quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
But your example is a one time (sales not income) tax that doesn't come close to paying for the basics. In fact RE and property taxes do come closest to a flat tax as a rate on value but few if any other taxes do and couldn't. Many seniors don't pay any RE taxes.
Then on top of that, most local govts still need to float bonds (borrow) to pay for schools and bldgs.

A consumption tax would cover everything; from housing to cocktails at your local watering hole. It would be levied on everything (except food, as I've seen in some plans) so that the "poor" guy, buying a $17,000 Hyundai would pay less than the "rich" guy who's more likely to buy the $60,000 Volvo. They'd pay the same percentage (fair) but not the same amount.
ETA: When they go to the gas pump, the "poor" guy would pay a sales tax on 12 gallons of fuel while John J. Gotrocks would pay on 28-32 gallons. [/edit]
No loopholes for the "rich" (who can afford accountants).
So, to actually ask, this time: Are you for "equal protection under the law" or are you one who just wants to screw the "rich" as you define them?
Michael

Well I believe I stated my case as far as justification for a higher rate on equal protection for higher wealth. But your example is a tax on consumption not income.
Either I am 'consuming' a car or gas for it. My insurance co. will charge me a much higher collision premium for the Volvo than the Hyundai because the Volvo...is more to lose, yet I am the same driver for both.
I am sure the gas example is a non-sequitur as we both pay the same tax on the same gal. no matter how many we buy.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The Pentagon protects my $1000's and [his] billion$ equally. The police and the courts do the same. So the higher the potential loss...the higher the tax.

quote:

We both pay the same tax on the same gallon of gas and the same piece of meat. He doesn't pay a higher sales tax or car tax or gas tax because he is richer.
Consumption is a choice and we all pay the same amount of tax on our choices. Income taxes are not a choice. we are all subject to the tax tables according to our adjusted taxable income.
As far as the underground cash market, yes they pay no income tax but do pay the very same sales tax on consuming the same things.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The Pentagon protects my $1000's and [his] billion$ equally. The police and the courts do the same. So the higher the potential loss...the higher the tax.

But, it's not any higher cost to protect the billion $.

quote:

We both pay the same tax on the same gallon of gas and the same piece of meat. He doesn't pay a higher sales tax or car tax or gas tax because he is richer.
Consumption is a choice and we all pay the same amount of tax on our choices. Income taxes are not a choice. we are all subject to the tax tables according to our adjusted taxable income.
As far as the underground cash market, yes they pay no income tax but do pay the very same sales tax on consuming the same things.

And, they shouldn't pay a higher tax for the same stuff. But, a rich guy will more likely buy a better, more expensive cut of meat, so there is a higher tax on that. The rich guy might buy the premium gas, so there will be a higher tax on that.

The "underground cash market" (I really like how you put that; nice job!) are getting away with not paying income taxes, and you're okay with it, by phrasing it that way. The way to get them to pay more of their "fair share" would be to tax only consumption, so when they consume, they are paying, regardless of whether or not their income was legal and/or reported.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I believe we can all agree that the current tax system of the United States is not sustainable and is broken. There has been lots of debate on how to fix this problem - increase the taxes on the rich and business; value added, flat and fair taxation.

Increase taxes -

I don’t believe this is a viable option. When you increase taxes on the rich and business all you are doing is burdening the poor even more. To make up for their “losses,” they increase the price of goods and services to cover the increase in taxes.

Value Added taxes -

Value added taxes basically shifts the tax burden to point of sales business. It provides that you take the total amount of sales for a given period and reduce it by a percentage equal to the tax and pay it to the Treasury.

Flat taxes -

I believe this is one viable option. One tax rate (I believe the current thinking is somewhere around 17%) that covers all income. The rich can’t use their tax lawyers to find the loopholes that reduce their tax burden and the poor are going to pay taxes anyway to cover what the rich don’t pay. This option also eliminates the need for social security, capital gains, and other taxes.

Fair taxes -

The other viable option. This is a national sales tax on goods and services paid at the point of service. It prebates the poor up to the national poverty level to aid in their tax burden.

When you have either a value added or flat tax system, when you walk into a store and negotiate your price of the goods and services being purchased, that is the price. No additional taxes added.

