I saw this quote:
Douglas Shulman says he uses a hired tax preparer because the U.S. tax code is so complex. That's a bad sign. He's the I.R.S. commissioner.

my comment: what about ordinary folks like you and me?

It is ridiculous. But it does keep a lot of people employed. :D

All tax systems seem to be extremely complex. Probably as a result of trying to stop people exploiting loopholes

It has been my experience that when the tax code is altered to plug one loophole it genrally opens another. The problem is the new loophole is only of use for those with very large salaries.

It has been my experience that when the tax code is altered to plug one loophole it genrally opens another. The problem is the new loophole is only of use for those with very large salaries.
This creates well paid employment for tax advisors:D

Just remember that to anyone in government, "an acceptable level of unemployment" simply means "I've still got my job." The I.R.S. tries to assure that their department does not reach an unacceptable level of unemployment.

As to the craziness of the tax code, it came about when some genius got the idea to use tax codes to motivate social reforms by giving tax breaks to things they thought were good ideas and tax hikes to slow down those things that were bad ideas. But of course, the Senate is a pot with 100 cooks. And their recipe is about what you would expect for anything done by a committee of 100. A recipe for disaster.

As to the craziness of the tax code, it came about when some genius got the idea to use tax codes to motivate social reforms by giving tax breaks to things they thought were good ideas and tax hikes to slow down those things that were bad ideas.

You make it sound like that is a terrible thing, but it really is a useful tool of government. Army recruitment low? Make the signing bonuses higher. People have a nasty habit that costs millions upon millions of healthcare dollars/year? Raise the taxes on cigarettes.

Granted, some of the things the government supports/hinders many people will take exception to. Overall, I think that government involvement is a net gain for lower middle class - poor people and a hindrance to upper middle class - rich people. That's why every election we get to hear about the "size" of government from the Republicans.

I listened to a financial advisor this morning on tv and he explained everytime the government spends more money (especially when it really does not have it), it is really taking money away from the private sector.

The complexity of tax laws are such that, no matter how consciencious, careful and honest you are, you are almost sure to be in violation of many of them. Maybe that's the purpose!

I listened to a financial advisor this morning on tv and he explained everytime the government spends more money (especially when it really does not have it), it is really taking money away from the private sector.

Yes and no. What really takes money away from the private sector is hording by the ultra rich.

Got that one smack on, Thales. Money at rest does no one much good. Money must be in circulation to have a stimulative effect on the economy. Money doesn't circulate if no one buys anything. Money in the bank, particularly when there is a low banking interest rate, is a cushion but nothing else. Granted, I don't want to give up my cushion, but after a certain point, it is better spent than saved. Finding that balance point is the hard trick.

The complexity of tax laws are such that, no matter how consciencious, careful and honest you are, you are almost sure to be in violation of many of them. Maybe that's the purpose!
You've got it:D Stops people complaining too much to the authorities in case they check every obscure rule has been complied with

I always wondered why we couldn't have just one tax.

VAT or goods and services tax as they call it in Oz.

Allow governments to tweak the levels but not the fundamental concept..

Tax the rich by raising the level on posh goods
No tax on widescale necessities.

How much you pay in tax will therefore be a measure of your profligacy and efficiency?

Sounds simple to me.

While I'm at it
No private education
Meritocratic higher education for all although maybe limited in places according to job demand. ( you can't pay everyone to be a lawyer )
No denominational schooling
And get rid of catchment areas for school instead ranking should be 1st sibling 2nd distance to school.

My conclusion - people just want to be treated fairly and equitably.

the complexity of the tax code and other things in the USA is what keeps capitalism going. Seriously. If it wasn't complex, that would mean that the two parties aren't arguing anymore about what's best, and that's NOT good.

Quite frankly, I get sick and tired of the power-driven politicians trying to implement tax laws that take from people who work their a**es off trying to make themselves and giving it to the rest of the people. I will never support that. It promotes laziness, overwhelmingly, and most people that I know also know that if you give a person a cookie out of the cookie jar that person will want the whole damn jar.

I'll never really know if people in Congress actually understand that about humans or not. If they do, that makes them all the more evil, because they're using that fact to gain more power. If they don't, then I give them a little bit more credit for their work, which is still not much more than a spec in the wind.

One reason for why the US tax code is insanely complex is the perpetual quixotic quest for "fairness". Fairness, is an elusive motherhood goal that can never be achieved. What is fair for one person may not fair to another person. Essentially equivalent to a dog chasing its tail.

Another major reason for insane US tax code complexity, is that the US economy is now based on "bread and circuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)". Our politicians, to get reelected, liberally throw out "tax incentives".

At a somewhat deeper level, the US is now using the tax code to mimic the old USSR planned economy.

By coincidence there are two Dilbert Cartoons (http://www.dilbert.com/2011-01-25/) that speak to tax incentives distorting capital markets.

I have often wished for a legislative moratorium for 10 years that would go something like this: For every new law passed, you must repeal 2 old ones. After the moratorium it would just be a one for one replacement. That would apply to all laws and all levels of government. I figure it would take the 10 years just to get rid of the outdated laws no one follows anyway, like the one that says autos are banned on downtown streets during daylight because they scare the horses (a real law still on the books in Tennessee) and reduce the number of laws by half.
It is really too bad that Mr. Benjamin Franklin did not get more of his ideas of government in place, such as the idea that the Federal Government could pass any law it wanted as long as they could pay for it out of their own pockets (except for militia). Would make for an interesting system - but then we would have never gone to the moon.

Quite frankly, I get sick and tired of the power-driven politicians trying to implement tax laws that take from people who work their a**es off trying to make themselves and giving it to the rest of the people. I will never support that. It promotes laziness, overwhelmingly, and most people that I know also know that if you give a person a cookie out of the cookie jar that person will want the whole damn jar.

For simplicity, there are two types of taxes. One as a necessary revenue source to operate the government. This is a legitimate use of taxes. Unfortunately this aspect of taxation tends to get pushed aside in the overall tax debate.

The other form of taxation is the "transference of wealth". That is taxing a certain segment of the population and giving the collected money to the "disadvantaged" target group. As our budget deficit grows and grows, we can't keep giving money away that we don't even have. We can't afford to have everybody collecting unemployment. And as you point out our elected officials do not seem to understand this. To make matters worse, Obama's State of the Union Address perpetuates the use of taxation accounting gimmicks under the guise of "investment". (Transferring wealth from the taxpayers to businesses under the pretense of economic stimulus.)

For simplicity, there are two types of taxes. One as a necessary revenue source to operate the government. This is a legitimate use of taxes. Unfortunately this aspect of taxation tends to get pushed aside in the overall tax debate.

The other form of taxation is the "transference of wealth". That is taxing a certain segment of the population and giving the collected money to the "disadvantaged" target group. As our budget deficit grows and grows, we can't keep giving money away that we don't even have. We can't afford to have everybody collecting unemployment. And as you point out our elected officials do not seem to understand this. To make matters worse, Obama's State of the Union Address perpetuates the use of taxation accounting gimmicks under the guise of "investment". (Transferring wealth from the taxpayers to businesses under the pretense of economic stimulus.)

Steve, you say that "transference of wealth" is taxing a certain segment of the population and giving the collected money to the "disadvantaged" target group. But then your argument breaks down when you say we are giving money to the "disadvantaged" is money we don't even have, so it is not a transference, is it? So the "rich" keep their money and the rest of the taxpayers are saddled with the burden of paying the bill.

Steve, you say that "transference of wealth" is taxing a certain segment of the population and giving the collected money to the "disadvantaged" target group. But then your argument breaks down when you say we are giving money to the "disadvantaged" is money we don't even have, so it is not a transference, is it? So the "rich" keep their money and the rest of the taxpayers are saddled with the burden of paying the bill.Ah - bonds and treasuries, we are borrowing the money from China! To make matters worse, our tax rate is technically "too low" since we are not raising sufficient revenue to cover the free Obama money being flagrantly tossed out.

Great response - gives me the opportunity to post this link to the Chinese Professor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM).

A credit card analogy can also be used. We are buying products on credit with money that we don't currently have. For normal people this would come to a screeching halt fairly quickly when the credit card companies realize they aren't going to be paid and they cancel the credit cards. Countries like China, may come to the same conclusion and stop buying our debt. Then, in theory, at some point, taxes will have to be raised to cover our debt burden. But until then it is spend, spend, spend, spend!!:cool::cool:

You guys are also missing another point...the majority of growth in t his country comes from the wealthy people and their decisions to participate in that growth.

What is POOR? IMO, all of these combined:


lazy people
unfortunate people
people that absolutely cannot grow an economy, even they tried
people with a lack of brain power to help themselves
people who hide money when they actually have it


with all of those types of people combined, being poor is obviously overwhelming.

As far as whether or not leaders are not intelligent to understand what I said earlier, that cannot never be deduced successfully, unless mind-reading technologies (and the right to scan politicians' brains) ever comes to fruition. Obviously it won't. But I will say that because we in the USA right now, seem to be wanting to do anything and everything possible to stop business growth and save trees, this fear can exploited by government officials more successfully than ANYTHING else in the past. They have two things to gain from endorsing this fear and telling people that saving the environment is all the matters:


their power increases dramatically, because the power of private business people will fade away
they can stick people in boxes, and suppress the desire to want anything out of life, which is what happens when you aren't offered resources to grow with


Personally, I think the "gods" of the government are what really matter...as in, they are the ones that are smart and know what they're doing. Anyone ever talked to an IRS tax agent in a call center? (not picking on them, but that's a great example here). I, for one, don't call the IRS anymore because most of the people I talk to only know what buttons they have been told to push by the script writers. I know more than they do simply by guessing and googling! So why call??

