[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
So why can’t we agree to simplify everything, or better yet replace it with the Fair Tax or something similar?
Where’s the democratic proposal that actually addresses the crux of the issue and doesn’t just aim to raise the upper brackets?
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM. [/quote]
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
What loopholes?
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
So why can’t we agree to simplify everything, or better yet replace it with the Fair Tax or something similar?
Where’s the democratic proposal that actually addresses the crux of the issue and doesn’t just aim to raise the upper brackets?[/quote]
Works for me. 15% or 20% across the board. That would be fair, lol. Maybe we can hand out trophies to everyone too.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
So why can’t we agree to simplify everything, or better yet replace it with the Fair Tax or something similar?
Where’s the democratic proposal that actually addresses the crux of the issue and doesn’t just aim to raise the upper brackets?[/quote]
Arguments for different tax structures are as follows, and again, I’m just sharing what’s out there or talked about in general. I’ll clarify my opinions:
Flat Tax is a regressive tax. It generally hurts poorer people more than wealthier people due to the cash flow idea I previously mentioned; however, there is much evidence that the amount of taxes (revenues to Governments) would generally be the same due to the decrease in tax collection expenses, or the IRS.
Closing tax loopholes. Taxes loopholes are generally utilized by the government to encourage certian behavior. Examples include charitable tax deductions, mortgage interest deduction, tax credits for the purchase of energy efficent appliances, etc. In addition, there are A LOT of people who rely on the complexities of the IRS tax code as well as everything that comes along with it for their jobs. Lawyers, accountants, collection agencies, charitable organizations. And yes, BeanCounter mentioned people donate to charities b/c they want to, but some people also do it (albeit stupidly) for the tax savings or donate more than they would b/c of the tax savings.
Use Tax. Generally considered to make some sense, but like the flat tax, it is regressive. In addition, it encourages saving instead of spending which is good for the individual, but not the economy.
The fact of the matter is there is no good answer. As previously stated, no matter what you do, someone is going to be hurt. It won’t be “fair” to someone else.
Basically, you have to ask yourself. Is it “fair” to take someone else’s property/fruits of their labor and give it to the others who may or may not be directly responsible for their situation OR do you have faith in humanity, let people keep their stuff, and let individuals figure it all out?
I tend to lean to the latter (i.e. no taxes or, at worst, taxes to support infrastructure only). The fact is, there is plenty of historical evidence to say that people will take care of one another no differently than is done now, just not with the layer upon layer of non-value add work. I stand to believe there will be, at worst, no more suffering in the world today than there is already given some time. One thing we are missing in the world, especially the U.S., is a sense of community.
Very nice article here on why Government jobs (i.e. taxes) are inherently bad: How the Market Creates Jobs and How the Government Destroys Them (Full Edition) | Mises Institute
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM. [/quote]
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
What loopholes?[/quote]
A “loophole” is simply the term used for anything that decreases your tax bill at the end of the day. So the mortgage interest deduction is a “tax loophole” since not everyone owns a home or can afford to own a home. The term “loophole” has a negative conotation to make people who can decrease the taxes they pay sound bad.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM. [/quote]
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
What loopholes?[/quote]
A “loophole” is simply the term used for anything that decreases your tax bill at the end of the day. So the mortgage interest deduction is a “tax loophole” since not everyone owns a home or can afford to own a home. The term “loophole” has a negative conotation to make people who can decrease the taxes they pay sound bad.[/quote]
A “loophole” is a legal but unintended way to avoid the intended effect of a law, usually based on poor drafting, ambiguity, or a lack of foresight by the drafters. The mortgage interest deduction is an express policy decision, not a loophole.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM. [/quote]
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
What loopholes?[/quote]
A “loophole” is simply the term used for anything that decreases your tax bill at the end of the day. So the mortgage interest deduction is a “tax loophole” since not everyone owns a home or can afford to own a home. The term “loophole” has a negative conotation to make people who can decrease the taxes they pay sound bad.[/quote]
That’s an interesting definition of a loophole.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM. [/quote]
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
What loopholes?[/quote]
A “loophole” is simply the term used for anything that decreases your tax bill at the end of the day. So the mortgage interest deduction is a “tax loophole” since not everyone owns a home or can afford to own a home. The term “loophole” has a negative conotation to make people who can decrease the taxes they pay sound bad.[/quote]
A “loophole” is a legal but unintended way to avoid the intended effect of a law, usually based on poor drafting, ambiguity, or a lack of foresight by the drafters. The mortgage interest deduction is an express policy decision, not a loophole.[/quote]
I agree with this definition.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM. [/quote]
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
What loopholes?[/quote]
A “loophole” is simply the term used for anything that decreases your tax bill at the end of the day. So the mortgage interest deduction is a “tax loophole” since not everyone owns a home or can afford to own a home. The term “loophole” has a negative conotation to make people who can decrease the taxes they pay sound bad.[/quote]
A “loophole” is a legal but unintended way to avoid the intended effect of a law, usually based on poor drafting, ambiguity, or a lack of foresight by the drafters. The mortgage interest deduction is an express policy decision, not a loophole.[/quote]
I agree with this definition. [/quote]
Fair enough.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM. [/quote]
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI. [/quote]
What loopholes?[/quote]
A “loophole” is simply the term used for anything that decreases your tax bill at the end of the day. So the mortgage interest deduction is a “tax loophole” since not everyone owns a home or can afford to own a home. The term “loophole” has a negative conotation to make people who can decrease the taxes they pay sound bad.[/quote]
A “loophole” is a legal but unintended way to avoid the intended effect of a law, usually based on poor drafting, ambiguity, or a lack of foresight by the drafters. The mortgage interest deduction is an express policy decision, not a loophole.[/quote]
I agree with this definition. [/quote]
I think we are back to definition , Beans originally suggested some one watch their income . I (think) what he meant was “TAXABLE” income . IMO no one would suggest some one actually make less money . They are not loop holes by accident they are engineered .