Fair taxes add sales tax at time of purchase of the goods and services. Not a bad plan, but the rich don’t buy as much stuff as the rest of us (my opinion) expressed as a percentage of their gross income.

I suggest that we change our tax code to a flat tax. Everyone pays their share. No exceptions. No deductions. No sliding scale payment scheme. No incentives. No tax season. It all comes out of our paycheck at the time we receive it and no papers to file. Everyone pays their fair share of the burden.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The Pentagon protects my $1000's and [his] billion$ equally. The police and the courts do the same. So the higher the potential loss...the higher the tax.

But, it's not any higher cost to protect the billion $.

quote:

We both pay the same tax on the same gallon of gas and the same piece of meat. He doesn't pay a higher sales tax or car tax or gas tax because he is richer.
Consumption is a choice and we all pay the same amount of tax on our choices. Income taxes are not a choice. we are all subject to the tax tables according to our adjusted taxable income.
As far as the underground cash market, yes they pay no income tax but do pay the very same sales tax on consuming the same things.

And, they shouldn't pay a higher tax for the same stuff. But, a rich guy will more likely buy a better, more expensive cut of meat, so there is a higher tax on that. The rich guy might buy the premium gas, so there will be a higher tax on that.
The "underground cash market" (I really like how you put that; nice job!) are getting away with not paying income taxes, and you're okay with it, by phrasing it that way. The way to get them to pay more of their "fair share" would be to tax only consumption, so when they consume, they are paying, regardless of whether or not their income was legal and/or reported.

But the billion$ is a greater risk of loss. The protections of society are a collective agreement just as an insurance co. invests a pool of premiums to cover their low risks and their high risks. But they charge a higher premium to those whose risk is more.

quote:

What is or is not more or less likely to be consumed. doesn't apply here. I am talking income taxes and as a premium paid for the protection of greater wealth and the opportunity and freedom for that to result in even greater wealth.

quote:

Freedom isn't free we are constantly told. The protection of that freedom and the accumulation of vast wealth allowed, also isn't free, so from those...a higher premium is due.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Get RID of Estate taxes!!!!!
State and Federal.
No Estate taxes AT ALL....unless of course, they (the inheritors) opt to sell...then....20%.
50% above 5 million is thievery. Your parents paid taxes on that entire asset...to force the next generation (whether a working farm or stock in Apple Computer) is simply theft....some amount is appropriate to benefit the next generation and help out (and we should all be focused on those that follow, in some fashion) but....50% is NOT the appropriate number, and it shouldn't be forced on the generation that didn't earn it (and probably doesn't have a reasonable clue how to properly manipulate said asset) because, to force them to hold that asset only makes asset sales more valuable (and more profitable to the Treasury) as opposed to "oh shit....we have to pay 3 million bucks by January....WTF do we do now???".
WTF do they do now? They sell...at fire sale prices....which hurts the Treasury and hurts the recipients....only denigrating the values received.
Ultimately debasing the country's asset base via value received.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I thought the jest of this thread joe was federal income tax... this is what i am talking about anyway.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Get RID of Estate taxes!!!!!
State and Federal.
No Estate taxes AT ALL....unless of course, they (the inheritors) opt to sell...then....20%.
50% above 5 million is thievery. Your parents paid taxes on that entire asset...to force the next generation (whether a working farm or stock in Apple Computer) is simply theft....some amount is appropriate to benefit the next generation and help out (and we should all be focused on those that follow, in some fashion) but....50% is NOT the appropriate number, and it shouldn't be forced on the generation that didn't earn it (and probably doesn't have a reasonable clue how to properly manipulate said asset) because, to force them to hold that asset only makes asset sales more valuable (and more profitable to the Treasury) as opposed to "oh shit....we have to pay 3 million bucks by January....WTF do we do now???".
WTF do they do now? They sell...at fire sale prices....which hurts the Treasury and hurts the recipients....only denigrating the values received.
Ultimately debasing the country's asset base via value received.

