Taxes!

[AVG-JOE]

If the citizens of California wanted to fund a given social program, such as free college education for all its citizens, and the citizens of Tennessee only want to fund public education through high school...

But isn't that the way it is now? I am not aware of a federal mandate that says states must provide free college education, nor do I believe that any federal taxes are funding free college education.

On the other hand, would you advocate states deciding how much education they would provide. Maybe Ohio would just say "No education for anyone unless you can afford private school". Sure it would be the states right to do it, but do you think it would benefit the country as a whole to have uneducated Ohioans running amok?

How much education do you need to run a mok? Those things practically run themselves.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Um, because the fewer taxes one must pay, the more economy-stimulating money one has to spend?

How does spending your "economy-stimulating money" at Walmart help purchase new math textbooks at NYC Public School 133 or help Gertrude Wilson in Topeka, Kansas get her portable oxygen?

ROFL...

Oh that's a real stumper... Allow Walmart and other book sellers to sell those text books... and require students to bring'em with'em.

Problem solved...

So much for smaller, less intrusive government.....

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have an idea--let us eliminate taxes all together!!

Look, deficits does not matter. And the Debt matters even less. The reason is because Government is the problem. So eliminate government, eliminate taxes. Then we would truly have a conservative state where every man is truly resonsible for his own well being. Now if you wish to be "liberal" about how to live and give your hard earned assets away in order to be humane, then be our guests. Just remember, if it is true that reality has a liberal bias then SURVIVAL is a conservative meme!

I already drive a Jeep, in part because the roads are not maintained to a standard that I feel comfortable driving the Bentley on many of them.

No government =

No roads
No bridges
No air traffic control
No port inspection
No courts for conflict resolution
No defense
No food safety standards
No Border Patrol
No work place safety standards
No product safety standards
No social safety net for disabled workers with cheap bosses
No .........


​

Wow. We take a LOT for granted in this country!

Perhaps we should think about replacing piss-poor government with better government instead of no government.

-Joe

 

[edthecynic]

One idea: Do a way with income tax and have a national sales tax instead. That would be a far more fair system.

The Fair Tax! Replace Corporate, Income, Capital and the payroll tax with the fair tax!

Would you two support replacing all taxes with a Corporate Tax?

Corporations pass their taxes on to the consumer, so all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, but I have found no Fair Taxer supports corporate taxes. This begs the question, if a Fair Tax is good why are corporate taxes bad?

Corporate income taxes are on just that; corporate income or should we say corporate net income.

Most corporations pay out the majority of their profits to shareholders. so in that sense taxing what's left would result in a lower total income tax revenue.

How much money do you expect to get from a company that pays out the majority of its profit to shareholders or otherwise invests that money in R&D and capital expenditures?

It is far better not to tax corporations which would allow more money to be paid out to shareholders which would result in more tax revenue even if marginal tax rates were reduced

You could tax Corporations before they pay dividends. And taxes on shareholders are lower than taxes on wages already, plus there are no payroll taxes on shareholders. It's the wage earner who is overtaxed not the Capital Gains Tycoons.

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

 

[auditor0007]

If the citizens of California wanted to fund a given social program, such as free college education for all its citizens, and the citizens of Tennessee only want to fund public education through high school...

But isn't that the way it is now? I am not aware of a federal mandate that says states must provide free college education, nor do I believe that any federal taxes are funding free college education.

On the other hand, would you advocate states deciding how much education they would provide. Maybe Ohio would just say "No education for anyone unless you can afford private school". Sure it would be the states right to do it, but do you think it would benefit the country as a whole to have uneducated Ohioans running amok?

So that's the problem with this state I'm living in.

 

[edthecynic]

Might want to do a little research on this. The worst recession since the Great Depression was from the Carter years. I have stated this repeately in other theads. The left just seems to ignore that fact. Reagan inherited the recession...and he did get us out of it. You are the one with the revisionist history. Just sayin....

You might want to do a little research on that. The 1980 Carter recession was one of the shortest, only 6 months. The Reagan recession of 1981 - 1982 was 16 months long, the worst since the Great Depression and just a little worse than the 1973 - 1975 Nixon/Ford Recession.
Notice how the CON$ blame their recessions on what ever Democrat came before or after them. The Reagan Recession was Carter's and the Bush Depression is Obama's. Just saying....

Your a revisionist...that's plain to see. Carter's was short?.... your the one on LSD. Need to come up with more than that. Where is the depression with Bush's recession...oh yeah it was revised by Eddie

The brainwashed still believe their programming even after being exposed to the truth.

Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

 

[garyd]

You are going to have to define what you mean by effectively especially at the federal level. The majority of the complaints here have to do with Federal spending. For me an effective federal government is one in whcih the Federal government is responsible for basically two things interstate transportation and defending the shores from whatever overseas asshat wants to come in and take what we've worked our butts off to maintain. The rest of the crap the feds do can be handled and is handled at the state and local level quite effectively with some exceptions. This alone would reduce the need for federal taxes by 2/3rds.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Would you two support replacing all taxes with a Corporate Tax?

