[quote]flipcollar wrote:
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are my two favorite books. They’re incredible treatises on the human condition. That probably surprises you, but it shouldn’t because I haven’t actually talked much about my own political leanings in here in the first place. Everyone assumed I’m a democrat, and everyone assumed I’m on Obama’s nuts, when my OP was just referring to a specific situation that my company benefited from. I told the story in the first place because this was the first time that something the government did had an enormous effect on my business. It happened to be something that occured through Obama’s administration.
I love these books because they bring to light a huge flaw with how we treat the real movers and shakers (the truly important people) of the world. The people who are putting in the hardest work get shitted on, and it’s a problem the democrats face. MY problem with the Republican party, is that they don’t solve the problem either. I don’t necessarily think any political party, as they are currently comprised, solves the problem. The plight of the world’s geniuses, and truly hard working people, has been going on in this country for decades if not longer, and neither political party has made a dent. I’m not on Obama’s nuts, and I’m not on Romney’s nuts. I don’t like nuts.[/quote]
Not to discredit anything you just said – I have my own collection of Rand books – but are you familiar with her obsession/idolization of a serial killer? When I learned that, it added some weird context to her fairly one-dimensional characterizations.
Even discounting the spin and bias of that article, it’s still quite interesting.[/quote]
Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what Rand thought or did in her personal life. I’m talking about ink that was printed on pages of books. Tons of creative, brilliant people have crazy ridiculous personal lives. That doesn’t mean their work has less value. The serial killer thing isn’t her only eccentricity either. The way she idolized certain men, and her negative attitudes towards women in general often contradict the good ideas espoused in her literature. Good stuff though. FTR, I’ve read almost everything Rand ever wrote, I’ve got a huge collection of essays, fiction and non-fiction.
And I assume you also carry a much higher reward than cash under your mattress.
And this started because you obtusely refuse to admit you inherited your wealth.
I’m still waiting on my 5% check in the mail.[/quote]
I couldn’t find my check book. I sent you a mattress with cash strapped to it instead.[/quote]
Until I get it I’m going to assume you think it’s a big deal. I won’t hold my breath. A cash mattress or portion of ownership in your company is perfectly acceptable.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are my two favorite books. They’re incredible treatises on the human condition. That probably surprises you, but it shouldn’t because I haven’t actually talked much about my own political leanings in here in the first place. Everyone assumed I’m a democrat, and everyone assumed I’m on Obama’s nuts, when my OP was just referring to a specific situation that my company benefited from. I told the story in the first place because this was the first time that something the government did had an enormous effect on my business. It happened to be something that occured through Obama’s administration.
I love these books because they bring to light a huge flaw with how we treat the real movers and shakers (the truly important people) of the world. The people who are putting in the hardest work get shitted on, and it’s a problem the democrats face. MY problem with the Republican party, is that they don’t solve the problem either. I don’t necessarily think any political party, as they are currently comprised, solves the problem. The plight of the world’s geniuses, and truly hard working people, has been going on in this country for decades if not longer, and neither political party has made a dent. I’m not on Obama’s nuts, and I’m not on Romney’s nuts. I don’t like nuts.[/quote]
Not to discredit anything you just said – I have my own collection of Rand books – but are you familiar with her obsession/idolization of a serial killer? When I learned that, it added some weird context to her fairly one-dimensional characterizations.
Even discounting the spin and bias of that article, it’s still quite interesting.[/quote]
Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what Rand thought or did in her personal life. I’m talking about ink that was printed on pages of books. Tons of creative, brilliant people have crazy ridiculous personal lives. That doesn’t mean their work has less value. The serial killer thing isn’t her only eccentricity either. The way she idolized certain men, and her negative attitudes towards women in general often contradict the good ideas espoused in her literature. Good stuff though. FTR, I’ve read almost everything Rand ever wrote, I’ve got a huge collection of essays, fiction and non-fiction.[/quote]
I agree [that it doesn’t matter]. I just found it interesting. It caught me off guard; I just didn’t expect it.
I used to be fairly objectivist in my outlook on life, but I’ve changed and grown from that. Not to say that I was wrong back then; I’m just better off now. I will give her credit though for introducing me to several topics I’d never considered… sort of a kick in the pants to think about these things.