Not only do most politicians get their campaign contributions from millionaires and wealthy but most of Congress are millionaires
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Arguments for different tax structures are as follows, and again, I’m just sharing what’s out there or talked about in general. I’ll clarify my opinions:
[/quote]
I understand the arguments, as nonsensical as they are, but I’ll address your comments nonetheless.
I did not mention a flat tax. I said simplify things or institute the fair tax, which is a national sales tax. The Fair Tax includes a prebate check to all families every month to compensate for the tax on necessities. In a sense it makes basic living expenses tax free for all. It is only regressive in the sense that it will be much more difficult for the poor to actually make money on their tax returns. Many will see a reduction in there taxes as FICA taxes are all included in the sales tax. If you buy only what you need to live and no luxuries, you will likely have a net zero tax bill. It would likely end up being a very progressive tax, as it would tax the heaviest consumers the most.
Based on previous posts, I’m going to assume you really mean end tax deductions, but of course deductions very easily lead to loopholes.
Why is the government in the business of encouraging behavior? And are we really so naive that we believe it works?
I’m not going to address the charitable deduction, as deductions solely for tax purposes make up a very small percentage of overall deductions. As for your comments on lawyers, accountants, etc. - if you believe this to be true, and I do as well, then do you not agree that we are actually incentivising individuals in these professions to make the tax code as complex as possible? After all, the more complex the tax code, the more revenue for them. Just like the encouraging behavior argument. These are the unintended consequences of our convoluted tax code and the more laws that are passed to try to prevent it, the worse the problem becomes. Why should the government favor one profession over another?
Again, the fair tax is not regressive. I encourage you to research it a bit.
I otherwise agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. What exactly do you consider “the economy”? By economy, don’t you mean the financial welfare of the country and by extension the individuals that define the country? If that’s the case, I fail to see how something can be good for the individuals but bad for the economy. I’d almost argue that by eliminating income taxes and putting more money into each individuals pocket for them to decide how to spend best, you’ve achieved the ultimate in “trickle-UP” economics.
You have to get out of the mindset of what is fair and what is not. I know I’ve used the term myself but my intentions have always been sarcasm.
I very much agree with your last paragraph and I’m under the impression that most of your post is simply for the sake of debate. What we have in this country is no more than an arbitrary game that we have created ourselves. Life is full of winners and losers. I don’t care what system you have in place, some are going to figure out how to exploit it. The more rules you implement the more you are going to tilt the game in favor of those that play it best at the expense of the less intelligent. Why not end the game entirely and let individuals rise and fall on there own accord, instead of artificially propping some up.
In an attempt to elevate the unintelligent poor*, the only owns getting hurt are the average middle class of average intelligence that know what is good for themselves, but can’t figure out how to play the game.
*I’m not saying all of the poor are unintelligent. Many are poor because they cherish a simpler lifestyle and don’t value the things that additional financial wealth will bring them. Many others are poor because they have also figured out how to play the game and would prefer to take advantage of it and maintain a lifestyle rather than increasing there wealth. I don’t have a problem with these people, provided that they are honest about it and are not voting to take wealth away from me. Having said all that, I fully admit that I believe most poor people are that way because of a lack of intelligence. We can continue to approach their financial situation just like we approach education where all that is accomplished is we pull down the high-achievers, or we can accept the obvious facts of life and acknowledge that some people will always be better off than others.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Not only do most politicians get their campaign contributions from millionaires and wealthy but most of Congress are millionaires
[/quote]
I agree that campaign contribution is out of control. I also agree that Congress makes too much money.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Not only do most politicians get their campaign contributions from millionaires and wealthy but most of Congress are millionaires
[/quote]
I agree that campaign contribution is out of control. I also agree that Congress makes too much money. [/quote]
If you liked that then You’ll love this. I think all elected positions should make $0.00.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If you liked that then You’ll love this. I think all elected positions should make $0.00.[/quote]
I personally disagree . I think they should be paid a fair wage but anything that looks corrupt should thoroughly investigated .
Financing elections should be totally transparent . Spending 10 million dollars to get a job that pays $200 thousand is highly suspect
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If you liked that then You’ll love this. I think all elected positions should make $0.00.[/quote]
I personally disagree . I think they should be paid a fair wage but anything that looks corrupt should thoroughly investigated .
Financing elections should be totally transparent . Spending 10 million dollars to get a job that pays $200 thousand is highly suspect
[/quote]
What is a fair wage for the POTUS? There is nothing to compare it to.
They should get a housing, food, and clothing allowance. I gurantee these folks won’t spend 30+ years in office if all they get is the “satisfaction of serving” out of their service.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is a fair wage for the POTUS? There is nothing to compare it to.
[/quote]
I would think an amount that a private company would pay their CEO or President
I don’t think their wages are the problem . I think the problem is when our members of the GOV are vested in Companies that the member has direct control of the success or failure of the company
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is a fair wage for the POTUS? There is nothing to compare it to.
[/quote]
I would think an amount that a private company would pay their CEO or President
[/quote]
So in the millions?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What is a fair wage for the POTUS? There is nothing to compare it to.
[/quote]
I would think an amount that a private company would pay their CEO or President
[/quote]
So in the millions?[/quote]
could be