CDZ Tax Simplification, Who Will be the Losers

[rdean]

The Middle Class and the Poor are ALWAYS the losers when it comes to legislation written by the GOP.

Come on, everyone knows that. I bet even many Republicans on the USMB will admit it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fair and simple? Simple isn't fair

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

You really cant base tax on service. If you really wanted to base the tax code on that you would have the poor who use the vast majority of government services paying far more than the rich were.

And no, it is a false narrative that the rich use more government than the poor.

A simple tax code is the only way that it can be fair. There is no measure for government services like access to protected rights, national security and jails. Right now we have the poor paying a larger share of their income than the rich to the federal government. True simplification of the tax code will benefit not only the middle class but the poor as well. It will hose the uber rich as they are the ones that have been manipulating the code to benefit special interests.

It always amazes me that some claim simplifying the tax code will hurt the middle class and poor but then complain that Romney pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. The two concepts are entirely at odds.

But the poor don't use the vast amount of services.

You have to remember that BOTH the poor and rich use things like education. You get given an education, the country gets given an educated worked, and a business gets educated workers. So, education isn't all about the individual, it's about the country and it's about making money.

Well, no that really is false. The rich tend to pay for their education while the poor use the government for it. You shifted gears again though - you went from the rich to business.

The fact is that the poor use more government services.

What about infrastructure? Perhaps a person will use the road twice in a day, maybe a little more sometimes. How much are big corporations using the roads? Probably thousands of times a day to ship products, having employees get to work, having managers going from one place to another. All of this benefits business too.

Again conflating 2 concepts.

You think about Iraq, how much did the war and post war period cost the US?

One estimate is $1.1 trillion. Who benefited from this? It certainly wasn't the poor. The poor got shot at and killed or maimed. So who made money? Defense contractors, oil companies and shareholders. So, who should be paying for such things?

Who benefits from the stability of the country? Everyone, but the rich are able to get rich from it, so they should be paying their fair share, which is a larger share than your average Joe.\

Look at Somalia, hard to make money and become rich there. Why? There's no security, there's no decent infrastructure.
In Russia in the 1990s the Mafias were basically taking about 30-40% of a company's income just to provide for security. The smaller people needed it less, they had less to steal from, they had less reason to be a target for the mafias. In the US most companies will pay a lot less for security and get everything else for free, basically.

What fair is isn't easy to come by. However it damn well isn't everyone paying the same percentage.

So now we have moved the goal post from using government services to benefitting from them.

This is the problem with trying to base a tax rate on 'benefit' or 'use' of government - the amount of government that one uses is literally impossible to calculate particularly when you start making broad claims that simply being rich means that you benefit more. Do you want a different tax rate for the person that gets rich trading in international commodities? How about a different tax rate for those that came here after making their fortune somewhere else? In your version of 'fair' you certainly would have to.

Simple would be fair for one reason - it would not allow the wealthy to abuse the tax code to get out of paying taxes.

The rich use private education for their own children. However a business will probably, on the whole, use those educated in schools paid for with tax money. Education isn't just about your own children. Society benefits from an educated workforce. This is why countries that have mass education at higher levels have higher levels of GDP. You can't make money in a country with low levels of education because these people can't do the work needed on things that make a lot of money, like high tech businesses.

You state that it's a "fact" that the poor use more government services. Again, I disagree. You're ignoring huge swaths of things the govt pays for.

Let's look. Number one is healthcare. Who benefits?
Well the rich benefit.
Firstly they benefit from having healthy workers.
Secondly they benefit because of lot of this money will end up going to profits for healthcare companies. Insurance companies take about 7% of healthcare spending, some hospitals make about 25% of the healthcare spending that goes through them, others don't make much money at all, that depends.
Social Security is more likely to go to the poor.
Defense is likely to go mostly to the rich. You have soldiers pay, but that doesn't make up that much, with spending on the defense industry taking up a large chunk of that. However it is the rich that benefit the most from the security the military gives, and the ability to go into places like Iraq and stop OPEC from controlling oil prices and to get shareholders massive amounts of money in oil companies that are taking oil out of Iraqi oilfields.
Non-Defense discretionary is on government departments which it is hard to show how it benefits.