That's off topic I suppose, but if any of you guys have kids, I know that shapes your vision of what should be going on more than anything else. This government is no different than any other one, but one single fact DOES remain about politicians and their ability to see other peoples' views. NONE of them can understand what people like us, with our own kids, are seeing the future as being. Personally, I don't care what it is at this point because I don't have kids. They can destroy it all they want to, but I'd sure like to have kids someday, but if I don't see any improvement in the government's abilities to work for other people, there's no way in hell that's going to happen. I simply won't do that to a child.

There was a news story about a London based couple not too long ago that I saw. They were telling the interviewers that their child was very smart, but they didn't have the financial resources to give him the opportunities that he deserved out of life, so they let a rich couple adopt him (or something like that). At any rate, he ended up in a household with rich parents.

That's the smartest thing they could've ever done for that kid. At least their thinking about people of the future! That's the only news story I've ever found to be truly inspiring...

You guys are also missing another point...the majority of growth in t his country comes from the wealthy people and their decisions to participate in that growth.

What is POOR? IMO, all of these combined:


lazy people
unfortunate people
people that absolutely cannot grow an economy, even they tried
people with a lack of brain power to help themselves
people who hide money when they actually have it

with all of those types of people combined, being poor is obviously overwhelming.

...

the_net, methinks you suffer from a severe case of MAS (Marie Antoinette Syndrome). "What? The poor have no food? Let them eat cake!" Be careful that the cure is not the same as hers! There are many reasons for being "poor" and the reasons you claim is certainly among them, but in reality if a very minor subset of those who live in poverty.

what the heck are you talking about, Chipper?

If anything, you should be able to infer from that little post of mine that I'm quite ticked off about rising taxes in this pathetic country of ours, seeing that I am of the age to start a family of my own, but it seems more and more like that's fading away as time goes on.

what the heck are you talking about, Chipper?

If anything, you should be able to infer from that little post of mine that I'm quite ticked off about rising taxes in this pathetic country of ours, seeing that I am of the age to start a family of my own, but it seems more and more like that's fading away as time goes on.

You shouldn't let our tax system keep you from having a family.... People who decide to have children make it work, regardless of the tax situation (I don't mean by using welfare, which some people do need).

what the heck are you talking about, Chipper?

If anything, you should be able to infer from that little post of mine that I'm quite ticked off about rising taxes in this pathetic country of ours, seeing that I am of the age to start a family of my own, but it seems more and more like that's fading away as time goes on.

What I inferred from your post was that you look down on those who are poor, who are disadvantaged and have less than you do and that you look with admiring eyes on the wealthy. That you have no desire to help those who are poor but rather, you offer full support to the wealthy to keep them that way and help them amass more and more wealth.

If that is not a severe case of MAS then I don't know what is.

If that is not a severe case of MAS then I don't know what is.

That is exactly what it looks like, yes. And right there, you have the primary difference between a democrat's argument and republican's argument.

What I clearly believe is that people will do what you do, since 99% of them are always hungry for leadership and never will be a leader on their own. Thus, you force them to work and SHOW them how to do it, in order to provide for themselves, they'll do it. Give them everything for free and pity them to death, and you'll find yourself doing it for many more lifetimes to come.

Human being are creatures of habit. Make examples out of the right kind of habits, not the wrong ones.

Clearly, the biggest problem with each side of congress is the fact that both parties take their view to such extremes, both of them confuse the heck out of people. And then you get the alternative output...people give up and they don't care what happens, which is what we see now.

But on the flip side, fortunately for people like you and me that want to keep fighting for the right thing, people will always be extremely ignorant, so they will always listen to someone new, regardless of the past.

And NO, what you say is completely inaccurate Chipper. I'm not wealthy, nor do I care about it. But if a financial issue cause me to one day decide between keeping my life's essentials like house, car, etc... and giving my normal annual contribution to the poorest charity fund on earth, YES I would keep the things for myself. It is not my responsibility to compensate for issues in this world that should be compensated for by the government.

I always wondered why we couldn't have just one tax.

VAT or goods and services tax as they call it in Oz.

Allow governments to tweak the levels but not the fundamental concept..

Tax the rich by raising the level on posh goods
No tax on widescale necessities.

How much you pay in tax will therefore be a measure of your profligacy and efficiency?

Sounds simple to me.

While I'm at it
No private education
Meritocratic higher education for all although maybe limited in places according to job demand. ( you can't pay everyone to be a lawyer )
No denominational schooling
And get rid of catchment areas for school instead ranking should be 1st sibling 2nd distance to school.

My conclusion - people just want to be treated fairly and equitably.

Yep - I could take my wage spend as little as possible here, then spend it in my real home in the Isle of Man or somewhere at a far less VAT rate. Thereby penalising those who contribute the the economy by circulating money here, whislt us offshore, tax exiles take the money tax free, and remove it from the country?

The other form of taxation is the "transference of wealth". That is taxing a certain segment of the population and giving the collected money to the "disadvantaged" target group. As our budget deficit grows and grows, we can't keep giving money away that we don't even have. We can't afford to have everybody collecting unemployment. And as you point out our elected officials do not seem to understand this. To make matters worse, Obama's State of the Union Address perpetuates the use of taxation accounting gimmicks under the guise of "investment". (Transferring wealth from the taxpayers to businesses under the pretense of economic stimulus.)

So you dont want the government to invest in business creation , nor in unemployment benefits?

What do you want? Loads of self employed, subsistance farmers in New York, Detriot and Chicago?

So you dont want the government to invest in business creation , nor in unemployment benefits?

What do you want? Loads of self employed, subsistance farmers in New York, Detriot and Chicago?Unemployment for a short period of time, acceptable, not a problem.

In a free-market system, it is up to the people themselves, to create businesses based on consumer demand. Businesses would only be created and succeed based on its economic viability. Would your concept of government "investment" in business be equivalent to implementing a Soviet style planned economy?

The government actually does "invest" a lot in business for which it gets virtually little credit. The infrastructure such as schools, roads, sewer, water, garbage collection and even industrial parks. Through the school system, the government provides the private sector with an educated work force. Add police protection too, as another government "investment".

The downside of many government programs for "investing" in business creation is that they are form of subsidy that distorts the market. Why should XYZ corporation get a low interest loan from the government so that XYZ can sell a product at lower cost then the ABC corporation that happens to make the same product? What is even worse is that some governments give a tax break for a company to relocate to their municipality. When the tax break ends, the company receiving the tax break simply close the plant and moves-on. The local community loses twice. First through increased local taxes to pay for the corporate tax break. Then - when the company moves out - unemployment.

Unemployment for a short period of time, acceptable, not a problem.

In a free-market system, it is up to the people themselves, to create businesses based on consumer demand. Businesses would only be created and succeed based on its economic viability. Would your concept of government "investment" in business be equivalent to implementing a Soviet style planned economy?

The government actually does "invest" a lot in business for which it gets virtually little credit. The infrastructure such as schools, roads, sewer, water, garbage collection and even industrial parks. Through the school system, the government provides the private sector with an educated work force. Add police protection too, as another government "investment".

The downside of many government programs for "investing" in business creation is that they are form of subsidy that distorts the market. Why should XYZ corporation get a low interest loan from the government so that XYZ can sell a product at lower cost then the ABC corporation that happens to make the same product? What is even worse is that some governments give a tax break for a company to relocate to their municipality. When the tax break ends, the company receiving the tax break simply close the plant and moves-on. The local community loses twice. First through increased local taxes to pay for the corporate tax break. Then - when the company moves out - unemployment.

But the free market system doesn't work does it. It needs serious regulation - to stop the banks doing again what they have already done. Its equally true - in all other kinds of monopoly situations too.

Unless the governments invested in banks, there was no money going round, for companies, let alone start ups - which would have ensured high unemployment for quite a while.

I presume you agree with that?

How long is unemplymet acceptable to you for a hand to mouth manual labourer say? You're happy to pay benefits for this long?

If your government doesn';t give companies subsidies, tax breaks , incentives - someone else will.

But the free market system doesn't work does it. It needs serious regulation - to stop the banks doing again what they have already done.



Everything should be gov't owned and that would mean "marketing/selling" is removed.

Cars could be made in just a couple of sizes and one colour. Currently there is a massive amount of labour wasted on design of cars with "selling/marketing" being the driving force.

When all is gov't owned there is no need for banks and insurance companies. Those two entities use a huge amount of labour/skills dreaming up "products" and then selling those products to round up and centralise money.

The list is endless.

When all is gov't owned then "want" will be replaced by "need". A huge proportion of the work force is tied up in activities that could be removed if all was gov't owned.

Loads of self employed, subsistance farmers in New York, Detriot and Chicago?
hmmm...interesting concept. I don't the subsidizing program would work in this scenario...:p

hmmm...interesting concept. I don't the subsidizing program would work in this scenario...:p

Neither do I , but if theres no subsidies , or help to do anything else I wondered what Steve Imagined.!

But I think he imagined unemployment - thats OK by Steve - for a while at least.

One reason for why the US tax code is insanely complex is the perpetual quixotic quest for "fairness". Fairness, is an elusive motherhood goal that can never be achieved. What is fair for one person may not fair to another person.


Which is why we get to vote every few years to determine who's definition of fairness we want at the time.


The other form of taxation is the "transference of wealth". That is taxing a certain segment of the population and giving the collected money to the "disadvantaged" target group. As our budget deficit grows and grows, we can't keep giving money away that we don't even have.


As Chipper pointed out, this is not accurate. If we tax the wealthy and then give the money to the poor, that would be transference of wealth. If we simply give more to the poor and increase the national debt, then it really isn't transference. But I agree, we cannot give money away that we don't have (we need to take it from someone else first).