I remember Anthem being one of the greatest praises of the human condition I’d ever seen in writing, although it’s been a long long time since I read anything of hers. Of course, I’m not sure I’d still agree with that statement.
You mean a sales tax? Eh… I don’t like it, but then again it would kind of eliminate my job, lol.
I like the IRC just like it is, in fact make that shit MORE complex please. (No worries there.)
But if anything a flat tax works, with 100% of people who work more than 20 hours a week paying. And if you work less than 20 hours and want welfare, you have to pass a drug test twice a month. And now that healthcare is “free” thanks to Obama, you have to follow a diet to keep your fatness in check to.
People want to live off the government’s dime? Say good by to freedom of choice. [/quote]
I was think on my ride home you could have a flat income tax, say 10%, and a sales tax of a similar % on purchases.
This way:
Every pays
The more you consume the more tax you pay
For those that hate paying taxes they have some amount of control
It’s overly simplified, but really you wouldn’t have to change the tax code that much. You report income from your W2 like any other year and you use the standard deduction or itemize as usual. The sales tax is held and reported by merchants same as now.
You mean a sales tax? Eh… I don’t like it, but then again it would kind of eliminate my job, lol.
I like the IRC just like it is, in fact make that shit MORE complex please. (No worries there.)
But if anything a flat tax works, with 100% of people who work more than 20 hours a week paying. And if you work less than 20 hours and want welfare, you have to pass a drug test twice a month. And now that healthcare is “free” thanks to Obama, you have to follow a diet to keep your fatness in check to.
People want to live off the government’s dime? Say good by to freedom of choice. [/quote]
I was think on my ride home you could have a flat income tax, say 10%, and a sales tax of a similar % on purchases.
This way:
Every pays
The more you consume the more tax you pay
For those that hate paying taxes they have some amount of control
It’s overly simplified, but really you wouldn’t have to change the tax code that much. You report income from your W2 like any other year and you use the standard deduction or itemize as usual. The sales tax is held and reported by merchants same as now.
Is that plausible?
[/quote]
It really depends on the state.
I know in Ohio that sales tax is waived for certain “essential” items like food. Obviously there’s weird stuff like if you “dine in” at a restaurant, you pay sales tax; if you just take it to go, you don’t… basically, if you can afford to go out to eat, you can afford to pay the tax.
Sales tax is really a state issue, not a federal issue.
As far as a flat income tax, I think it could work fine, but it would be very hard to wipe out all the loopholes and caveats from the tax code. There’s so many different things in there to help one or another ‘disenfranchised’ group, that those same groups would very likely fight against the idea of a flat tax… confusing the trees for the forest, so to say.
That is my main problem with a sales tax. America is largely a service/consumer driven economy. You don’t want to slow people’s ability to purchase shit, lol.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
As far as a flat income tax, I think it could work fine, but it would be very hard to wipe out all the loopholes and caveats from the tax code. There’s so many different things in there to help one or another ‘disenfranchised’ group, that those same groups would very likely fight against the idea of a flat tax… confusing the trees for the forest, so to say.[/quote]
First off, the word “loophole” is a giant load of horse shit fed to the masses by media and talking heads so it can be a political talking point that people you to sound smart about shit they don’t understand.
Does the government give incentives? Yup. But there are no special rules, no special loopholes only the uber rich know about. Everyone plays by the same, clear rules you can read about on irs.gov.
Secondly, I feel like the only change you make with a flat tax is to the rate. That is it. You can even keep AMT to appease all the bleeding heart thieves, at say 13% rather than 10%.