When you get down to state level, you're looking at states giving away huge amounts of money to businesses to pay them off to work in the state itself, and at local level.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fair and simple? Simple isn't fair

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

Then "services" (spending) should be limited to what is common.

The government has no business micromanaging the economy by giving tax breaks to industries and business they think deserve an advantage and the government has no business doling out welfare via a the tax code.

Talk about an invitation to fraud, corruption and abuse!

What do you mean "government has no business micromanaging the economy"? I mean, it's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that govt is there, and the people elect them, and the govt can do whatever the people want them to do.

Tax breaks in the US have become a massive joke, and shouldn't be the way they are. The EU has it right. Each country can set a tax level, but ALL companies must adhere to that tax rate. Ireland got stuffed in court because they were giving Google an easy ride.

Well, no. Here the government cannot do 'whatever the people want them to.' That is the point of the constitution - it limits what the government can do.

Does it? Hasn't worked so far, has it? Also the constitution can be changed in various ways.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There can be no such thing as "fair taxes" so long as there is even one person who contributes nothing.

Who contributes nothing? Who doesn't pay a cent in sales tax?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fair and simple? Simple isn't fair

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

no the poor get more services

but hey if you want to go to an a la carte government service menu I'm all for it because it would cut my taxes

No, they don't.

You think with a menu you'd cut taxes? Some might, but the rich certainly wouldn't.

so the people who pay ZERO income tax don't get more from the government than someone in the 39.6% bracket

sorry not buying it

That's not what I said. There are people who get more from the government than they put in. However I wasn't talking about individuals. I was talking about people as a group.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

You really cant base tax on service. If you really wanted to base the tax code on that you would have the poor who use the vast majority of government services paying far more than the rich were.

And no, it is a false narrative that the rich use more government than the poor.

A simple tax code is the only way that it can be fair. There is no measure for government services like access to protected rights, national security and jails. Right now we have the poor paying a larger share of their income than the rich to the federal government. True simplification of the tax code will benefit not only the middle class but the poor as well. It will hose the uber rich as they are the ones that have been manipulating the code to benefit special interests.

It always amazes me that some claim simplifying the tax code will hurt the middle class and poor but then complain that Romney pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. The two concepts are entirely at odds.

But the poor don't use the vast amount of services.

You have to remember that BOTH the poor and rich use things like education. You get given an education, the country gets given an educated worked, and a business gets educated workers. So, education isn't all about the individual, it's about the country and it's about making money.

What about infrastructure? Perhaps a person will use the road twice in a day, maybe a little more sometimes. How much are big corporations using the roads? Probably thousands of times a day to ship products, having employees get to work, having managers going from one place to another. All of this benefits business too.

You think about Iraq, how much did the war and post war period cost the US?

One estimate is $1.1 trillion. Who benefited from this? It certainly wasn't the poor. The poor got shot at and killed or maimed. So who made money? Defense contractors, oil companies and shareholders. So, who should be paying for such things?

Who benefits from the stability of the country? Everyone, but the rich are able to get rich from it, so they should be paying their fair share, which is a larger share than your average Joe.\

Look at Somalia, hard to make money and become rich there. Why? There's no security, there's no decent infrastructure.
In Russia in the 1990s the Mafias were basically taking about 30-40% of a company's income just to provide for security. The smaller people needed it less, they had less to steal from, they had less reason to be a target for the mafias. In the US most companies will pay a lot less for security and get everything else for free, basically.

What fair is isn't easy to come by. However it damn well isn't everyone paying the same percentage.

you don't seem to realize that commercial freight pays far more in taxes and fees than does the average private commuter

just ask a private long haul trucker how many different state and federal fees he pays

What makes you think I don't realize this? Because I didn't say a cow shits out of its ass, you could also assume I didn't realize that, right? Do I have to state everything I know EVERY TIME I mention something, otherwise I get told I don't know it?

you're the one BITCHING about big corporations using roads to move freight while the average idiot only uses a road once or twice a day and those rich corporations don't pay their "FAIR SHARE" whatever that is since you can't say. So you see it's obvious to me that you don't know how much people pay to move freight over the highways

Bitching? No, I'm not bitching, I'm EXPLAINING.