Countries like China, may come to the same conclusion and stop buying our debt. Then, in theory, at some point, taxes will have to be raised to cover our debt burden.


Or America will have to declare bankruptcy, and not pay back the debt (or pay a portion).


What is POOR? IMO, all of these combined:


Poor to me means someone who is barely surviving. I have friends who joke around that they are poor, but they can afford to cover their mortgage, their car, and their basic needs. They can't afford massive health care bills or the cost of college education for themselves or their children.

On lazy people, I think most people would agree, and thus there would be bipartisan support, that they need to go get a job. The problem is that the number of lazy people is actually quite small. The Republicans would like you to believe that everyone who is not rich is just not working hard enough, which is not reality.

I personally think that if you are on unemployment, you should be required to spend 10 hours/week in community service. This mass influx of people to the system would help us clean up parks, perhaps mentor children, etc. This would help the community as well as the individuals to go out and speak with others, perhaps opening job opportunities to them.

The people who are truly lazy would not show up for their community service, and then would be cut off from the benefits. I know Republicans would support this, and I think Democrats would if it was presented right. Maybe even make it only kick in after x number of weeks of unemployment, which would give people a reasonable amount of time to acquire a job before they have to start doing community service.


In a free-market system, it is up to the people themselves, to create businesses based on consumer demand. Businesses would only be created and succeed based on its economic viability. Would your concept of government "investment" in business be equivalent to implementing a Soviet style planned economy?


In a true free-market system, it is survival of the fittest. Great system if you're wealthy, not so great if you're poor. USA has not been a true free-market system for a very long time. The fact that you throw out terms like "Soviet style planned economy" shows that you're relying too much emotion (in this case, fear) in order to try to get your point across. Which shows a weakness in your argument. If it can't stand logically on its own, there's a reason why.

Neither do I , but if theres no subsidies , or help to do anything else I wondered what Steve Imagined.!

But I think he imagined unemployment - thats OK by Steve - for a while at least.
I don't think the joke took hold here. :(

As Chipper pointed out, this is not accurate. If we tax the wealthy and then give the money to the poor, that would be transference of wealth. If we simply give more to the poor and increase the national debt, then it really isn't transference. But I agree, we cannot give money away that we don't have (we need to take it from someone else first.It is a transference of wealth separated by time.There are two basic scenarios.

First scenario, the government issues a "welfare" check, to use a politically charged word. Since the government does not actually have the money to issue the check, it borrows the money through the use of an IOU (bonds and treasuries). The IOUs are then paid off (at a later date) through wealth (revenues) obtained from future taxation.

Second scenario, the government issues a "welfare" check based on printed money backed by "hot air". This results in inflation. What inflation does is transfer future wealth that has yet to be created by our children to the current generation. Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistic's Inflation Calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)it now takes $736.68 (2010 dollars) to have the same purchasing power as $100 did back in 1960. Wikipedia CPI graph (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Consumer_Price_Index_Graph.svg))

Just found this sound byte: Inflation the Silent Tax (http://hubpages.com/hub/Quick-and-Easy-Explanation-of-Inflation).

USA has not been a true free-market system for a very long time. No argument from me on that. The current economic system, which is one reason for the insane complexity of our tax system, is Corporatism. A government by, of, and for the corporations. I'm not going to go for a long involved response. If you wish to further examine my position, look here (http://srynas.blogspot.com/search/label/Economics?updated-max=2010-03-06T10%3A39%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=20).

I support a flat tax. Tax at the same rate for every dollar earned regardless of how may you earn. When everyone has to pay a fair share of the burden, the class warfare waged by our current tax system will die down to a low roar and incentive to produce more will go up.

I support a flat tax. Tax at the same rate for every dollar earned regardless of how may you earn. When everyone has to pay a fair share of the burden, the class warfare waged by our current tax system will die down to a low roar and incentive to produce more will go up.

that's right. and with that, the standard of living will plummet.

I support a flat tax. Tax at the same rate for every dollar earned regardless of how may you earn. When everyone has to pay a fair share of the burden, the class warfare waged by our current tax system will die down to a low roar and incentive to produce more will go up.


Where did you learn that?

In this brief we will attempt to gain an understanding of how myths are defining our national dialog. Conservative politicians and more importantly conservative radio and TV are brain washing the American people by using simple micro economics to define the message. In addition to this simplified message they are also playing on the emotion that people that work in menial jobs are some how inferior and are living off the hard work of the middle class.

Neither of these assertions is accurate, and both serve to perpetuate the massive concentration of wealth.
First a little historical fact.

During the time of American economic preeminence the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. Now of course no one paid that much because investment deductions and tax credits kept the highest concentration of wealth paying a lower effective rate.

However, during that time period the US was the world leader in job creation. We had a virtual 0% unemployment for 4 decades. In economics full employment is calculated to be approximately 4% unemployment.

Myth Number one: A flat tax would have everyone paying their share of the burden. On the surface this might seem logical. It doesn’t take into consideration the economic consequences. This assertion is based on the emotional response; that "lesser people are getting the benefits, when I have to work my entire life to support those bums".

The reality is much graver, As was stated earlier in this thread, some taxes have the power to reengineer society and in fact it is the most important power the Federal Government has to shape the countries future. Some people think that by engineering the economy, the Government is redistribution wealth and in some cases they are correct. However, and here is the most important point of this myth.

When the highest concentrations of wealth pay such a low amount it removes the incentive to invest. If a corporation will pay 90 percent tax on net before-tax earnings, they will have more incentive to increase their investments. If they are only going to pay 15 or 20% they are given incentive by the country to reduce investment.

The very fact that “class warfare” was brought up proves that this propaganda is targeted at an emotional response from people that believe they are better than a regular worker and that they are going to become one of the ultra rich.

Brain washing of this nature is why; the rich are getting richer at the expense of the people. As you know we have not entertained this tax code except in really far right circles.

The far right are destroying the middle class, we will need to educate the masses on this process so we can elect people that will fight against the tide.

In my next installment I will attempt to explain other factors that are being ignored or spun by our national conversation.

Other myths that need to be exposed are:
1. A gold standard would stabilize the economy.
2. Regulations cause jobs to move overseas.
3. Low taxes stimulate growth (similar to the flat tax argument)
4. Government spending doesn’t create economy
5. You can balance the budget and “fix” the economy by lower government spending.
6. More efficiency will bring the end of our woes.
7. That the poor and middle class started the “Class Wars”

There are more and I am fully committed to exploring them.

Finally I will leave you with this thought. Many people mistake these elements of the economy.

The three major components are: wealth creation, economic activity, and economic multipliers. I’m hoping that the far right brethren will open their minds and explore these concepts. Understanding the nuances of economics depends on it.

The reality is much graver, As was stated earlier in this thread, some taxes have the power to reengineer society and in fact it is the most important power the Federal Government has to shape the countries future. Some people think that by engineering the economy, the Government is redistribution wealth and in some cases they are correct.You have pointed out a significant oversight in my prior post (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1036577&postcount=17) where I wrote that there were two types of taxes. One to collect revenue and the other to transfer wealth. As you have pointed out, a third type exists for purposes of social engineering. Examples, include the use of tax credits for buying energy efficient appliances. (Another reason for the complexity of our tax code.)

Regretfully, I have yet to resolve a logical conundrum that I have concerning the use of taxes for social engineering. Lately, I have been describing the economic policies of the Obama administration as being equivalent to a Soviet style planned economy. At the same time, I don't have an issue with using taxation to "guide" what consumers buy.:confused:

Even though I am being internally inconsistent - there is an extremely important economic and tax aspect. Do not use tax credits as a means of promoting social engineering. Tax credits are a form of subsidy, they distort the market and add to the budget deficit. Furthermore, this is part of a "bread and circuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)" game being played by politicians to make people believe they are getting "free" money.

My viewpoint, is that taxes be increased on "bad" products to discourage their consumption. For example, the gasoline tax should be increased to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles. This type of taxation is "clean". The obvious problem with what I am saying is that this form of taxation also constitutes a distortion of the free-market. So be it. But the benefit of an increased tax is the generation of revenue that could be used to reduce the deficit.

Yes, there are issues with what I am advocating. Who defines a "bad" product and how do we know whether the taxes collected will actually be used by the government in a fiscally prudent manner. For now, I don't have answers.

You have pointed out a significant oversight in my prior post (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1036577&postcount=17) where I wrote that there were two types of taxes. One to collect revenue and the other to transfer wealth. As you have pointed out, a third type exists for purposes of social engineering. Examples, include the use of tax credits for buying energy efficient appliances. (Another reason for the complexity of our tax code.)

Regretfully, I have yet to resolve a logical conundrum that I have concerning the use of taxes for social engineering. Lately, I have been describing the economic policies of the Obama administration as being equivalent to a Soviet style planned economy. At the same time, I don't have an issue with using taxation to "guide" what consumers buy.:confused:

Even though I am being internally inconsistent - there is an extremely important economic and tax aspect. Do not use tax credits as a means of promoting social engineering. Tax credits are a form of subsidy, they distort the market and add to the budget deficit. Furthermore, this is part of a "bread and circuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)" game being played by politicians to make people believe they are getting "free" money.

My viewpoint, is that taxes be increased on "bad" products to discourage their consumption. For example, the gasoline tax should be increased to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles. This type of taxation is "clean". The obvious problem with what I am saying is that this form of taxation also constitutes a distortion of the free-market. So be it. But the benefit of an increased tax is the generation of revenue that could be used to reduce the deficit.

Yes, there are issues with what I am advocating. Who defines a "bad" product and how do we know whether the taxes collected will actually be used by the government in a fiscally prudent manner. For now, I don't have answers.

Forgive me for not being clear. It was late last night and I was babbling on

I was not making a case for one type of social engineering over another. Although in the absence of “Social Engineering” by the Government, the country's national dialog will be primarily dictated by the other large concentration of wealth; namely the major corporations and the news stations they control.

Certainly Franklin most likely would have spoken against the powerful families in Europe controlling the US Congress, the news media, or the People. And he was the father of American News.


No, what I spoke to was the use of taxes to promote the reinvestment of capital into the US economy. Not in the form of more government employment, but instead more wealth creating activities. Activities like, manufacturing and construction, and intellectual properties, like research and development.


If the Major Companies don’t take advantage of these programs, they will be forced to pay higher taxes which would provide funded government employment or a reduction in the deficit. The country would benefit from any of these activities.

The point being, that if they don’t use capital to create American jobs, than the people of the United States will create jobs anyway.

Many people believe that government intervention and regulations are the biggest obstacle to small business, but as a small business owner I can tell you that it is the control of our major corporations on Wall Street that is by far the biggest impediment.

Take for example building codes. Building codes ensure our homes will be safe to live in, so we can sleep well at night knowing we are protected. Did any of these building codes in any way impede the construction of over a hundred million homes in this country? Not only did it serve to protect family’s safety, it also provided a base line to keep unscrupulous companies from grossly underbidding the market value; which protected legitimate builders.

My viewpoint, is that taxes be increased on "bad" products to discourage their consumption. For example, the gasoline tax should be increased to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles. This type of taxation is "clean". The obvious problem with what I am saying is that this form of taxation also constitutes a distortion of the free-market. So be it. But the benefit of an increased tax is the generation of revenue that could be used to reduce the deficit.

Yes, there are issues with what I am advocating. Who defines a "bad" product and how do we know whether the taxes collected will actually be used by the government in a fiscally prudent manner. For now, I don't have answers.

Yes interestingly enough, most people would not agree to a tax on gasoline to construct a better more efficient mass transit system or for the research of renewable fuel sources. But they will pay 5 dollars a gallon if the oil companies demand it.


Another unfortunate side effect of higher taxes on an essential product is that it will impose a disproportionate bourdon on the middle class. It will also have a cooling effect on the economy because it will not introduce new capital it will merely redirect it. But I agree with you it would have a net positive effect. It just would not be 100% net positive.


And that is actually the reason that the debate is only just beginning. Extremes on both sides tend to take the effect to its illogical conclusion. Engineers and software developers have a great mental tool at their disposal, which many people ignore. We look at 0 and infinity and decide how far on the scale, the optimum exist. Radio talk show host use the tool in the opposite.

They incite people based on the extreme values.

I have to point out the fallacy in the idea that the poor are lazy. Yes, there is a segment that thinks the world owes them a living and will do nothing for their dole. No doubt about it. But the numbers of the "working poor" are far greater. And there is no doubt in my mind that these working poor work just as hard, if not harder, than those who are comfortably middle class or rich. Most of your minimum wage jobs are extremely physically demanding. Ask a store clerk that is on his or her feet for 8 hours or more a day. Ask the fast food worker who must deal with an unappreciative public, demanding bosses, walking and standing all day or cooking in hot, greasy conditions. Ask the agricultural worker who must work in environmental conditions most Americans would never ever consider while bending, stooping, reaching, pulling. In addition, most of these jobs are mentally unstimulating - in other words BORING. Yes, the working poor are some of the hardest workers we have, most dedicated and certain underappreciated. AND they are essential to our society and way of life.

I have to point out the fallacy in the idea that the poor are lazy. Yes, there is a segment that thinks the world owes them a living and will do nothing for their dole. No doubt about it. But the numbers of the "working poor" are far greater. And there is no doubt in my mind that these working poor work just as hard, if not harder, than those who are comfortably middle class or rich. Most of your minimum wage jobs are extremely physically demanding. Ask a store clerk that is on his or her feet for 8 hours or more a day. Ask the fast food worker who must deal with an unappreciative public, demanding bosses, walking and standing all day or cooking in hot, greasy conditions. Ask the agricultural worker who must work in environmental conditions most Americans would never ever consider while bending, stooping, reaching, pulling. In addition, most of these jobs are mentally unstimulating - in other words BORING. Yes, the working poor are some of the hardest workers we have, most dedicated and certain underappreciated. AND they are essential to our society and way of life.

Not to mention, completely necessary to our society. If we ignore their plight, we are complicit in their slavery. Nay, we are responsible for it.

Yep - I could take my wage spend as little as possible here, then spend it in my real home in the Isle of Man or somewhere at a far less VAT rate. Thereby penalising those who contribute the the economy by circulating money here, whislt us offshore, tax exiles take the money tax free, and remove it from the country?

But any taxation system is subject to manipulation. With a good and services based tax presumably if you have earned the money in the country. You will have had to incur significant expenses in the creation of that money in which case isn't the likelihood that you have contributed to taxation? Of course it would all be in the detail but you get my drift.

That's another thing the success of many of these systems comes down 9/10 ths of the time to implementation if policy is bad implementation is truly awful. Another reason why I think new rules are generally bad. If politicians can't be trused to implement things well they shouldn't be given the opportunity and although the idea can sometimes be sound entirely possible to ruin it in implementation.

It is entirely feasible to raise great amounts from a goods and services tax and depending on the level the tax burden on individuals it might not be a light touch.

I just think that a consumption based tax encourages a lot of good things including.
Better use of resources.
Saving (remember that!)
Careful spending of moneys

I just think that a consumption based tax encourages a lot of good things including.
Better use of resources.
Saving (remember that!)
Careful spending of moneysExactly. The products generated in a free-market should be based on demand. The consumer should be free to vote with his/her $$$.

I just think that a consumption based tax encourages a lot of good things including.
Better use of resources.
Saving (remember that!)
Careful spending of moneys

Money in circulation, is the economy. Consumption tax encourages saving by the top, not investing. And it puts most of the bourdon on low income earners. You really have to ask yourself. Where did you hear that idea?
Seriously, most of the time I hear people talk about ideas they hear on the news or from a talk show. And who pays for that?

The ultra rich.

I don’t get my ideas from the TV or the radio, I get information from there, than I find solutions. We are a world lost to beliefs garnered from the media.

Hear this, if you hear or see an idea on the media on how to fix this global financial catastrophe, look for reasons why someone would want you to believe it.

Most of the time it is for the money trail leading up.

Raising taxes on the ultra rich around the globe is the only way to ensure that high concentrations of wealth are being used to provide jobs. Jobs are the most important function of society. Jobs should be the primary concern of government. Jobs keep foreign imams from inciting young men to hate the West.

If we continue to support a system that enriches the top at the expense of the middle and bottom, we will see our societies fall, well, probaly stumble at least.

Egypt is the beginning. Soon, around the world people are going to demand that governments protect the people from the rape of the ultra rich. Mark my words, a revolution is coming. And it could lead to the beginning the third Global Conflict, I’m not the only one that sees this.

The concentration of wealth at the top must be impeded; or we risk everything.

The general tone in the response here seems to be that the "rich" have some responsibility to spend THEIR money to support the poor. You are all wrong. There is no responsibility for anyone to expend any resource that belongs to them against their will. If you are poor / broke / not making enough to be happy, CHANGE WHAT YOU DO TO EARN MORE. Don't blame the successful for your failures.

The only fair tax is an equal tax.

Insane, you make it sound as if it is simple to CHANGE WHAT YOU DO TO EARN MORE, as if you could walk into the corner convenience store and pick up a job that makes a lot of money. Pure balderdash!

The "system" has evolved to such a point where it is rigged so that the rich get richer and the poor stay poor and the middle class has nowhere to go but down. We have very much gone from a society dominated by a middle class to one dominated by the super rich. We very much resemble in class structure that of pre-revolution France.

The rich do not have a responsibility to spend their money to support the poor, but the "government of the people" does have that very responsibility. The rich should have the moral compass to relieve suffering and to insure that the uniquely democratic society formed here not stay subverted as one where a very small few gain more and more power and wealth to the detriment of the rest of the population. Did you know that if the world's population were shrunk to 100 people, 3 people would hold 75% of the entire wealth of that 100, and that all three would live in the US. That is not only absurd but obscene and needs to change.

I neither said nor implied that it was easy to change what you do to earn more; I know because I did it. I know first hand what it is like to dig holes in the rain, stack firewood in the winter with holes in my boots and to eat oatmeal for my only meal every day for months at a time.

I worked hard to get ahead and sacrificed of myself whatever was necesary to do it ethically. Instead of blaming the successful for my lack of success, I provided services to them to get immediate needs fulfilled (money) and befriended them so I could learn to duplicate their strengths. I educated myself, I worked long hours and continue to do so as I grow and develop my career. I reap the benefits of this work and feel no shame in it because I built my wealth honestly.

I do not recognize any moral obligation for the rich or anyone else; furthermore, morality is definately something that should never be legislated. If the successful have any implied duty, it is to themselves to train others to do what they do while learning and growing themselves, much like master / apprentice arrangement. This obligation is to thier own growth, not the apprentice unless they specifically accept it.

As a Christian, I give willingly because my God calls me to do so. No one else has the authority to compel me to give. Give unto God that which belongs to God and give unto Caesar the which is Caesar's. As government greed has swelled, benevolence funds have dwindled. The people have not been able to provide support to their communities as they would like to because the government is taking too much from them.

As far as the "government of the people", and your idea of a democracy, you need to be corrected on two points. 1. There is no such thing as government money. It is all taxpayer money, even the debt a government incurs is taxpayer money because the taxpayer has the burder to repay it. 2. The United States of America is a Republic, not a democracy and I am grateful for that fact because a democracy made up of a majority of people who think they deserve some one else's stuff just because they have a need would bankrupt the nation. Just look to the former U.S.S.R. for proof of how well the concept of communal property works. Those on the top keep the best and the poor still have nothing.

I believe having an equal tax for all will serve as incentive for business to come back to the USA thus returning much needed jobs. The incentive to the individual to work more or more efficeintly will be increase with the knowledge that increased income will not come with the burden of penalizing taxes. Those on the bottom of the economic spectrum will have to either do what is neccessary to compete successfully or deal with the consequences of their failure. I didn't like it on the bottom, so I changed what I do to improve my situation.

If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justifaction for that position. The fact that someone has more than you doesn't count as a valid argument.

The only fair tax is an equal tax.There is no such thing as a "fair tax". While fairness, like workplace safety, is a desirable goal it is unachievable. You could write a whole book concerning the definition of an "equal" tax. You will NEVER ever have enough "fairness" or "equality" to satiate every conceivable special interest group. That is one reason our tax code is an absolute mess of complexity.

I neither said nor implied that it was easy to change what you do to earn more; I know because I did it. I know first hand what it is like to dig holes in the rain, stack firewood in the winter with holes in my boots and to eat oatmeal for my only meal every day for months at a time.

I worked hard to get ahead and sacrificed of myself whatever was necesary to do it ethically. Instead of blaming the successful for my lack of success, I provided services to them to get immediate needs fulfilled (money) and befriended them so I could learn to duplicate their strengths. I educated myself, I worked long hours and continue to do so as I grow and develop my career. I reap the benefits of this work and feel no shame in it because I built my wealth honestly.

I do not recognize any moral obligation for the rich or anyone else; furthermore, morality is definately something that should never be legislated. If the successful have any implied duty, it is to themselves to train others to do what they do while learning and growing themselves, much like master / apprentice arrangement. This obligation is to thier own growth, not the apprentice unless they specifically accept it.

As a Christian, I give willingly because my God calls me to do so. No one else has the authority to compel me to give. Give unto God that which belongs to God and give unto Caesar the which is Caesar's. As government greed has swelled, benevolence funds have dwindled. The people have not been able to provide support to their communities as they would like to because the government is taking too much from them.

As far as the "government of the people", and your idea of a democracy, you need to be corrected on two points. 1. There is no such thing as government money. It is all taxpayer money, even the debt a government incurs is taxpayer money because the taxpayer has the burder to repay it. 2. The United States of America is a Republic, not a democracy and I am grateful for that fact because a democracy made up of a majority of people who think they deserve some one else's stuff just because they have a need would bankrupt the nation. Just look to the former U.S.S.R. for proof of how well the concept of communal property works. Those on the top keep the best and the poor still have nothing.

I believe having an equal tax for all will serve as incentive for business to come back to the USA thus returning much needed jobs. The incentive to the individual to work more or more efficeintly will be increase with the knowledge that increased income will not come with the burden of penalizing taxes. Those on the bottom of the economic spectrum will have to either do what is neccessary to compete successfully or deal with the consequences of their failure. I didn't like it on the bottom, so I changed what I do to improve my situation.

If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justifaction for that position. The fact that someone has more than you doesn't count as a valid argument.

Your answers continue to indicate an emotional response.

If as you say the money of the United States belongs to the People, than it follows that the People should not support a system that decimates the middle class.
The ultra rich have been stock piling cash for some time now, and the middle class is in jeopardy
The only hope is reinvestment in America; obviously our ultra rich have not been doing that to the degree that is necessary, with our current tax laws. So why would lowering them make it any better.

Take a look at the tax laws in the 1960s and job creation of that same period.

You will find that both were higher than today. Keeping what you earn is fine when its a million dollars, reinvesting in the nation is critical if you make 60 billion.
45% of all profit made in the United States is in the financial sector. The Financial sector only employs 7.5 million people.

The chemical industry in its entirety is only 2 percent of the gross national product yet it directly employs nearly a million people. And they are one our most important exports, which means they have a large multiplying effect. And it is a highly regulated industry, yet it thrives and provides many real middle class jobs.

The American Revolution was fought to end the tyranny of a few, owning everything. Why now would you support a system that they (the original Americans) gave their live to defend against?

I would suggest that you take a serious look at your beliefs, and question why you feel that way.

The act of spending money does not create wealth. Example

Two people sitting in two huts. You each give them a thousand dollars.

One of them goes out to buy a water pump he is convinced that there is water beneath his hut in an aquafer. The other invests it in a solar panel that will allow him to sell electricity to the local grid.

They go off both fit their equipment and guess what.

There was no water in the aquifer and the second guy has no money and still needs to pay to get his water.

The sun has been shining through and lets just say the first guy is getting a steady stream of income.

The amount of money in ciculation didn't make the difference it was the decisions that the respective parties made that altered their circumstances. They would have both been richer if they'd both invested in the solar panels.

Simply getting people to spend money ain't the solution. You have to spend it in the right way.
The decisions about the way you invest your money can and will have an influence on your wealth.

These things are within individuals powers.

If a nation suffers a recession it is because bad decisions have been made in the past about what to spend and invest on and nothing to do with rich not being taxed enough or "money" not being distributed appropriately.

Imagine in the above example all the money had been taken off the solar guy and given to the water guy. The water guy builds two aquifers. Now they are both broke but hey the money was redistributed so by your logic it would be your choice.

Redistribution only works if you've got a guarantee that the person that your handing the money to knows how to invest better than the person your taking it from. If you assume 50% of the time he will and 50% of the time he won't. Hey guess what society ain't any richer. If you assume that they don't make as good investment decisions.

Hey guess what?

We all get poorer!

The act of spending money does not create wealth. Example

Two people sitting in two huts. You each give them a thousand dollars.

One of them goes out to buy a water pump he is convinced that there is water beneath his hut in an aquafer. The other invests it in a solar panel that will allow him to sell electricity to the local grid.

They go off both fit their equipment and guess what.

There was no water in the aquifer and the second guy has no money and still needs to pay to get his water.

The sun has been shining through and lets just say the first guy is getting a steady stream of income.

The amount of money in ciculation didn't make the difference it was the decisions that the respective parties made that altered their circumstances. They would have both been richer if they'd both invested in the same thing.

Simply getting people to spend money ain't the solution. You have to spend it in the right way.
The decisions about the way you invest your money can and will have an influence on your wealth.

You do have some ability to affect that.

Yes investing in wealth producing activites is the answer. The definition of wealth creation is to take items of lesser value and make something of greater value.

In other words, building things.

There is no such thing as a "fair tax". While fairness, like workplace safety, is a desirable goal it is unachievable. You could write a whole book concerning the definition of an "equal" tax. You will NEVER ever have enough "fairness" or "equality" to satiate every conceivable special interest group. That is one reason our tax code is an absolute mess of complexity.


Funding the governent is about providing the necesary means to execute enumerated powers, not satiating special interests. Although I will agree with your point that special interests have a large rolein the problems with our tax code, your focus on satiating the special interest groups is misguided.

Thales750:
"If as you say the money of the United States belongs to the People, than it follows that the People should not support a system that decimates the middle class.
The ultra rich have been stock piling cash for some time now, and the middle class is in jeopardy"

No, I did not say that. What's wrong with stockpiling cash? If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justifaction for that position. The fact that someone has more than you doesn't count as a valid argument.

The American Revolution was fought to end the tyranny of a few, owning everything. Why now would you support a system that they (the original Americans) gave their live to defend against?

Who said I support tyranny? I support a system where a person gets to enjoy the fruit of their labor as they see fit. If your lazy @$$ won't get off the couch and work, as far as I'm concerned you can starve while I stockpile my cash. Try again lefty, only this time, put some real effort and logic into it.

Thales750:
"If as you say the money of the United States belongs to the People, than it follows that the People should not support a system that decimates the middle class.
The ultra rich have been stock piling cash for some time now, and the middle class is in jeopardy"

No, I did not say that. What's wrong with stockpiling cash? If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justifaction for that position. The fact that someone has more than you doesn't count as a valid argument.

The American Revolution was fought to end the tyranny of a few, owning everything. Why now would you support a system that they (the original Americans) gave their live to defend against?

Who said I support tyranny? I support a system where a person gets to enjoy the fruit of their labor as they see fit. If your lazy @$$ won't get off the couch and work, as far as I'm concerned you can starve while I stockpile my cash. Try again lefty, only this time, put some real effort and logic into it.

The problem is that you do not understand the magnitude of the problem.

Trillions of stock piled dollars shrinks the economy. Certainly even you can understand that.

As I said earlier, The right’s response is always emotional. I give you facts, you return gibberish. You ignore the facts.

What form of logic would appeal to you?

We are in our worst unemployment since the Great Depression. How bad does it need to be before you and your kind stop blaming lazy people for the problems?
Look this up INVESTMENT.
Look up Economic Activity
Look up Wealth Creation
Look up Economic Multipliers.
Those are the concepts I use to derive my “logic”
What do you use to determine yours?

..., your focus on satiating the special interest groups is misguided.You misunderstand. The tax code should NOT serve any special interest. It should be "clean" you pay the defined rate, no exceptions.

Thales750:
"If as you say the money of the United States belongs to the People, than it follows that the People should not support a system that decimates the middle class.
The ultra rich have been stock piling cash for some time now, and the middle class is in jeopardy"

No, I did not say that. What's wrong with stockpiling cash? If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justifaction for that position. The fact that someone has more than you doesn't count as a valid argument.

The American Revolution was fought to end the tyranny of a few, owning everything. Why now would you support a system that they (the original Americans) gave their live to defend against?

Who said I support tyranny? I support a system where a person gets to enjoy the fruit of their labor as they see fit. If your lazy @$$ won't get off the couch and work, as far as I'm concerned you can starve while I stockpile my cash. Try again lefty, only this time, put some real effort and logic into it.

