Complexity of United States tax code (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

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.

 

[ChipperT]

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.

 

[Thales750]

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.

 

[Lightwave]

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

 

[Steve R.]

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

Exactly. The products generated in a free-market should be based on demand. The consumer should be free to vote with his/her $$$.

 

[Thales750]

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 ra** 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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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.

 

[ChipperT]

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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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.

 

[Steve R.]

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.

 

[Thales750]

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.

 

[Lightwave]

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!

 

[Thales750]

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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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]

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?

 

[Steve R.]

..., 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.

 

[ChipperT]

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?

 

[Insane_ai]

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.

 

[Lightwave]

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....