It's obvious to you? Fine, whatever. I'm not interested in these silly games. You want to talk properly, fine, then I'll respond. You want to start a fight, you can fuck off.

 

[eflatminor]

Taxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.

So there's that...

 

[rdean]

Taxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.

So there's that...

You must love the song "Imagine".

 

[AVG-JOE]

Unemployed Tax Accountants will be very happy.

Time to dump your stock in H & R Block and Jackson Hewitt

 

[AVG-JOE]

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

You really cant base tax on service. If you really wanted to base the tax code on that you would have the poor who use the vast majority of government services paying far more than the rich were.

And no, it is a false narrative that the rich use more government than the poor.

A simple tax code is the only way that it can be fair. There is no measure for government services like access to protected rights, national security and jails. Right now we have the poor paying a larger share of their income than the rich to the federal government. True simplification of the tax code will benefit not only the middle class but the poor as well. It will hose the uber rich as they are the ones that have been manipulating the code to benefit special interests.

It always amazes me that some claim simplifying the tax code will hurt the middle class and poor but then complain that Romney pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. The two concepts are entirely at odds.

But the poor don't use the vast amount of services.

You have to remember that BOTH the poor and rich use things like education. You get given an education, the country gets given an educated worked, and a business gets educated workers. So, education isn't all about the individual, it's about the country and it's about making money.

Well, no that really is false. The rich tend to pay for their education while the poor use the government for it. You shifted gears again though - you went from the rich to business.

The fact is that the poor use more government services.

What about infrastructure? Perhaps a person will use the road twice in a day, maybe a little more sometimes. How much are big corporations using the roads? Probably thousands of times a day to ship products, having employees get to work, having managers going from one place to another. All of this benefits business too.

Again conflating 2 concepts.

You think about Iraq, how much did the war and post war period cost the US?

One estimate is $1.1 trillion. Who benefited from this? It certainly wasn't the poor. The poor got shot at and killed or maimed. So who made money? Defense contractors, oil companies and shareholders. So, who should be paying for such things?

Who benefits from the stability of the country? Everyone, but the rich are able to get rich from it, so they should be paying their fair share, which is a larger share than your average Joe.\

Look at Somalia, hard to make money and become rich there. Why? There's no security, there's no decent infrastructure.
In Russia in the 1990s the Mafias were basically taking about 30-40% of a company's income just to provide for security. The smaller people needed it less, they had less to steal from, they had less reason to be a target for the mafias. In the US most companies will pay a lot less for security and get everything else for free, basically.

What fair is isn't easy to come by. However it damn well isn't everyone paying the same percentage.

So now we have moved the goal post from using government services to benefitting from them.

This is the problem with trying to base a tax rate on 'benefit' or 'use' of government - the amount of government that one uses is literally impossible to calculate particularly when you start making broad claims that simply being rich means that you benefit more. Do you want a different tax rate for the person that gets rich trading in international commodities? How about a different tax rate for those that came here after making their fortune somewhere else? In your version of 'fair' you certainly would have to.

Simple would be fair for one reason - it would not allow the wealthy to abuse the tax code to get out of paying taxes.

The rich use private education for their own children. However a business will probably, on the whole, use those educated in schools paid for with tax money. Education isn't just about your own children. Society benefits from an educated workforce. This is why countries that have mass education at higher levels have higher levels of GDP. You can't make money in a country with low levels of education because these people can't do the work needed on things that make a lot of money, like high tech businesses.

You state that it's a "fact" that the poor use more government services. Again, I disagree. You're ignoring huge swaths of things the govt pays for.