So what makes you different than those the colonists overthrew, who had the "divine right" to be rich? Or the despots, emperors, tyrants, etc who thought it was their "right" to be rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of the population? You claimed to be a Christian and yet you side with the moneychangers. How do you reconcile that?

SteveR: I agree with your last statement.

Thales750: You are throwing out more red herring than fish market. I agree that stockpiling the majority of the cash does hurt the economy. I continue to hold my position that you have no right to demand that the owners of that wealth do something with it against their will.
Furthermore, you are a proponent of big government that gets to control the wealth of the nation through punitive taxes to the rich. Who's against the revolutionaries now? In your world, it is right for the government, a relatively small group of people, to hold the authority of who gets what and how it is used. That is what the revolution was fought against.

You have failed to present a logical argument FOR your stance. Focus here. We're talking about the tax code and you're throwing in all kinds of left wing talking points and vitriolic rhetoric. You can't win the arguement so you have changed to focus.

The government ultimately uses weaponry to enforce the law. No judge can sentence you to jail without an armed guard to put you there. The government cannot sieze your funds without the ability to respond effectively to an armed citizen protecting their property. You suggest through your posts that the government should have the power to tax heavily to balance the scales.

I understand the magnitude of the problem. You have failed to maintain focus in a poorly veiled effort for a gotcha post. You still haven't gotten me or answered this: If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justifaction for that position. The fact that someone has more than you doesn't count as a valid argument.

ChipperT:
Another failure.

I never compared myself to the colinists. I am a Christian. It is God's authority to give and take away; would you suppose to over rule God and give that authority to a group of gevernment officials who obviously cater to special interests and neglect the will of the people? Where do you get such authority? And by the way, Jesus objected to the money changers doing business in His Father's house. The fact that they were offering a poor exchange rate for foreign currency and sacrifices was not addressed in those verses of the Bible. You also have forgotten the fact that God gave us free will. When God calls us to do something, we still have the choice to refuse, see Jonah for detail. That does not mean there aren't consequences for our actions.

Another point for you to ponder: God asks for the best and first of the fruits of our labor. The rest is for us to with as we see fit.

Another point. You attempted to use Christianity to justify judging me in your last post. You should know that there is only one judge that matters; it's not you.

Look this up INVESTMENT.
Look up Economic Activity
Look up Wealth Creation
Look up Economic Multipliers.
Those are the concepts I use to derive my “logic”
What do you use to determine yours?

Thales I still need convincing that government make better investment decisions than the individuals they take the money off.

You make the assumption that they do.

I contend they don't...

If they do then taxing the rich will increase prosperity if they don't we'll all be poorer.

Its not black and white....

Thales I still need convincing that government make better investment decisions than the individuals they take the money off.

You make the assumption that they do.

I contend they don't...

If they do then taxing the rich will increase prosperity if they don't we'll all be poorer.

Its not black and white....

I don't maintain that government should grow. I advocate a tax program that rewards investment in the Nation’s wellbeing. Left unchecked the growth in the upper .1% will stifle all small business and make our Nation similar to Mexico to our south.

One need only to look there, to see how societies controlled by the ultra rich operate.

Indeed there are countless examples around the globe.

The real question is what is in the interest of the country. If as insane believes we would be better off with the corporations in control than he is right to support that. If however you believe like I do (and history and social science tell this story), the tax laws have to be designed to promote optimum investment in the Nation.

Wall Street controls more effectively the minds and lives of average people than Government ever could. Yet the very people that are hurt by them support their right to concentrate all of the money into a small number of people’s hands.

Why would anyone support that? I’m called a liberal because I see the destruction on the lives of millions of people as preventable.

Southern dirt farmers; fighting for the Confederacy.

And they are angry that anyone would question a government that would force the ultra rich to invest in the country that made them rich.

All the while the libertarians promote free enterprise, the very tax laws they support, are helping to further concentrate wealth. But don’t let anyone tell them that it should in reverse, or just neutral for that matter.

They are brainwashed beyond help.

ChipperT:
Another failure.

I never compared myself to the colinists. I am a Christian. It is God's authority to give and take away; would you suppose to over rule God and give that authority to a group of gevernment officials who obviously cater to special interests and neglect the will of the people? Where do you get such authority? And by the way, Jesus objected to the money changers doing business in His Father's house. The fact that they were offering a poor exchange rate for foreign currency and sacrifices was not addressed in those verses of the Bible. You also have forgotten the fact that God gave us free will. When God calls us to do something, we still have the choice to refuse, see Jonah for detail. That does not mean there aren't consequences for our actions.

Another point for you to ponder: God asks for the best and first of the fruits of our labor. The rest is for us to with as we see fit.

Another point. You attempted to use Christianity to justify judging me in your last post. You should know that there is only one judge that matters; it's not you.

Insane: since I am not a Christian, I can judge whoever I choose. But since you claim you are a Christian, you should stick to the tenets of your faith, unless you are one of those sho merely pick and choose which parts to follow. Or it might just be you have totally forgotten all the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus who implored his followers to eschew wealth. "Gather up no treasures here on earth", the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the story of Nicodemus, the story of the rich young would-be follower (eye of the needle), the whipping of the moneychangers. Oh, and what about Jesus instructing his followers to make no objection to paying whatever taxes the government chooses to levy ("Render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceaser's. and unto God the things that are God's")?

Sheesh, this is a battle of wits against an unarmed man.

ChipperT:
I don't need your faulty interpretations to be true to my faith. As a self-proclaimed non-Christian, you are not qualified to council me on my faith.

Thales750 said"Left unchecked the growth in the upper .1% will stifle all small business (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=204218&page=5#) and make our Nation similar to Mexico to our south." - Hey buddy, you need to pay more attention to the symbiotic relationship between small and large businesses, you're obviously missing a lot of the important details.

ChipperT:
I don't need your faulty interpretations to be true to my faith. As a self-proclaimed non-Christian, you are not qualified to council me on my faith.

Thales750 said"Left unchecked the growth in the upper .1% will stifle all smallbusiness (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=204218&page=5#) and make our Nation similar to Mexico to our south." - Hey buddy, you need to pay more attention to the symbiotic relationship between small and large businesses, you're obviously missing a lot of the important details.

Could you rephrase that please?

ChipperT:
I don't need your faulty interpretations to be true to my faith. As a self-proclaimed non-Christian, you are not qualified to council me on my faith.


Now THAT'S a good one! Isn't it amazing the reaction you get when they discover that you know the tenets of their religion better than they do?

Insane, it might interest you to know that when I was a young man I thought of going into the ministry. I was what was known as a "Jesus Freak" in the early 70's. I have studied the Bible and Christianity extensively (as well as other religions). In fact, it was that same extensive study that brought me to the non-religious state I now hold. But then again, it probably does not interest you, just as valid arguments contrary to anything you believe do not interest you. A closed mind gathers no truth.

Now THAT'S a good one! Isn't it amazing the reaction you get when they discover that you know the tenets of their religion better than they do?

Insane, it might interest you to know that when I was a young man I thought of going into the ministry. I was what was known as a "Jesus Freak" in the early 70's. I have studied the Bible and Christianity extensively (as well as other religions). In fact, it was that same extensive study that brought me to the non-religious state I now hold. But then again, it probably does not interest you, just as valid arguments contrary to anything you believe do not interest you. A closed mind gathers no truth.

You're showing you age brother.

The New York Times just published a relevant article. The Paradox of Corporate Taxes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=business)

David Leonhardt actually had the backbone to acknowledge that private industry receives a lot "free" benefits from the government. Something most people seem to be conveniently blind about.

"The Carnival Corporation wouldn’t have much of a business without help from various branches of the government. The United States Coast Guard keeps the seas safe for Carnival’s cruise ships. Customs officers make it possible for Carnival cruises to travel to other countries. State and local governments have built roads and bridges leading up to the ports where Carnival’s ships dock."
As to why our tax code is complex, its the loopholes.
But Carnival’s biggest government benefit of all may be the price it pays for many of those services. Over the last five years, the company has paid total corporate taxes — federal, state, local and foreign — equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits. Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes. So when you hear people whine about high taxes, think of the children. OOPS, sorry the loopholes.
Arguably, the United States now has a corporate tax code that’s the worst of all worlds. The official rate is higher than in almost any other country, which forces companies to devote enormous time and effort to finding loopholes. Yet the government raises less money in corporate taxes than it once did, because of all the loopholes that have been added in recent decades.

Chippert: don't project your own doubts and failures on me. One who wishes to know the truth studiesthe truth alone. There is no need to study lies, when you know the truth you can identify lies when they come to you because they do not agree with the truth.

Assuming the role of a pharisee hardly justifies your lies. Your broken faith is between you and God.

And, if you think a flat tax is against God, remember that He asks the same of us all,rich or poor.

Chippert: don't project your own doubts and failures on me. One who wishes to know the truth studiesthe truth alone. There is no need to study lies, when you know the truth you can identify lies when they come to you because they do not agree with the truth.

Assuming the role of a pharisee hardly justifies your lies. Your broken faith is between you and God.

And, if you think a flat tax is against God, remember that He asks the same of us all,rich or poor.

What are you trrying to accomplish?

Back to my original post: I support a flat tax.

I support allowing people to enjoy the fruit of their labor as they see fit whether you make the widgets or if you're the guy who took to risk to open the widget making company.

I support the right for someone to choose not to produce and accept the consequences without placing a burden on those who do.

I support willful contributions to charity to support those who cannot take care of themselves.

I support the absolute rejection of government involvement in charity.

I support the absolute rejection of government redistributing wealth through punitive tax laws and assumption of debt, which is ultimately a burden put on the tax payers.

