As a good libertarian you should be supporting a consumption tax, not an income tax of any kind. You and I both know that GE doesn't pay any taxes BIH. GE is a tax collector, not a taxpayer. A tax on a corporation is nothing more and nothing less than an additional, and hidden, tax levied upon the individual that is collected by the corporate entity, along with a markup (profit) for having been put to the trouble of collecting taxes from the individuals for the government. Taxes to a corporation are simply a cost of doing business that is marked up and passed along in the price of their goods. MPPOV is that it should be an either or situation. Either the businesses are taxed or the individuals are taxed, not both since taxing both is in reality nothing more than taxing the individuals twice.
BearMtnHIB wrote: I'm all for the stupid tax- there should be a question on the tax form....
Did you vote for any Democrats in the last tax year, enter a "2" in box 4a, if you didn't vote for a democrat, enter a "1" in box 4a.
If you entered a 2 in box 4a, multiply the taxes you owe by the number in box 4a. This is your modified taxes you owe for voting for big government.
This is an excellent tax reform idea.
I would also propose a voter reform idea. Multiply your tax bracket rate by your vote, to get a proportioned vote. Most libs would get 0 x their vote.
This is similar to the way stock shares in a corporation are voted.
And of course the mortgage deduction is stupid. I ignored it along time ago and concentrated on eliminating my mortgage debt. Screw the deduction, especially the one for home equity loans and second homes.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
The idea that every business tax is bundled up and passed on to the consumer has been debunked for years. But if you repeat it often enough after awhile you believe it.
Yes I should have made it more clear- a 10-15% CONSUMPTION tax is what I would like to see.
But GE would be subject to it just as individuals are- level playing field for all.
I also like the idea of consumption tax in general - this is an incentive to save and invest- and a person could opt out of paying taxes by reducing spending.
It also puts the government on our side- a better economy means more government funding. When families are forced to get by with less- so is government.
The idea that every business tax is bundled up and passed on to the consumer has been debunked for years. But if you repeat it often enough after awhile you believe it.
Ok LJ- which business tax is not payed for by those who purchase the products or services that the business produces?
All the consumers pay for the corporate tax in the form of higher costs- PS is correct.
BearMtnHIB wrote: Yes I should have made it more clear- a 10-15% CONSUMPTION tax is what I would like to see.
But GE would be subject to it just as individuals are- level playing field for all.
Which means that you support hidden taxes upon the individual. Again, GE doesn't pay taxes, they pay to the government the money that they collect from the individuals who purchase their goods and services along with a fee for being put to the trouble of doing so. I'm fine with a tax being levied upon the businesses instead of on the individuals, but taxing both is simply taxing me twice. Once when the goods are made and again when I purchase them. Either tax the businesses, and thereby indirectly the individual consumer of the goods and services, or tax the individual directly according to their consumption. Tax me once and leave me alone after that.
PrintSmith wrote: And what are your feelings on the tax exemption for children SC? Are they consistent with your feelings regarding the one for mortgage interest? How about the ones for charitable contributions? How about the one that you get for the mileage you put on your car traveling to and from work? Home office deductions? How about the one you get for the myriad of taxes that you pay - including the property taxes on the property that you have purchased or own? If taxes and tax revenue are not to be decided at least in part on promoting or discouraging behavior, why should groceries not be taxed but alcohol allowed to be taxed? Why should the government be able to punish you with a tax for not purchasing health insurance if the ideal is that the tax code should not include portions to encourage or discourage behavior deemed beneficial or harmful by the government?
I haven't given much thought to the rest of these items, so I'm open to arguments for or against (hah, take that Bear Mtn!) The child exemption is easy - get rid of it. We need to encourage people to have fewer children, not more (or maybe a sliding scale of you get so much for one kid, half that for the 2nd, and none for more than 2 children).
I like deductions for charitable contributions because that is a good thing to encourage people to do. What are the downsides of having it?
Don't know about the rest. I've got a lot of stuff backed up on my to-do list so I'll have to think about this and get back to ya later. If you'd be so kind as to post your ideas on each so I have a jumping off point, I'd appreciate it. I am all for a simplified tax code - costs less, and less options for fraud to be committed that way. I don't know if you noticed the Tea Party meeting minutes that I posted, <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="
285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=133&t=11616
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=133&t=11616<!-- l --> but taxation was one of the topics of the night, and the concept of a consumption tax is intriguing (although I see serious problems with it as well).
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
I'm OK with a zero tax on corporations- but currently we are using the corporate tax to fund the military.
I totally agree about double taxation- but if we only had a 15% tax on all products and services- that would be less double taxation than we have now. Currently we are being taxed coming and going- and then taxed some more.
They tax us on our income- and then they tax us as we spend it- and then they add on fees for this, that and the other thing on top of that. When I add it all up- it's more than 50% of my earnings, and we wonder why business isn't investing, and individuals are suffering.
They government gets half of what we earn.
I also think we need a poor people tax- every citizen should be allowed to get in on the action. The reason we have large portions of people who don't care a whit about taxes is because 45% of us don't pay any taxes, and that needs to change. I say tax the poor- at least 15%.
Science Chic wrote: I like deductions for charitable contributions because that is a good thing to encourage people to do. What are the downsides of having it?
I'll answer that with a question of my own. What are the downsides of having people own their own homes instead of renting the use of a home from someone else? Isn't the mortgage interest deduction simply an encouragement for them to do so? The reason that we had the problem with housing prices and mortgages had nothing to do with the mortgage interest deduction and everything to do with the government guaranteeing (via the GSEs of Fannie and Freddie) that the banks would be paid back from the public funds if the loans they granted for the purchases of homes turned out to be sour investments. The vast majority of the "poisoned" mortgage backed securities that were purchased by those "evil" banks came from these GSEs - which is why the bailout of Fannie and Freddie cost the taxpayer more than all the rest of the bailouts combined.
The Congress wasn't bailing out the banks, they were making good on the guarantees they issued using the full faith and credit of the federal government rather than simply default on that guarantee. Yes, there were some private mortgage backed securities included in that bailout as well, but the vast majority of the securities that had been issued, and the ensuing derivatives of them, where the very same ones that the financial institutions had bought as assets that they then used as the security on the other loans that they had made. That is why they were assets. They were securities and derivatives of mortgages that were guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie - and the federal government was the entity that was guaranteeing them.
PrintSmith wrote: As a good libertarian you should be supporting a consumption tax, not an income tax of any kind. You and I both know that GE doesn't pay any taxes BIH. GE is a tax collector, not a taxpayer. A tax on a corporation is nothing more and nothing less than an additional, and hidden, tax levied upon the individual that is collected by the corporate entity, along with a markup (profit) for having been put to the trouble of collecting taxes from the individuals for the government. Taxes to a corporation are simply a cost of doing business that is marked up and passed along in the price of their goods. MPPOV is that it should be an either or situation. Either the businesses are taxed or the individuals are taxed, not both since taxing both is in reality nothing more than taxing the individuals twice.
That is BS about all corporate taxes being passed on, most times they are, but some corporations are price makers and some are price takers and find themselves unable to raise prices to pay increased taxes.
I prefer a consumption tax and believe enviromentalists should also support it instead of income taxes. And this would encourage saving, which should help out people as they retire.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The child exemption is easy - get rid of it. We need to encourage people to have fewer children, not more (or maybe a sliding scale of you get so much for one kid, half that for the 2nd, and none for more than 2 children).
