Golly gee willikers, you know what would really simplify taxation? Letting the federal government take over every business that nets over, say, $35,000/year(under that, it’s more of a hobby; and we don’t want to limit freedom). The government would then be able to fund itself off the top, so nobody would even miss the money! Additional benefit: With the government controlling all profitable businesses, we wouldn’t have to waste so much television time on commercials from competing companies, etc.
[quote]treco wrote:
Since college is a choice and the student needing the same services that the non college person requires of the government, I see no reason to make an allowance on contributing to the collected fund to operate those services.
If we are starting with a new slate, why introduce an exemption here and a deduction there? 75,000 pages to explain who knows how many loopholes, explanations on how to figure, exceptions, etc. That is insane. [/quote]
So the policy of the US government should be to discourage investment in human capital. Gotcha.
The policy of the US should be that everyone is collecting services and everyone should contribute for those services.
Your reply indicates that you feel it is simply too much for a person to improve their own human capital through sacrifice, delayed gratification, etc - Gotcha.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]treco wrote:
Since college is a choice and the student needing the same services that the non college person requires of the government, I see no reason to make an allowance on contributing to the collected fund to operate those services.
If we are starting with a new slate, why introduce an exemption here and a deduction there? 75,000 pages to explain who knows how many loopholes, explanations on how to figure, exceptions, etc. That is insane. [/quote]
So the policy of the US government should be to discourage investment in human capital. Gotcha. [/quote]
[quote]treco wrote:
The policy of the US should be that everyone is collecting services and everyone should contribute for those services.
Your reply indicates that you feel it is simply too much for a person to improve their own human capital through sacrifice, delayed gratification, etc - Gotcha.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]treco wrote:
Since college is a choice and the student needing the same services that the non college person requires of the government, I see no reason to make an allowance on contributing to the collected fund to operate those services.
If we are starting with a new slate, why introduce an exemption here and a deduction there? 75,000 pages to explain who knows how many loopholes, explanations on how to figure, exceptions, etc. That is insane. [/quote]
So the policy of the US government should be to discourage investment in human capital. Gotcha. [/quote]
[/quote]
A student making $13,000 a year is working well over thirty hours a week (full time) while studying full time. Yet, they will still graduate on average with $30,000 of student loan debt. They already live on the edge of a razor financially in an attempt to develop the human capital to contribute exponentially more to the GNP. That is sacrifice.
The only way to “fix” taxes in the United States of America is to drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Someone(I have no idea who; the quote is commonly misattributed to Thomas Jefferson.) once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take everything you have.”
[quote]treco wrote:
Since college is a choice and the student needing the same services that the non college person requires of the government, I see no reason to make an allowance on contributing to the collected fund to operate those services.
If we are starting with a new slate, why introduce an exemption here and a deduction there? 75,000 pages to explain who knows how many loopholes, explanations on how to figure, exceptions, etc. That is insane. [/quote]
So the policy of the US government should be to discourage investment in human capital. Gotcha. [/quote]
[quote]treco wrote:
Since college is a choice and the student needing the same services that the non college person requires of the government, I see no reason to make an allowance on contributing to the collected fund to operate those services.
If we are starting with a new slate, why introduce an exemption here and a deduction there? 75,000 pages to explain who knows how many loopholes, explanations on how to figure, exceptions, etc. That is insane. [/quote]
So the policy of the US government should be to discourage investment in human capital. Gotcha. [/quote]
Nooooo…the policy of the US government should be to discourage people from making more money and growing the economy with a system that punishes success!
[quote]treco wrote:
I agree consumption tax looks interesting.
How do you handle the first question I got - that the kid making little money is taxed anyway at the same rate as Joe Moviestar?
Or the ones Beans proposed - you want retirement, here is your voucher for the future and a tax bill today?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How about a 10%-20% federal consumption tax? No federal tax on income. No corporate tax on income. Consumers decide how much tax they pay based on what they buy and the wealthy will easily pay more. [/quote]
[/quote]
That’s simple, you would only pay tax on what you buy so the kid making little money pays little in tax because he consumes little. Multi billionaires would pay more in taxes because they consume a lot more.