The only thing is, once all these dumb-asses notice the rich are actually paying less under a flat tax and the bottom 70% of earners actually start shouldering a bigger load of the burden, the tree huggers will grow out their dreadlocks again and start “occupying” shit again. Although this time thy might be able to actually put together a coherent thought and have a purpose beyond “give me free shit I don’t deserve”.
sorry, I’m taking cheap shots all over the place today.
rich people shield income through their businesses and create bogus deductions(also defer income into future yrs by manipulating revenue recognition)
they deduct BS rental deductions on their rental properties…
the estate tax is regressive in its current form…there is a 5 mil exclusion right now and you get a stepped up basis on appreciated assets…so, you don’t have to pay taxes on the appreciation even though you would’ve if you sold them before you died…
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are my two favorite books. They’re incredible treatises on the human condition. That probably surprises you, but it shouldn’t because I haven’t actually talked much about my own political leanings in here in the first place. Everyone assumed I’m a democrat, and everyone assumed I’m on Obama’s nuts, when my OP was just referring to a specific situation that my company benefited from. I told the story in the first place because this was the first time that something the government did had an enormous effect on my business. It happened to be something that occured through Obama’s administration.
I love these books because they bring to light a huge flaw with how we treat the real movers and shakers (the truly important people) of the world. The people who are putting in the hardest work get shitted on, and it’s a problem the democrats face. MY problem with the Republican party, is that they don’t solve the problem either. I don’t necessarily think any political party, as they are currently comprised, solves the problem. The plight of the world’s geniuses, and truly hard working people, has been going on in this country for decades if not longer, and neither political party has made a dent. I’m not on Obama’s nuts, and I’m not on Romney’s nuts. I don’t like nuts.[/quote]
Not to discredit anything you just said – I have my own collection of Rand books – but are you familiar with her obsession/idolization of a serial killer? When I learned that, it added some weird context to her fairly one-dimensional characterizations.
Even discounting the spin and bias of that article, it’s still quite interesting.[/quote]
Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what Rand thought or did in her personal life. I’m talking about ink that was printed on pages of books. Tons of creative, brilliant people have crazy ridiculous personal lives. That doesn’t mean their work has less value. The serial killer thing isn’t her only eccentricity either. The way she idolized certain men, and her negative attitudes towards women in general often contradict the good ideas espoused in her literature. Good stuff though. FTR, I’ve read almost everything Rand ever wrote, I’ve got a huge collection of essays, fiction and non-fiction.[/quote]
So, it’s ‘Do as I say, but not as I do’ for Ayn Rand? Did you know that when she got sick at the end of her life, she signed up for Social Security benefits, and probably received Medicare too? Ron Paul also accepts Social Security payments (like he really needs the money!!!)
So, Social Security payments are okay for Ron and Ayn, but for everybody else it’s a moral failure. Just more proof that Libertarianism is total bullshit that doesn’t actually fly in the real world, with the people who promote it.
As far as Obama’s quote, he said this:
This is for all you guys who object to paying your income tax, but expect your business to benefit from drivable roads (Federal highway system) crime free streets (local police and fire departments) structurally sound bridges and tunnels, an educated workforce, a working sewer system, etc. No, you did NOT build your business without any of those things. Absolutely not! Obama’s quote is directed at the big fucking babies who cry about their taxes going up 3 percent (back to where they were under Clinton). Obama is calling you tax whiners out onto the carpet.
And by the way: Tax breaks for the rich do NOT create jobs, all they do is put more money in the bank accounts of the people who least need an extra bump. The Trickle Down theory is complete bullshit. If tax breaks created jobs, how come that didn’t happen under George W. Bush? He has the worst record on job creation of any modern president. I have never heard a Republican give a good answer to that question… why didn’t the Bush Tax Cuts create jobs? Also, taxes were much higher before 1970, when the US economy was roaring. High taxes are incentive for business owners to invest their profits back into their businesses (instead of sitting on that cash, the way they are doing now).
That is my main problem with a sales tax. America is largely a service/consumer driven economy. You don’t want to slow people’s ability to purchase shit, lol.
[/quote]
If we went to a flat income tax and introduced a sales tax would that significantly hurt spending? You’d have more to spend per pay check and in all honesty most people would not save the extra cash anyway. I actually think this would help the economy since people would have more disposable income.
Basically all I want is a system that’s fair across the board. I’m certainly not being racked over the coals so to speak, but I’m confident the wife and I will hit AMT in the next couple of years and I’d like to save as much money as I can. I’d also rather donate to a charity of my choice rather than the gov.
