The 'General Welfare' thread

[BenNatuf]

yes, it does supposedly work the same way....one reason why i believe the progressive income tax is not as unfair as some make it out to be...

and i say supposedly for the same reason you do....

mainly because the 'itemized deductions' that have been added over the years plays favoritism in a big way.....

i think if we ever went to a flat tax, the benefit of such simplification would become bastardized just as the progressive system with additional itemized deductions for college, a mortgage no matter the amount, a vacation home, a this and a that etc....

we need to give a standardized deduction and personal exemption for everyone's basic needs, and tax what is above that....this would bring the flat tax rate lower, than it would be if we had every deduction under the sun...where some can play the system, while others can not.

If we must have a federal direct tax on the people, then I would prefer an automated transaction tax, but if I can't have that then a flat tax is the most preferable other option.

The fact is a court has defined income as profit only because the congress does not use its power under the necessary and proper clause to define it for themselves, if we're going to change the code, why not change the metrics? I would prefer this to allowing any exemptions, treat all income the same... period.

My preffered overall option is to apportion the budget to the states and let them collect the taxes in whatever method they see fit.

I can see that, but any flat tax on the very lowest of income workers, who use every dime they make, on putting minimum food in their mouths and a roof over the family's head, will be TOO MUCH and make them rely on more and more other gvt programs to get by, so it defeats the purpose.

Better to not tax the first 10k per person than to take $2 grand out of their 10 grand then to only give $2-4 k back to them through another safety net program....

here you're confusing what should be state government responsibilities with federal government responsibilities. The federal governments tax code (if it has to have one) should concern itself with federal issues and let the states worry about themselves. It is not the federal governments responsibility to make sure anyone has food and housing, those are personal responsibilitiers, and if some fall short its the states that should be holding them up.

In parts of AL a person can probobly live on 10K without any assistance, in parts of NY you can't. These are local issues not federal issues.

And who said it had to be 20%? In all liklihood if we changed the metrics and got the federal government out of the states business it could probobly be as low as 4 or 5%. By doing this we give the states more room to take care of these issues locally through their programs and taxes which would be a much more efficient way of doing it than trying to come up with a one size fits all exemption that in reality doesn't fit anybody.

 

[BenNatuf]

here's my point.

As long as we allow exemptions we invite the congress to abuse the tax code to pander to voters. Considering the median income is around 48K, the congress could allow exemption for the first 49K and bank on getting the votes of the 51% or so of people who make 49K or less... leaving the people who make over 49K holding the bag.

If we're going to tax income pass a law defining income as what comes in (revenue) as opposed to the difference of what comes in and what goes out (profit) and tax that income at a much lower rate with ZERO exemptions and ZERO opportunities for the congress to manipulate it to pick winners and losers in the tax code.

Exactly. In the present tax code, it's too punative on the country's producers and does give leeway to some and not others. It's the government's way of control.

If we want to see this economy soar? Get RID of the prsent system, and go to FLAT or FAIR TAX based upon consumption (commerce). Everyone pays the same percentage no matter what.

The politicians have to wrest their control...before the people FORCE them to.

I'm not a fan of the fair tax, its "family allowance prebates" are redistribution on steroids. A straight sales tax with a lower rate would be preferable, but then why not go all the way to a transaction tax and get the rate REALLY low so it has no impact on buying decissions and is more neutral?

 

[Foxfyre]

yes, it does supposedly work the same way....one reason why i believe the progressive income tax is not as unfair as some make it out to be...

and i say supposedly for the same reason you do....

mainly because the 'itemized deductions' that have been added over the years plays favoritism in a big way.....

i think if we ever went to a flat tax, the benefit of such simplification would become bastardized just as the progressive system with additional itemized deductions for college, a mortgage no matter the amount, a vacation home, a this and a that etc....

we need to give a standardized deduction and personal exemption for everyone's basic needs, and tax what is above that....this would bring the flat tax rate lower, than it would be if we had every deduction under the sun...where some can play the system, while others can not.

If we must have a federal direct tax on the people, then I would prefer an automated transaction tax, but if I can't have that then a flat tax is the most preferable other option.

The fact is a court has defined income as profit only because the congress does not use its power under the necessary and proper clause to define it for themselves, if we're going to change the code, why not change the metrics? I would prefer this to allowing any exemptions, treat all income the same... period.

My preffered overall option is to apportion the budget to the states and let them collect the taxes in whatever method they see fit.

I can see that, but any flat tax on the very lowest of income workers, who use every dime they make, on putting minimum food in their mouths and a roof over the family's head, will be TOO MUCH and make them rely on more and more other gvt programs to get by, so it defeats the purpose.

Better to not tax the first 10k per person than to take $2 grand out of their 10 grand then to only give $2-4 k back to them through another safety net program....

That's what I've been lobbying for. A reasonable standard deduction allowed everybody on say the first $10k and then a flat percentage amount on all income over and above that. That way a couple earning $20k will be taxed on 50% of their income. A family earning $50k will be taxed on 80% of their income. A family earning $100k will be taxed on 90% of their income. A family earning $250k (which was once the definition of 'rich') would be taxed on 99.96% of its income.

 

[The T]

here's my point.

As long as we allow exemptions we invite the congress to abuse the tax code to pander to voters. Considering the median income is around 48K, the congress could allow exemption for the first 49K and bank on getting the votes of the 51% or so of people who make 49K or less... leaving the people who make over 49K holding the bag.