Retirement wouldn’t be taxed (income wouldn’t be taxed)
I don’t know how the number would shake out though.[/quote]
I like usmc’s idea of a consumption tax, but a lot like the flat tax beans was talking about is regressive instead of progressive unless you make modifications to it. If the federal government were to just put a sales tax on everything consumed the people making less money will be paying a higher proportion of their income on the consumption of goods than someone who is more well off. Poor people spend a higher proportion of their income, rich people save a higher proportion.
Found a few articles about a progressive consumption tax.
Usmc definitely like the idea of a consumption tax vs our current system.[/quote]
I’m not really sure how it would be regressive? Anyway, hell must of frozen over if Cardin and I agree… Thanks for the articles, I’ll definitely read them when I get a chance.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You live in a bubble, Bis. One day you will grow up, the bubble will burst and you’ll realize a student is just another self-centered person. Like we all are.[/quote]
Don’t pretend to know me Push. The loss of four years of meager tax revenues from students will be exponentially be made up for given their significantly increased productivity. This phenomenon dates back to the educational tax exempt status that Western civilization has benefited from since the 12th century.
It’s a perfect example of the 90/10 rule: Only %10 of the tax code covers %90 of the population. The other %90 of the code is to try and capture taxes from %10 of the population.
Less than %30 of tax payers itemize their deductions.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Leave the tax code as is.
[/quote]
No changes in the tax code to lure foreign capital back to the US? You mean keep the highest corporate tax rate in the world? No changes in depreciation?
Really?
[/quote]
The discussion focused on personal taxes as did I. But since you asked:
Zero corporate taxes. Depreciation can remain unchanged.
Since C Corps are an entity and utilize common-good services (roads,police,utilities), I would rather see them pay taxes or move to a REIT like status that doles out the earnings each year to those who will pay something.
GE making $35BB US profits the last 4 years and having $2BB tax credit??
I understand they have rightly avoided taxation as they should, but the system needs changing.
It’s nice to talk about tax changes and cuts, but how does that work? If taxes are reduced, spending has to be cut. Tax changes are just intended to redistribute the tax burden. Where can we reduce spending? When we consider the children, the safety, and the security, can we afford to reduce spending by even a penny? I know that you may point to one program or another and claim that it can be cut, but think about it: Is keeping a little of “your” money really worth having your son renamed “Akbar Akaichiban Ali” by ISIS, losing access to the rays of the sun, and having America’s water supply replaced by the urine of the Chinese? FFS, people; If anything, we should be talking the best way for our government to completely take over the economy of the United States without a bunch of America-hating communists sniveling about it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You live in a bubble, Bis. One day you will grow up, the bubble will burst and you’ll realize a student is just another self-centered person. Like we all are.[/quote]
Don’t pretend to know me Push. The loss of four years of meager tax revenues from students will be exponentially be made up for given their significantly increased productivity. This phenomenon dates back to the educational tax exempt status that Western civilization has benefited from since the 12th century. [/quote]
Everybody wants their break from government taxation.
You think you’re special because you’re a student. You’re not.
I could come up with dozens of examples of non-students whose situations would mirror the ones you cited for productivity.
One of them is a plumber friend of mine. High school education was his limit. No government assistance in his lifetime yet there’s a good chance his six figure income during his “productive” years will top whatever yours might end up being. He has and will continue to out earn what I’d guess to be a majority of college graduates.
If you deserve all of this government help he most certainly did too.
I’ve already told you why your education is so expensive and why you need government help on another thread – it’s because government is the problem maker and the (pseudo) problem solver.[/quote]
[quote]treco wrote:
Since C Corps are an entity and utilize common-good services (roads,police,utilities), I would rather see them pay taxes or move to a REIT like status that doles out the earnings each year to those who will pay something.
GE making $35BB US profits the last 4 years and having $2BB tax credit??
I understand they have rightly avoided taxation as they should, but the system needs changing.[/quote]
For every GE you can find 10 other companies that have an effective rate of 30%+. For example, I was just looking at Medifast, Inc.'s 2014 K-10 and their effective rate was 33.6% (smaller company, but not the point).
The idea that a C corp should be taxed because “it’s an entity” doesn’t make sense to me. Let them keep that 30% and employee more people / expand. It’s just double or triple taxation.