[quote]D Public wrote:
the payroll tax is highly regressive
sales tax is regressive
the capital gains rates are highly regressive
the mortgage interest deduction is regressive
rich people shield income through their businesses and create bogus deductions(also defer income into future yrs by manipulating revenue recognition)
they deduct BS rental deductions on their rental properties…
the estate tax is regressive in its current form…there is a 5 mil exclusion right now and you get a stepped up basis on appreciated assets…so, you don’t have to pay taxes on the appreciation even though you would’ve if you sold them before you died…
[/quote]
Are you saying the tax code favors the rich? Or is it that the rich just have expenses working class folks don’t, which requires additional tax regulation?
If we went to a flat income tax and introduced a sales tax would that significantly hurt spending?
[/quote]
End of the day, a sales tax increases the cost of a good or service, not just with the tax, but the added administrative costs of tracking, filing and paying it.
If we went to a flat income tax and introduced a sales tax would that significantly hurt spending?
[/quote]
End of the day, a sales tax increases the cost of a good or service, not just with the tax, but the added administrative costs of tracking, filing and paying it.[/quote]
True, but it would also create jobs right?
Not to open a can of worms, but the silver lining in this whole health care absurdity is that a large number of jobs will be created because of the SCOTUS’ ruling. I’ve got a few family members that work for the IRS and according to them they are already gearing up to go on a hiring spree because of the health care law. Would a change to a flat earned income and federal sales tax have the same effect?
If we went to a flat income tax and introduced a sales tax would that significantly hurt spending?
[/quote]
End of the day, a sales tax increases the cost of a good or service, not just with the tax, but the added administrative costs of tracking, filing and paying it.[/quote]
True, but it would also create jobs right?
[/quote]
Yes and no. Look at the situation as it is now. Companies have some of the biggest cash reserves ever seen, and they won’t hire people. They kept their talent during the meltdown and cut the shit workers. They asked the talent to work harder and be more productive. It worked.
We, 4 years later, are still stagnant and could melt down again. They are saving that cash in case. No one is confident, so they aren’t going to hire and expand themselves out too thin if they aren’t certain.
But big picture, smaller firms would ask more of the people that work their now, and larger firms would hire a handful of people.
If we went to a flat income tax and introduced a sales tax would that significantly hurt spending?
[/quote]
End of the day, a sales tax increases the cost of a good or service, not just with the tax, but the added administrative costs of tracking, filing and paying it.[/quote]
True, but it would also create jobs right?
[/quote]
Yes and no. Look at the situation as it is now. Companies have some of the biggest cash reserves ever seen, and they won’t hire people. They kept their talent during the meltdown and cut the shit workers. They asked the talent to work harder and be more productive. It worked.
We, 4 years later, are still stagnant and could melt down again. They are saving that cash in case. No one is confident, so they aren’t going to hire and expand themselves out too thin if they aren’t certain.
But big picture, smaller firms would ask more of the people that work their now, and larger firms would hire a handful of people.
[/quote]
So basically you’re saying job growth would be marginal at best while consumer spending would decrease in a meaningful (negative) way?
How do you see the U.S. ecomony growing out of the rut we’ve been in? Do we want to see consumer spending increase to pre-recession levels? Maybe it’s time for the economy to shrink and for Americans to live more modesty lives. It’s not exactly the American dream, but would pushing consumer spending be good for the economy in the long term?
So basically you’re saying job growth would be marginal at best while consumer spending would decrease in a meaningful (negative) way? [/quote]
Yeah. But I am far from an expert, so take my opinion as you will. I could be wrong.
Well, the best and quickest would be some sort of “breakout” in the private sector. Something significant in a significant industry just needs to boom. Cure cancer, make a real fuel alternative that is cost effective, produce something, one god damn thing, that everyone can rally behind. A fucking iPad isn’t going to cut it either.
We need something from the private sector, not the federal reserve, Washington or Wall St, but the “joe plumbers” of the world to get us moving. Momentum will follow.
Only if the income is behind it to back it up. We need to move towrds less debt. Not no debt, just less debt.
We need to push consumer income, and spending will follow. People need to make more money, everyone. Not just inflated dollars either.