If we're going to tax income pass a law defining income as what comes in (revenue) as opposed to the difference of what comes in and what goes out (profit) and tax that income at a much lower rate with ZERO exemptions and ZERO opportunities for the congress to manipulate it to pick winners and losers in the tax code.

Exactly. In the present tax code, it's too punative on the country's producers and does give leeway to some and not others. It's the government's way of control.

If we want to see this economy soar? Get RID of the prsent system, and go to FLAT or FAIR TAX based upon consumption (commerce). Everyone pays the same percentage no matter what.

The politicians have to wrest their control...before the people FORCE them to.

I'm not a fan of the fair tax, its "family allowance prebates" are redistribution on steroids. A straight sales tax with a lower rate would be preferable, but then why not go all the way to a transaction tax and get the rate REALLY low so it has no impact on buying decissions and is more neutral?

Right now I am for anything that wrests control away from the Gubmint, and the largest tool in thier arsenal for control over the masses.

 

[kaz]

Wanting to pay less of your money to government and taking someone else's money through government is a double standard?

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

No they are not, it does not cost the government anything to not collect taxes. Cost is what you pay OUT, not what you don't take IN.

What you say is only true if you're not a Marxist who believes that everything is owned by the State

 

[BenNatuf]

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

No they are not, it does not cost the government anything to not collect taxes. Cost is what you pay OUT, not what you don't take IN.

What you say is only true if you're not a Marxist who believes that everything is owned by the State

well, yeah... there is that.

 

[kaz]

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

I see, so it was never your money in your wallet, it was the "United States" money. Got it.

Far from it.

You just said it was. You said for the government to not take money from you is at their expense. That is only true if it is their money to take or not take.

 

[The T]

If we must have a federal direct tax on the people, then I would prefer an automated transaction tax, but if I can't have that then a flat tax is the most preferable other option.

The fact is a court has defined income as profit only because the congress does not use its power under the necessary and proper clause to define it for themselves, if we're going to change the code, why not change the metrics? I would prefer this to allowing any exemptions, treat all income the same... period.

My preffered overall option is to apportion the budget to the states and let them collect the taxes in whatever method they see fit.

I can see that, but any flat tax on the very lowest of income workers, who use every dime they make, on putting minimum food in their mouths and a roof over the family's head, will be TOO MUCH and make them rely on more and more other gvt programs to get by, so it defeats the purpose.

Better to not tax the first 10k per person than to take $2 grand out of their 10 grand then to only give $2-4 k back to them through another safety net program....

That's what I've been lobbying for. A reasonable standard deduction allowed everybody on say the first $10k and then a flat percentage amount on all income over and above that. That way a couple earning $20k will be taxed on 50% of their income. A family earning $50k will be taxed on 80% of their income. A family earning $100k will be taxed on 90% of their income. A family earning $250k (which was once the definition of 'rich') would be taxed on 99.96% of its income.

I'm for doing away with any plan that supposes to put people in 'classes'.

I am for a tax based upon Commerce...Spending, activity in the economy. Income tax of ALL stripes must GO.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can see that, but any flat tax on the very lowest of income workers, who use every dime they make, on putting minimum food in their mouths and a roof over the family's head, will be TOO MUCH and make them rely on more and more other gvt programs to get by, so it defeats the purpose.

Better to not tax the first 10k per person than to take $2 grand out of their 10 grand then to only give $2-4 k back to them through another safety net program....

That's what I've been lobbying for. A reasonable standard deduction allowed everybody on say the first $10k and then a flat percentage amount on all income over and above that. That way a couple earning $20k will be taxed on 50% of their income. A family earning $50k will be taxed on 80% of their income. A family earning $100k will be taxed on 90% of their income. A family earning $250k (which was once the definition of 'rich') would be taxed on 99.96% of its income.

I'm for doing away with any plan that supposes to put people in 'classes'.

I am for a tax based upon Commerce...Spending, activity in the economy. Income tax of ALL stripes must GO.

LOL. I have objections to a sales tax system for probably some of the same reasons you object to an income tax. The way I see the income tax being structured though would do away entirely with classes and that part of class warfare. Once we make it illegal for the federal government to use the people's money for any form of benevolence or charity, the class wars will be over.

But it's all good. I think this is the first time you and I have had a difference of opinion on a major government policy or process. Could make for an interesting debate.

 

[BenNatuf]

That's what I've been lobbying for. A reasonable standard deduction allowed everybody on say the first $10k and then a flat percentage amount on all income over and above that. That way a couple earning $20k will be taxed on 50% of their income. A family earning $50k will be taxed on 80% of their income. A family earning $100k will be taxed on 90% of their income. A family earning $250k (which was once the definition of 'rich') would be taxed on 99.96% of its income.

I'm for doing away with any plan that supposes to put people in 'classes'.

I am for a tax based upon Commerce...Spending, activity in the economy. Income tax of ALL stripes must GO.

LOL. I have objections to a sales tax system for probably some of the same reasons you object to an income tax. The way I see the income tax being structured though would do away entirely with classes and that part of class warfare. Once we make it illegal for the federal government to use the people's money for any form of benevolence or charity, the class wars will be over.

But it's all good. I think this is the first time you and I have had a difference of opinion on a major government policy or process. Could make for an interesting debate.

Have you ever looked at a transaction tax?