allowing this one adjustment is fatal to the simplicity that'd make my system achieve the goals I hope for.

When government wants me to have more kids, or adopt some, or buy energy efficient appliances, or just wants to reward me for drawing breath, IMO, taxation is the LEAST EFFECTIVE and MOST EXPENSIVE manner of getting me motivated to do so. There should be no deduction for mortgage interest; home ownership should be a choice people make without any inducements from the government.

I feel the same way about sin taxes. Don't want me to smoke, drink, etc.? IMO, it'd be far better to offer me smoking cessation aids....and government wouldn't be so dependent on my continuing to smoke.

I don't agree with Fluffy about taxing food stamps, etc. I get his point, but it is very costly to do what he's suggesting....and COST EFFECTIVE taxation is my goal.
Click to expand...

The thing with taxing lots of different things is it's easy to start double taxing. IMO, it's better to tax a couple things a lot than a bunch of things a little. I would have a big income tax and a small business tax. I would also have sin taxes, but that's because I'm in favor of universal health care, so people who intentionally do bad things to themselves should have to pay a little extra.
 
atrasicarius said:
The thing with taxing lots of different things is it's easy to start double taxing. IMO, it's better to tax a couple things a lot than a bunch of things a little. I would have a big income tax and a small business tax. I would also have sin taxes, but that's because I'm in favor of universal health care, so people who intentionally do bad things to themselves should have to pay a little extra.
Click to expand...

Well, this is a bit philosophical.....entities (corporations, trust funds, partnerships, etc.) are all legal fictions created for the benefit of humans, and so I can see the POV that taxing them is a form of "double taxation".

However.

If you don't tax them, tax evasion will skyrocket.

Federal revenues (forget state, county and local for now) will fall about 40%.

Americans are not equal in their investments and interests in entities. Taxing them at a lower rate or not at all would be a form of regressive taxation on the poor.

I suppose you could work at making all business/entity income flow through to the humans who ultimately benefit, but these people cannot always be identified with any certainty. And what would you do with churches, charities, political organizations, etc.?

No, IMO, all humans and all entities with income must be taxed, and at the same rate. If not, the golden charm of simplicity is lost and we may as well not have bothered.
 
Pinkie said:
Well, this is a bit philosophical.....entities (corporations, trust funds, partnerships, etc.) are all legal fictions created for the benefit of humans, and so I can see the POV that taxing them is a form of "double taxation".

However.

If you don't tax them, tax evasion will skyrocket.

Federal revenues (forget state, county and local for now) will fall about 40%.

Americans are not equal in their investments and interests in entities. Taxing them at a lower rate or not at all would be a form of regressive taxation on the poor.

I suppose you could work at making all business/entity income flow through to the humans who ultimately benefit, but these people cannot always be identified with any certainty. And what would you do with churches, charities, political organizations, etc.?

No, IMO, all humans and all entities with income must be taxed, and at the same rate. If not, the golden charm of simplicity is lost and we may as well not have bothered.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said, I'm in favor of taxing businesses. I'm talking about property taxes and estate taxes and all those things. An income tax is enough, assuming it's progressive and of a decent size.
 
atrasicarius said:
Well, like I said, I'm in favor of taxing businesses. I'm talking about property taxes and estate taxes and all those things. An income tax is enough, assuming it's progressive and of a decent size.
Click to expand...

The estate tax is probably one of the most easily avoided taxes we have. It's said it serves a purpose, by preventing the concentration of wealth over generations. In reality, it does no such thing...it just makes tax lawyers a good living. So, using my standard, it should be either be reformed severely or repealed entirely...it's highly inefficient as it is.

Repealing property taxes, employment taxes, etc. poses other problems. The income from these taxes flows to different levels of government and is usually dedicated to a certain purpose. Not saying it can't be done, but damn, that's gonna raise some sand.
 
Jerry said:
Not without massive spending cuts, beginning with the elimination of Obama'Care and TARP.
Click to expand...

Excluding the autobailout, TARP may actually turn a small profit.

As for Obamacare, the death of CLASS destroys the lion's share of savings. But the alternative of doing nothing is really not cheaper. If you really want to save money, kill medicare D which is little more than a taxpayer give away to big Pharm.
 
apdst said:
There's no way a business could survive a gross tax.
Click to expand...

Depends how large the gross tax is. A 1% gross tax with exemptions to grocers wouldn't be the same as Cain's 9% gross tax proposal. I have a problem with Cain's 999 proposal as it's effectively a gross tax. Any business with less than 9.01% net margin is going to be destroyed by Cain. Cain is pushing a massive job killing tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom