Complexity of United States tax code (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

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]

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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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 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.

 

[Thales750]

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 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]

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.

 

[Thales750]

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.

 

[Steve R.]

The New York Times just published a relevant article. The Paradox of Corporate Taxes

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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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.

 

[Thales750]

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?

 

[Insane_ai]

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.

 

[Adam Caramon]

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.

 

[Thales750]

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?

 

[Thales750]

At the end of the day, I'm still going home to f**k the prom queen.

What’s she weighing now days?

 

[Steve R.]

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.

 

[ChipperT]

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.

 

[Thales750]

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.

 

[Adam Caramon]

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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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.

 

[Thales750]

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.

 

[ChipperT]

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.