I support the repeal of tax loop holes and deductions. This is an extention of my support for a flat tax.

The point of this forum is to debate the complexity of the US tax code. That's where I started. Others took to another level in an attempt to distract form the original point. Go ahead, get upset that you've been disproved, exposed as frauds and incapable of providing intelligent argument. At the end of the day, I'm still going home to f**k the prom queen.

Chippert: don't project your own doubts and failures on me. One who wishes to know the truth studiesthe truth alone. There is no need to study lies, when you know the truth you can identify lies when they come to you because they do not agree with the truth.


Luckily we have barriers in place from such reasoning becoming the law of the land.


Back to my original post: I support a flat tax.


A flat tax seems logical and seems like it makes a lot of sense. You eliminate a lot of paperwork, a lot of government jobs, save lots of money.

However, there 2 main issues with a flat tax.

1.) A flat tax takes away from the government the ability to encourage or hinder social issues, educational issues, policy issues. Some people like the idea of the government not being able to interfere, but that only benefits the movers and shakers of the world. As an "average Joe", I'd prefer the government setting rules/restrictions than people with wealth.

2.) A flat tax has been shown to benefit the rich over the current tax laws. That alone is a reason not to want it implemented.

Back to my original post: I support a flat tax.

I support allowing people to enjoy the fruit of their labor as they see fit whether you make the widgets or if you're the guy who took to risk to open the widget making company.

I support the right for someone to choose not to produce and accept the consequences without placing a burden on those who do.

I support willful contributions to charity to support those who cannot take care of themselves.

I support the absolute rejection of government involvement in charity.

I support the absolute rejection of government redistributing wealth through punitive tax laws and assumption of debt, which is ultimately a burden put on the tax payers.

I support the repeal of tax loop holes and deductions. This is an extention of my support for a flat tax.

The point of this forum is to debate the complexity of the US tax code. That's where I started. Others took to another level in an attempt to distract form the original point. Go ahead, get upset that you've been disproved, exposed as frauds and incapable of providing intelligent argument. At the end of the day, I'm still going home to f**k the prom queen.

You seem like a very angry person. And you see everything in absolutions.

Are you an employee or do you own and opperate a business?

At the end of the day, I'm still going home to f**k the prom queen.
What’s she weighing now days?

1.) A flat tax takes away from the government the ability to encourage or hinder social issues, educational issues, policy issues.You are limiting yourself to only one tax strategy style. There are a variety of tax strategies that could be implemented. The government, for example, could raise the gasoline tax as a method of encouraging people to buy fuel efficient vehicles. We already have so-called "sin" taxes on the consumption of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. This concept could be extended to fast food.

2.) A flat tax has been shown to benefit the rich over the current tax laws. That alone is a reason not to want it implemented.Correct, a flat tax would have a disproportionate negative effect on the poor. The problem is that "fairness", while admirable, is a futile goal. (However, assuming a flat income tax this can be partially ameliorated by exempting families below a certain income (no exemptions allowed). I'm tending towards a consumption based tax to avoid the problems associated with an income tax.)

Attempting to re-address the inequities of any fairness based tax system will only re-start the whole process of bastardizing the tax system. Essentially, you will end up with a "new" version of our current tax system with a "new" mess of loopholes and exemptions to satisfy the special interest groups.

The problem with this system (and almost any other long-standing system you can name) is that we will never replace the old with new. It will simply take too many resources and too much time. Yes, in the long run it costs much more to maintain and patch the old, but the upfront costs of replacement are daunting and maybe unsupportable. Just like an ancient software system that has been patched, fixed, upgraded, patched, fixed for many many iterations, it is cheaper and expedient in the immediate to continue to patch and fix. Out with the old and in with the new will probably never happen.

The problem with this system (and almost any other long-standing system you can name) is that we will never replace the old with new. It will simply take too many resources and too much time. Yes, in the long run it costs much more to maintain and patch the old, but the upfront costs of replacement are daunting and maybe unsupportable. Just like an ancient software system that has been patched, fixed, upgraded, patched, fixed for many many iterations, it is cheaper and expedient in the immediate to continue to patch and fix. Out with the old and in with the new will probably never happen.


Maybe, but more than anything is the need to grow the tax paying base.

You are limiting yourself to only one tax strategy style. There are a variety of tax strategies that could be implemented. The government, for example, could raise the gasoline tax as a method of encouraging people to buy fuel efficient vehicles. We already have so-called "sin" taxes on the consumption of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. This concept could be extended to fast food.


True, but one of the goals of a fair tax or flat tax, as far as I have been able to determine, is that it is simple. One tax, not many numerous different types of taxes. If you changed only the income tax to a flat tax, then I suppose the government would retain its ability to effect those other issues we've talked about.


Correct, a flat tax would have a disproportionate negative effect on the poor. The problem is that "fairness", while admirable, is a futile goal. (However, assuming a flat income tax this can be partially ameliorated by exempting families below a certain income (no exemptions allowed). I'm tending towards a consumption based tax to avoid the problems associated with an income tax.)


The fair/flat tax proposal I'm must familiar with was analyzed by factcheck.org a year or so ago. Their conclusions were that the very poor and the rich would benefit, and the middle class would suffer. The rich for obvious reasons, and the poor from exactly what you've mentioned.

Personally I think it is a terrible idea to lessen the tax burden of the rich. I'd like to see us move to a 90% tax on all earnings over $1 million/year.


Attempting to re-address the inequities of any fairness based tax system will only re-start the whole process of bastardizing the tax system. Essentially, you will end up with a "new" version of our current tax system with a "new" mess of loopholes and exemptions to satisfy the special interest groups.

Of course, there will always be winners and losers as a result of any changes to the current tax system. I prefer a society with a lot flatter discrepancy between the rich and the poor as compared to what we have now.

The fact that a single individual in this country can own 1 billion dollars when we have people starving blows my mind.

Luckily we have barriers in place from such reasoning becoming the law of the land.



A flat tax seems logical and seems like it makes a lot of sense. You eliminate a lot of paperwork, a lot of government jobs, save lots of money.

However, there 2 main issues with a flat tax.

1.) A flat tax takes away from the government the ability to encourage or hinder social issues, educational issues, policy issues. Some people like the idea of the government not being able to interfere, but that only benefits the movers and shakers of the world. As an "average Joe", I'd prefer the government setting rules/restrictions than people with wealth.

2.) A flat tax has been shown to benefit the rich over the current tax laws. That alone is a reason not to want it implemented.

1. I was responding to his specific failure to make a point about my religion, not law.

2. I believe your first point on the flat tax is faulty. First the government is built to serve the people in specific ways. Social issues is not one of them in the case of the Federal government. If it was, they could impose a tax on being gay to dicsourage that behavior or they could impose a tax on being strictly heterosexual to encourage the addition of homosexual activities. Second, An "Average Joe" has more power than you give him credit for. Rich people get rich when a lot of average joes buy their stuff. Rich people get poor when average joes quit doing business with them. Think about where the oil companies and electronics manufacturers would be if we all lived like the Amish. Think about all the energy companies and auto manufacturers ........

You can't argue that you have to buy gasoline, cars, computers, phones etc. You have the ability to chose a different lifestyle. Furthermore, you don't have to buy from the big guys. Shop at your local hardware store instead of Home Depot. Get your food from the local grocer instead of Wal-Mart. Get creative, open your own shop and maybe even become one those "horrible" rich people.

In regards to your second post. I'm OK with a flat tax benifitting the rich for two reasons. First, I intend to join their ranks. Second, they will either fall prey to greed and build more businesses to fuel their greed, thus creating more jobs and symbiotic relationships with small businesses or they will get "enough money" (I wish there were sarcasm marks availalble) to satiate their greed and leave a void for someone else to fill and get rich. Either way, we win. When you tax the hell out of them, they stop producing and rely on their stockpiles or invest somewhere else where it is more profitable; in that case we lose.

Thales750, I am not an angry person. If you sense anger rather than conviction in my posts, you may need to look in the mirror for the source of that anger. It's ok. Anger is a natural emotion. What's important is what we do with that anger. I hope you have a healthy way of dealing with yours.

I am both an employee and a business owner. As a matter of fact, I am in the process of firing my employer due to dis-satisfaction with their performance. Soon, I will have large array of employers and hopefully join the ranks of those horrible rich people, and when I do, I will find a tax attorney and an accountant that earn whatever fee they charge by keeping as many of my dollars in my pocket and out of the government's coffers.

1. I was responding to his specific failure to make a point about my religion, not law.

2. I believe your first point on the flat tax is faulty. First the government is built to serve the people in specific ways. Social issues is not one of them in the case of the Federal government. If it was, they could impose a tax on being gay to dicsourage that behavior or they could impose a tax on being strictly heterosexual to encourage the addition of homosexual activities. Second, An "Average Joe" has more power than you give him credit for. Rich people get rich when a lot of average joes buy their stuff. Rich people get poor when average joes quit doing business with them. Think about where the oil companies and electronics manufacturers would be if we all lived like the Amish. Think about all the energy companies and auto manufacturers ........

You can't argue that you have to buy gasoline, cars, computers, phones etc. You have the ability to chose a different lifestyle. Furthermore, you don't have to buy from the big guys. Shop at your local hardware store instead of Home Depot. Get your food from the local grocer instead of Wal-Mart. Get creative, open your own shop and maybe even become one those "horrible" rich people.

In regards to your second post. I'm OK with a flat tax benifitting the rich for two reasons. First, I intend to join their ranks. Second, they will either fall prey to greed and build more businesses to fuel their greed, thus creating more jobs and symbiotic relationships with small businesses or they will get "enough money" (I wish there were sarcasm marks availalble) to satiate their greed and leave a void for someone else to fill and get rich. Either way, we win. When you tax the hell out of them, they stop producing and rely on their stockpiles or invest somewhere else where it is more profitable; in that case we lose.