What's even more heinous is transferring the original valuation of the asset when it's inherited. If I buy something for $1 now and it goes up in value to $100K, when it's sold (at my leisure, which is important), I'd pay taxes on that $999,999. If I die right before I was thinking about selling and will it to my son, it's going to be valued at $100K. Even if the tax is only 40%, he'll have to come up with $40K right off the top. But, if he doesn't have $40K, he'll have to sell. Now, if he gets the current valuation as his initial basis, he'd not have to pay any taxes on whatever the sale is going to be because he'd be selling "at a loss." But, what government wants to do is transfer that original $1 as the initial valuation, so not only would my son have to sell for less than what the actual value of the asset is (fire sales tend to have good values), but he'd have to pay the $40K, and the taxes on the capital gains, even though he's actually realized a negative gain. If worst comes to worse, he could end up selling or $50K and still not have enough to cover the capital gains taxes and estate taxes.

Not only did the original dead person own that asset, but he should have the right to transfer his property to whomever he wants when he dies. It's almost as if we have to pay rent for the property we amass, especially if we do it legally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

It's THIS simple.....want a fair tax?

Here's how it works:

Everyone pays 5%...period.....(paid for entirely by the below).

Those that pay SSI tax (labor) should not have to watch those who don't earn their income hourly (increase in value in real estate/stocks/etc.)....not paying any SSI tax (which currently is in fact, the case).

ALL INCOME whether earned via labor/sale of stock/Real Estate/sock puppets....pays SSI on income earned in any fashion.

And to cut off SSI taxes at 130 grand or whatever it is now (near there) is ridiculous.

Up to $350,000.00 income (indexed), everyone pays SSI.

By doing so, you could cut the current rate from essentially 15% or so (I think it's currently 14.76%, split between employer and employee), down to 9% (or 6%)....fuck....put the new rate entirely on the employer....it'd still be cheaper for the employer...less than 10% of the employers would object because it'd be an automatic bump for their staff (without costing them a dime)....giving those that need a break (lower income types) a very nice (spendable...every week in their paychecks) bump and....at a top rate of 350K, it wouldn't hurt anyone at the top. Moreover....at 6% (paid for entirely by the employer) it would have LESS than zero effect on their income and indeed, increase their income (up to 350K) by well over 7% cumulative.

Get RID of Estate taxes!!!!!

State and Federal.

No Estate taxes AT ALL....unless of course, they (the inheritors) opt to sell...then....20% on the new asset value (Dad bought it for 200 grand....it's now worth $1,400,000. You pay 20% of the sale that ends up at 1.4 less 280K.....you still end up with 1.12 mill....not a bad deal, all things considered). And if they opt to keep the asset....no taxes (until of course...they opt to sell).

50% above 5 million is pure, unadulterated thievery.

Your parents humped their brains out and paid taxes on that entire asset...to force the next generation (whether a working farm or via stock in Apple Computer) is simply theft....some amount is appropriate to benefit the next generation and help out (and we should all be focused on those that follow, in some fashion) but....50% is NOT the appropriate number, and it shouldn't be forced on the generation that didn't earn it (and they likely doen't have a reasonable clue how to properly manipulate said asset) and, to force them to hold that asset only makes asset sales more valuable (and more profitable to the Treasury) as opposed to "oh shit....we have to pay 3 million bucks by January....WTF do we do now???".

WTF do they do now? They sell...at fire sale prices....which hurts the Treasury and only hurts the recipients all the more....only denigrating the values received (by the Treasury). Putting the recipients in a total financial panic.

Ultimately debasing the country's asset base via value received.

Thanks to this tax method.....GDP just rose by 1/3 of a point.

Next.....those that earn above the median, should be taxed at an additional 10% (net).

Above that (say....5 times the median) should be taxed at an additional 10%......30% tops (plus SSI at 350K or less).

The SSI change alone, would triple the SSI tax revenue while lowering the base rate to every taxpayer by 35 - 55%.

The rates would mandate that EVERYONE pays something (meaning that EVERYONE was in the game), while giving the poorest something they could actually spend...in their weekly paycheck...easily compensating for any increase via the 5%.

(You're welcome).

(If asked, I will not run).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The Pentagon protects my $1000's and [his] billion$ equally. The police and the courts do the same. So the higher the potential loss...the higher the tax.

But, it's not any higher cost to protect the billion $.

quote:

We both pay the same tax on the same gallon of gas and the same piece of meat. He doesn't pay a higher sales tax or car tax or gas tax because he is richer.
Consumption is a choice and we all pay the same amount of tax on our choices. Income taxes are not a choice. we are all subject to the tax tables according to our adjusted taxable income.
As far as the underground cash market, yes they pay no income tax but do pay the very same sales tax on consuming the same things.