Let's look. Number one is healthcare. Who benefits?
Well the rich benefit.
Firstly they benefit from having healthy workers.
Secondly they benefit because of lot of this money will end up going to profits for healthcare companies. Insurance companies take about 7% of healthcare spending, some hospitals make about 25% of the healthcare spending that goes through them, others don't make much money at all, that depends.
Social Security is more likely to go to the poor.
Defense is likely to go mostly to the rich. You have soldiers pay, but that doesn't make up that much, with spending on the defense industry taking up a large chunk of that. However it is the rich that benefit the most from the security the military gives, and the ability to go into places like Iraq and stop OPEC from controlling oil prices and to get shareholders massive amounts of money in oil companies that are taking oil out of Iraqi oilfields.
Non-Defense discretionary is on government departments which it is hard to show how it benefits.

When you get down to state level, you're looking at states giving away huge amounts of money to businesses to pay them off to work in the state itself, and at local level.

We can pay for education or we can pay for incarceration.... one or the other, we're going to pay.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

education should be left to the states since it was not a Constitutionally granted power of the federal government

I agree. The closer the decisions are to the communities that need / want an educated populace the better.

But that doesn't mean We shouldn't support both education and R&D from the federal level.

when the fed gets involved they do not merely support they dictate

 

[Skull Pilot]

As a rule.... simplified tax rates help the rich and force the poor and middle class to make up the difference

Haven't seen a simplified tax plan that doesn't

yeah and it's "fair" to let 10% of earners pay more than the bottom 50% of earners combined

It is fair when that ten percent has 90 percent of the wealth

wealth and income are not the same thing

 

[Skull Pilot]

of course it is.

everyone pays the same percentage of their income period

But does everyone get the same amount of services? No

It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.

no the poor get more services

but hey if you want to go to an a la carte government service menu I'm all for it because it would cut my taxes

No, they don't.

You think with a menu you'd cut taxes? Some might, but the rich certainly wouldn't.

so the people who pay ZERO income tax don't get more from the government than someone in the 39.6% bracket

sorry not buying it

That's not what I said. There are people who get more from the government than they put in. However I wasn't talking about individuals. I was talking about people as a group.

as a group there are far more people on the lower earning tier than on the top tier so the lower tier gets more free government services as a gruop because we all know the bottom 50% of earners pay less taxes than the top 10% as a group

 

[Skull Pilot]

Taxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.

So there's that...

the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his labor

you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it

 

[AVG-JOE]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

education should be left to the states since it was not a Constitutionally granted power of the federal government

I agree. The closer the decisions are to the communities that need / want an educated populace the better.

But that doesn't mean We shouldn't support both education and R&D from the federal level.

when the fed gets involved they do not merely support they dictate

Perhaps..... but it doesn't have to be that way.

True change IS possible. If I ever lose my faith in that, I quit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

education should be left to the states since it was not a Constitutionally granted power of the federal government

I agree. The closer the decisions are to the communities that need / want an educated populace the better.

But that doesn't mean We shouldn't support both education and R&D from the federal level.

when the fed gets involved they do not merely support they dictate

Perhaps..... but it doesn't have to be that way.

True change IS possible. If I ever lose my faith in that, I quit.

I've already quit on politics

 

[AVG-JOE]

Dude... if that were true, you wouldn't be here discussing it

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dude... if that were true, you wouldn't be here discussing it

It's absolutely true

I don't vote anymore I comment on the futility of politics and the ridiculousness of partisanship

 

[rightwinger]

As a rule.... simplified tax rates help the rich and force the poor and middle class to make up the difference

Haven't seen a simplified tax plan that doesn't

yeah and it's "fair" to let 10% of earners pay more than the bottom 50% of earners combined

It is fair when that ten percent has 90 percent of the wealth

wealth and income are not the same thing

It shows where the money is and who is most capable of contributing to our society....also who is benefitting the most

 

[frigidweirdo]

The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.

define "fair share"

Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.

Step one is to establish a fair and simple tax code so we know what our budget will bear... step two is to establish what We, The Peeps are willing to spend on various common needs like defense, infrastructure and education.

education should be left to the states since it was not a Constitutionally granted power of the federal government

I agree. The closer the decisions are to the communities that need / want an educated populace the better.

But that doesn't mean We shouldn't support both education and R&D from the federal level.

when the fed gets involved they do not merely support they dictate

Yes, the federal govt has a lot of issues. The first being that the way people vote means they don't need to care too much about most people. PR would make sure that politicians would be more in tune with the people.