Thales750, I am not an angry person. If you sense anger rather than conviction in my posts, you may need to look in the mirror for the source of that anger. It's ok. Anger is a natural emotion. What's important is what we do with that anger. I hope you have a healthy way of dealing with yours.

I am both an employee and a business owner. As a matter of fact, I am in the process of firing my employer due to dis-satisfaction with their performance. Soon, I will have large array of employers and hopefully join the ranks of those horrible rich people, and when I do, I will find a tax attorney and an accountant that earn whatever fee they charge by keeping as many of my dollars in my pocket and out of the government's coffers.



Ah I see, you are in multi-level marketing. Yes, that is the language they use.

Unfortunately you are mistaken when it come to at least three of your points. First we don't have the same definition of rich. You use the common erroneous one, I refer to the ultra rich; their wealth is more than you can conceive.

Actually it’s more than anyone can conceive; we must create abstractions to comprehend it.


Second: it is a fallacy that the ultra rich will continue to create jobs, actually over the last 10 years, more and more profit has been made with less and less employees. This results in a concentration of wealth that has no place to go. Hence the huge amount of M1 that was channeled into the housing market.

Trillions of dollars, and no place to go.

Last: high tax brackets for the ultra rich do indeed create an environment for more reinvestment. If you want to learn something instead of just looking down at poor folks, as lazy no counts, then look up the tax rate in 1963. At the same time look up the % of the Global output that was US, and finally what was the unemployment rate at that time?

If you approach it with an open mind you may find some of your assumptions are incorrect.

I don’t want more government than we need, but anarchy is no substitute.

Ah I see, you are in multi-level marketing. Yes, that is the language they use.

Unfortunately you are mistaken when it come to at least three of your points. First we don't have the same definition of rich. You use the common erroneous one, I refer to the ultra rich; their wealth is more than you can conceive.

Actually it’s more than anyone can conceive; we must create abstractions to comprehend it.


Second: it is a fallacy that the ultra rich will continue to create jobs, actually over the last 10 years, more and more profit has been made with less and less employees. This results in a concentration of wealth that has no place to go. Hence the huge amount of M1 that was channeled into the housing market.

Trillions of dollars, and no place to go.

Last: high tax brackets for the ultra rich do indeed create an environment for more reinvestment. If you want to learn something instead of just looking down at poor folks, as lazy no counts, then look up the tax rate in 1963. At the same time look up the % of the Global output that was US, and finally what was the unemployment rate at that time?

If you approach it with an open mind you may find some of your assumptions are incorrect.

I don’t want more government than we need, but anarchy is no substitute.

Bravo for you, Thales. I could not have said it better. The growing wealth of the ultra-rich is rapidly creating a vacuum in our society as the wealth is sucked upward into these rarified strata. No much can come from the poor as they have already been sucked dry, so it now must come from the middle class in such schemes as the mortgage based investment fiasco. How many of the ultra rich have been seriously hurt in the economic disaster we are experiencing? Just a very few (like Madoff) who were adept at covering their tracks. And of course, wealth and power are still synonomous and so we are rapidly approaching yet another Antoinette Era wihere I am afraid a similiar fate awaits us all. Worse, as there will be no "New World" where people can run to escape the debackle.

Thales750, again you project your own faults and prejudice on others and make assumptions instead of dealing with facts.

I am not in multi-level marketing, I am building a clientele for which I provide computer based services like networking, programming, repair and virus removal. The more my boss fails to pay what I think I'm worth, the more I look for new clients to eventually fire his cheap a$$. I don't complain about his new porsche or ask the government to tax him extra so I can get one for myself, I just work to change my situation.

"Second: it is a fallacy that the ultra rich will continue to create jobs" - Really? The Ultra Rich have the majority of their wealth in investments like corporations and banks that less rich people work for and borrow from to create jobs.

Citing a tax rate that abuses the fact that there is growth is not proof that high taxes are good for the economy.

Your arguments have been based on fallacy, half logic, left wing talking points, misdirection and personal attacks. You argue for higher taxes as though you have some right to them or that there is justification for it.

I'm calling you out on this for the last time.

If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justifaction for that position. The fact that someone has more than you doesn't count as a valid argument.

Either provide an answer or have a seat on the STFU couch. .

Oh, yeah. Not only do I intend to conceive of the amount of money the ultra rich have, I intend to obtain it. Don't worry, I'll stash it in another country so you don't have to feel guilty about being the beneficiary of it.

Thales750, again you project your own faults and prejudice on others and make assumptions instead of dealing with facts.

I am not in multi-level marketing, I am building a clientele for which I provide computer based services like networking, programming, repair and virus removal. The more my boss fails to pay what I think I'm worth, the more I look for new clients to eventually fire his cheap a$$. I don't complain about his new porsche or ask the government to tax him extra so I can get one for myself, I just work to change my situation.

"Second: it is a fallacy that the ultra rich will continue to create jobs" - Really? The Ultra Rich have the majority of their wealth in investments like corporations and banks that less rich people work for and borrow from to create jobs.

Citing a tax rate that abuses the fact that there is growth is not proof that high taxes are good for the economy.

Your arguments have been based on fallacy, half logic, left wing talking points, misdirection and personal attacks. You argue for higher taxes as though you have some right to them or that there is justification for it.

I'm calling you out on this for the last time.

If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justifaction for that position. The fact that someone has more than you doesn't count as a valid argument.

Either provide an answer or have a seat on the STFU couch. .

Oh, yeah. Not only do I intend to conceive of the amount of money the ultra rich have, I intend to obtain it. Don't worry, I'll stash it in another country so you don't have to feel guilty about being the beneficiary of it.


You win,

Best wishes getting your new business going.
I apologize for any personal attacks.

I would like to answer my own question now.

If you still feel you have the right to someone else's property, provide justification for that position. The fact that someone has more than you does not count as a valid argument. We don't.

A few basis points:

1. Our government is funded through taxes.
2. Part of our government's role is to enforce a common set of rules to live by known as laws, including rules to govern and enforce the protection of personal property.
3. Our government is made up of people from our own population elected through an expensive political process.
4. Those who have more, benefit from this structure more because more is protected and therefore should pay a higher amount commensurate with the value of their assets because they receive a greater service in scale than those who have less.
5. The votes and voices of those who have less count for less because their influence on the political process is limited. It should not be this way, but it is. This expanded influence enjoyed by those who can and do contribute to the political process (George Soros, Bill Gates, Koch Brothers, etc.) should come at a cost beyond the checks they write because the return is greater than the value of their currency.
6. When taxing income, applying a flat tax provides a mechanism to adjust for that greater protection.
7. Taxing the recipients of political contributions as income provides a mechanism to adjust for increased influence. (It’s not perfect, but it is a place to start.)
8. I do believe that having higher tax rates disincentivises a lot of growth because I have experienced it personally. I have found in my own employment history that raises can cost more because of bracketed tax rates, I had to request a pay decrease because the raise put me just barely into the next bracket which meant I was bringing home less money even though I grossed more. (Please excuse the Palinism “disincentivises”.)

I still believe a flat tax is fair. I will adjust this view in light of the logical argument that has been presented in this forum and, of all sources, what I have heard listening to debate on the subject on conservative talk radio.

1. Redefine “flat tax” to mean a flat rate, without exemptions and deductions.
2. Remove all social engineering from the tax code with exception to different rates applied at different income levels.
a. Let A = the accepted poverty level / minimum income standard.
b. Let B = everything over that.
c. Those at or below the poverty level pay taxes on consumption rather than income for example, sales taxes.
d. Anything over “A” is taxed at the same rate regardless of the source of income, wages, dividends, interest etc. For those in the “B” segment enjoy the same exemption for their initial income up to the limits of “A” as those in the “A” group and are taxed only on income that exceeds that level.
e. Taxes on ancestral inheritance are eliminated because the money was already taxed when it was earned by the ancestor.



I have a complaint to register with some of you. The arguments related to religion and morality regarding the role of government is offensive to me. This topic should be governed by logic, not morality, religion, or emotion. Introducing the concept of social engineering and allowing the government to influence personal behavior and choices is a slippery slope I want to avoid. If you allow the government to decide morality, you will eventually find that you have surrendered personal liberty. For example, the Muslims believe in either killing or punitively taxing infidels who refuse to convert. For all of you non-Muslims this is a risk. The Christian crusades killed and tortured thousands while under the control of government, for all of you non-Christians, are you willing to risk a repeat of this? Let’s not forget what Adolf Hitler did to “clean up” his little corner of the world. The examples of history are many.

We are talking about economic policy when we are talking about taxes and funding our government. Capitalism thrives on the impulse to create and accumulate. I believe the best response to greed and immoral acts in the economy is to boycott those who commit the offenses. For example, how many of you stopped filling your gas tanks at BP this year because of the oil spill? BP is huge, but not so large that a mass long term boycott could not bankrupt them or drive them out of our country. Such a response would open the door for other companies that operate in better way to grow or for new ones to be created. Other examples may be more painful and inconvenient to implement but not nearly as bas as allowing the government to assume sweeping control.

I believe the root of the problem with our tax code is that is used to control behavior by providing incentives for certain actions and penalties for others. It should be used to fund the government for the functions we have assigned to it and nothing else.

I presume the majority of you are intelligent people capable of providing worthy debate, that’s why I engaged in this exercise to begin with. My goal is to incite logical debate in order to work towards improving our country. I look forward to your logical responses.

Thales750: Thank you for wishing me well as I build my business. I truly do wish you and all others in this forum the very best. Maybe we can all join the ranks of the ultra rich and guide this country to a level of greatness higher than it has even known.