Corporations pass their taxes on to the consumer, so all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, but I have found no Fair Taxer supports corporate taxes. This begs the question, if a Fair Tax is good why are corporate taxes bad?

Corporate income taxes are on just that; corporate income or should we say corporate net income.

Most corporations pay out the majority of their profits to shareholders. so in that sense taxing what's left would result in a lower total income tax revenue.

How much money do you expect to get from a company that pays out the majority of its profit to shareholders or otherwise invests that money in R&D and capital expenditures?

It is far better not to tax corporations which would allow more money to be paid out to shareholders which would result in more tax revenue even if marginal tax rates were reduced

You could tax Corporations before they pay dividends. And taxes on shareholders are lower than taxes on wages already, plus there are no payroll taxes on shareholders. It's the wage earner who is overtaxed not the Capital Gains Tycoons.

Share Holders do not pay capital gains. they pay income tax on any distribution they receive. Capital gains refers to the difference in purchase price and sale price of an asset.

Tycoons as you call them who receive income from dividends or profit distributions do not liquidate their holdings for income therefore capital gains do not apply.

Yes no payroll taxes are paid but these people aren't going to be collecting SS anyway so why should they pay in?

BTW the majority of my income from my S corp is in the form of distributions on which I pay no payroll taxes and I am not "tycoon"

 

[auditor0007]

I have an idea--let us eliminate taxes all together!!

Look, deficits does not matter. And the Debt matters even less. The reason is because Government is the problem. So eliminate government, eliminate taxes. Then we would truly have a conservative state where every man is truly resonsible for his own well being. Now if you wish to be "liberal" about how to live and give your hard earned assets away in order to be humane, then be our guests. Just remember, if it is true that reality has a liberal bias then SURVIVAL is a conservative meme!

I already drive a Jeep, in part because the roads are not maintained to a standard that I feel comfortable driving the Bentley on many of them.

No government =

No roads
No bridges
No air traffic control
No port inspection
No courts for conflict resolution
No defense
No food safety standards
No Border Patrol
No work place safety standards
No product safety standards
No social safety net for disabled workers with cheap bosses
No .........


​

Wow. We take a LOT for granted in this country!

Perhaps we should think about replacing piss-poor government with better government instead of no government.

-Joe

Joe, you are just too cynical. You damn well know the private sector could more effectively pay for all of these things.

 

[garyd]

Given that there was no break between the So-called Carter recession and the beginning of the so-called REagan recession except in the minds of leftist idiots who think a reduction in tax rates for 82 can have much of an impact before 1983 when 1982's taxes are paid and refunds received.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Um, because the fewer taxes one must pay, the more economy-stimulating money one has to spend?

Um, what's the difference when taxed money is distributed to welfare moms, city services, etc? A rich man is more than likely to hold onto his money more so than a welfare recipient. Therefore, the money wouldn't necessarily be pumped back into the economy under your proposal.

No, actually, rich people are NOT more inclined to horde money. They just spend it on other things. Both rich and poor spend their money on necessities, but rich people ALSO invest their money, which does more to stimulate the economy than simple everyday shopping and bill-paying, and they put it into savings. For those who don't know (and it kinda scares me how many don't know), money put into various types of savings doesn't just sit in a vault somewhere. The institutions who maintain those accounts invest that money in other things.

So there's a big difference between having your money taxed away and spent and handed out by bureaucracies, and keeping it yourself, completely aside from the fact that it's immoral to force one person to subsidize another person he doesn't even know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You both make valid points, but..............


I still don't see anyone with a good plan on how America can effectively run on no/less taxes.

Well, there's always Article I of the US Constitution. That's a good foundation for how to effectively run a country on fewer taxes. If the federal government was rolled back to just those things it is actually authorized by the Constitution to do, it would require a whole lot less tax money, while still covering the basic things that a federal government should be doing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the government were smaller and less involved in people's lives, wouldn't they need less of our money to begin with? Isn't the principle behind the US Constitution ... to limit and restrict government? When did it become the government's job to run everything?

We both agree that the government should be smaller. We differ on a smaller government collecting less taxes. If the government was smaller, the tax rate should remain the same because we are only receiving the bare minimum on public services.

And what, precisely, do you think you SHOULD be receiving on public services?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Um, because the fewer taxes one must pay, the more economy-stimulating money one has to spend?

How does spending your "economy-stimulating money" at Walmart help purchase new math textbooks at NYC Public School 133 or help Gertrude Wilson in Topeka, Kansas get her portable oxygen?