And, they shouldn't pay a higher tax for the same stuff. But, a rich guy will more likely buy a better, more expensive cut of meat, so there is a higher tax on that. The rich guy might buy the premium gas, so there will be a higher tax on that.
The "underground cash market" (I really like how you put that; nice job!) are getting away with not paying income taxes, and you're okay with it, by phrasing it that way. The way to get them to pay more of their "fair share" would be to tax only consumption, so when they consume, they are paying, regardless of whether or not their income was legal and/or reported.

But the billion$ is a greater risk of loss. The protections of society are a collective agreement just as an insurance co. invests a pool of premiums to cover their low risks and their high risks. But they charge a higher premium to those whose risk is more.

No. It's not a greater risk of loss. Is the same risk, but for a higher loss. But - and this is the important part - it's not a loss for the government. It's a loss for the individual. If the individual decides that the level government affords everyone isn't enough for him, then it's on him to get more protection. It's not government's job to protect everything for everyone. Look at FDIC. It only covers up to , what? $125K, no matter how much you have in there?

quote:

What is or is not more or less likely to be consumed. doesn't apply here. I am talking income taxes and as a premium paid for the protection of greater wealth and the opportunity and freedom for that to result in even greater wealth.

The opportunity is there for everyone. So, everyone gets to pay the same. Some don't take advantage of the opportunity. That's on them. We don't guarantee equal results, either.

quote:

Freedom isn't free we are constantly told. The protection of that freedom and the accumulation of vast wealth allowed, also isn't free, so from those...a higher premium is due.

No, it isn't. The exact same service is provided to everyone, so everyone gets to pay for it. The rich guy isn't getting a better service than the poor guy. If he was, then, sure, he should pay extra. It doesn't matter if he has $1 oor $1B. He's getting the same level of protection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Well, Des...except for the dollar ("basis") you're correct.
In inherited properties, the asset is inherited at the new (current value) basis....what it was worth on the day when the previous owner (Dad/Grampa) no longer had control which, as some may not know is...the second (death) when he relinquished control of said asset via his demise.
2 bucks....12 katillion.....none of the basis matters on inherited stuff (just went through it...got it all dialed in).
I spent 3 months trying to figure out the basis (what he paid)...in the end...the feds don't care what he paid...it's all about current value (what did I know?).
Basis doesn't come in to play. Ever.
Unfortunately, the inheritors will pay 55% (federal) over and above values that exceed 5 million (I think that's been indexed....not sure), and in some states (Washington is one) you also pay an additional graduated (up to 19.77%) tax on the first 2 million.
It is pure thievery.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Sorry man you are wrong on several counts. I am talking about the higher loss as you say is a higher financial risk and as in any insurance, is a transfer of that risk. The protection I speak of is national defense and national law enforcement and courts and that is a govt. responsibility. FDA, USDA all of those institutions responsible for protecting society at large.

quote:

The FDIC protects deposits up to $200K now and should not be covered without those with $200K also paying for that insurance which they don't. ALL taxpayers collectively insure that fund. SO at the federal level those that earn and have more have a higher financial risk.

quote:

The rich guy IS having his riches protected just as you and I and the higher potential loss should mean a higher insurance premium.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Well, Des...except for the dollar ("basis") you're correct.
In inherited properties, the asset is inherited at the new (current value) basis....what it was worth on the day when the previous owner (Dad/Grampa) no longer had control which, as some may not know is...the second (death) when he relinquished control of said asset via his demise.
2 bucks....12 katillion.....none of the basis matters on inherited stuff (just went through it...got it all dialed in).
I spent 3 months trying to figure out the basis (what he paid)...in the end...the feds don't care what he paid...it's all about current value (what did I know?).
Basis doesn't come in to play. Ever.
Unfortunately, the inheritors will pay 55% (federal) over and above values that exceed 5 million (I think that's been indexed....not sure), and in some states (Washington is one) you also pay an additional graduated (up to 19.77%) tax on the first 2 million.
It is pure thievery.

Except that one of the things the President wants to change is that basis value. Inherited assets would carry the basis value from the now-passed to the inheritor. That's not current law, but he wants it to become current law.