Why do I want to help purchase new math textbooks at any school in NY? Isn't that NY's concern? And what the hell do I care if Gertrude in Kansas gets her oxygen? It's HER oxygen; let HER worry about it.

For the record, though, WalMart employs people who pay taxes with your "economy-stimulating money", and then they use the rest of their money to support OTHER businesses, which employ people who pay taxes, and so on, and so on.

What's hard to understand about money circulation supporting the economy, thus producing more tax revenue?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It must really piss you off at how much the health insurance people and pharmaceutical companies have inflated the cost of healthcare in the US. 10% is nothing by comparison.

ROFL... The Costs of government regulatory mandates are the source of healthcare inflation... and here ya are implying a desire to have them take over the whole schmear...

LOL..> Funny stuff.

Government has caused inflated cost of health care? You're full of it.

No, he's right. Government is the single largest payer of healthcare costs in the nation. That means that health care costs are geared toward the government, not toward smaller consumers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How does spending your "economy-stimulating money" at Walmart help purchase new math textbooks at NYC Public School 133 or help Gertrude Wilson in Topeka, Kansas get her portable oxygen?

ROFL...

Oh that's a real stumper... Allow Walmart and other book sellers to sell those text books... and require students to bring'em with'em.

Problem solved...

So much for smaller, less intrusive government.....

-Joe

They already require students to have the books, you know. And many school districts require the students to buy the books at the beginning of the school year, just from the school bookstore instead of a regular store. At the end of the year, if the kid brings the book back in usable condition, he can sell it back. Otherwise, the school takes the money he paid at the beginning and uses it to replace the book he trashed.

This isn't really different from what happens every semester at college, either, so what's your problem?

 

[Red Walker]

I see so many of you on here post that we are taxed too much, the government needs to stay out of our lives, you don't want to pay taxes for school since you don't have kids, that Americans are overtaxed and that taxes hurt economic growth......and so on..............



So, I would love to see your plan on how this country can effectively run on less, or no, taxes on all levels. From cigarette, liquor taxes, to property and income tax, etc.

Thanks, I think it will be interesting to see all of your ideas on how to better run this country with less taxes.

Well.. I have no problem with taxes in general. As a society, we have generally agreed that we need federal, state, and local governments to represent our collective interests globally and domestically. We need government to build and maintain infrastructure. We need police, fire protection, and a judicial system.

I think what you'll find the main argument from most reasonable people is just what is the extent of government responsibility?

Secondarily, how shall we fund the necessary resources?

I recommend and support The Fair Tax.

fairtax.org

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have an idea--let us eliminate taxes all together!!

Look, deficits does not matter. And the Debt matters even less. The reason is because Government is the problem. So eliminate government, eliminate taxes. Then we would truly have a conservative state where every man is truly resonsible for his own well being. Now if you wish to be "liberal" about how to live and give your hard earned assets away in order to be humane, then be our guests. Just remember, if it is true that reality has a liberal bias then SURVIVAL is a conservative meme!

I already drive a Jeep, in part because the roads are not maintained to a standard that I feel comfortable driving the Bentley on many of them.

No government =

No roads
No bridges
No air traffic control
No port inspection
No courts for conflict resolution
No defense
No food safety standards
No Border Patrol
No work place safety standards
No product safety standards
No social safety net for disabled workers with cheap bosses
No .........


​

Wow. We take a LOT for granted in this country!

Perhaps we should think about replacing piss-poor government with better government instead of no government.

-Joe

Joe, you are just too cynical. You damn well know the private sector could more effectively pay for all of these things.

The private sector is supposed to pay for it all. It's not like the government makes any money on its own... *

The government is simply supposed to coordinate things so that the roads meet up in spite of being built across the property lines of several rich dudes.

* Why is it such a terrible idea for the government (We, The People) to collectively own dividend paying shares of stock in various American Corporations, assuming that they are quality companies that have stood the test of time?

If Obama wants to invest our hard-earned tax dollars into the economy, why not buy and sell dividend paying American stocks?

Every dollar in dividends from A T & T would be a dollar that YOU don't have to pay in taxes!

Wouldn't it be cool if we could get to a point where congress could be paid $1.00 per year plus 1/535th of half the increase in the budget surplus over last years total?

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

ROFL...

Oh that's a real stumper... Allow Walmart and other book sellers to sell those text books... and require students to bring'em with'em.

Problem solved...

So much for smaller, less intrusive government.....

-Joe

They already require students to have the books, you know. And many school districts require the students to buy the books at the beginning of the school year, just from the school bookstore instead of a regular store. At the end of the year, if the kid brings the book back in usable condition, he can sell it back. Otherwise, the school takes the money he paid at the beginning and uses it to replace the book he trashed.

This isn't really different from what happens every semester at college, either, so what's your problem?

No problem here, Cecillie - Just surprise that Publidude is advocating the government requiring anything not involving religious indoctrination.

-Joe