lawrocket 3 #51 November 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you an advocate of a National Sales Tax and/or a Flat Tax? I've never thought too much of a national sales tax. Penalizing people for an important part of economic activity seems like a bad idea. No one is penalized by paying tax. It's not a penalty, its the price we pay to belong to an advanced society. It's NOT a price we pay to belong to an advanced society. If we all belong then we would all be taxed equally. We aren't. The flat tax means everyone pays the same percentage except for those who earn nothing (and Billy Preston did a song about Nothin' from Nothin'). My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #52 November 9, 2012 QuoteQuote I agree with bill that issue 2 is infrastructure. This means: (1) road and bridge maintenance; (2) water storage and delivery; and (3) power transmission (Bill made a hot call on HVDC backbone, though I’m less interested in government involvement with that). A related article from someone I consider reasonably moderate and pretty sharp, Fareed Zakaria. Edit to add: I'm also coming to agree with the premise of an infrastructure bank that loans money to projects involving public-private partnerships, but there also needs to be an understanding that while ROI is important, it is not the only relevant consideration. Blues, Dave That's the problem with infrastructure - it's politically unpalatable. There's no glory in it unless you build a road or a bridge with a politician's name on it. That's why funds are taken from road and bridge maintenance so frequently. Maintenance doesn't win votes. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #53 November 9, 2012 >It's NOT a price we pay to belong to an advanced society. If we all belong then >we would all be taxed equally. That is not even close to being practical. Taxing each taxpayer in the US (about 150 million people) equally would result in a tax per person of about $23,000. Roughly 25% of those taxpayers would not be able to pay and thus would end up in prison. The costs of incarcerating 12.5% of the populace would quickly bankrupt us. So instead we have the rich pay more. It's a good idea since it keeps the poor out of prison while funding the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #54 November 9, 2012 QuotePutting the tax rates back where they were under Clinton would fix most of the revenue side, http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2010USk_12s1li011mcn_F0f Looks like, by golly by gee, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (aka, "Bush Tax Cut") may have had a bit of an effect. I have ZERO idea why on earth you and kallend want to go back to the the revenues of the Clinton years when the Bush Tax Cuts led to more revenues than this country had ever seen. So ther must be something else at work when you say that more money is needed. I.e., it's not about revenue. It's about something else. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #55 November 9, 2012 Quote Here's an idea: All federal employees are on flat rates for the next two years. I.E. No COL pay adjustments. Those of us in the private sector went through that so the Federal workers can too. I work for a subcontractor to the federal government. In the last 14 months, my project has laid off 64% of staff. My company and the company we contract to have been on pay freezes for 4 of the last 5 years. The one year we got raises (the year before last), the company average was 1.4%. I'll trade you my four years for your two. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #56 November 9, 2012 >I have ZERO idea why on earth you and kallend want to go back to the the >revenues of the Clinton years . . . . Perhaps because it is the only time in the past 50 years that we managed to balance the budget? Or because during the Clinton years our debt was declining as a percentage of GDP? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #57 November 9, 2012 QuoteThat's the problem with infrastructure - it's politically unpalatable. There's no glory in it unless you build a road or a bridge with a politician's name on it. That's why funds are taken from road and bridge maintenance so frequently. Maintenance doesn't win votes. As anyone who's ever owned a car can tell you, changing the oil is a hell of a lot cheaper than changing the engine. According to the Pew Center, our highways have only grown 15% in the last 50 years, while traffic on them has increased 280% (and gas taxes for their repair have remained at a flat 18.4 cents/gallon since 1993 despite the effects of inflation on concrete, steel, labor, etc). Over 150,000 bridges in the US are either operating over design capacity or in need of serious repair, and 3,346 dams are at risk of failure, including 1200 with people living below them. I'm going to try to forget the 1.26 trillion gallons of untreated sewage leaking from pipes each year. Eww... Pay now, or pay later. It's just going to get more expensive. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #58 November 9, 2012 QuoteThat is not even close to being practical. Taxing each taxpayer in the US (about 150 million people) equally would result in a tax per person of about $23,000. Bingo. Equality and fairness are abstracts that cannot be accomplished. Some people (like me) think taxing everyone at 17% - no loopholes - would be a much more equitable way of handling things. But there are people out there who think this wholly unfair. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #59 November 9, 2012 Quote Some people (like me) think taxing everyone at 17% - no loopholes - would be a much more equitable way of handling things. But there are people out there who think this wholly unfair. Would that 17% include payroll taxes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #61 November 9, 2012 >Some people (like me) think taxing everyone at 17% - no loopholes - would be a >much more equitable way of handling things. I would be fine with that as long as there was a poverty line cutoff i.e. "17% on every dollar over X." It would be a significant hit to our economy, so it would be best implemented when the economy is doing well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #62 November 9, 2012 QuotePay now, or pay later. The designers of these roads and dams did not expect that the money to maintain would be diverted elsewhere. It usually takes a disaster to refocus the efforts (like the Mianus River Bridge collapse). Money for maintenance is not glorious. In fact, even road maintenance pisses people off because of the inconvenience. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #63 November 9, 2012 QuoteQuote Some people (like me) think taxing everyone at 17% - no loopholes - would be a much more equitable way of handling things. But there are people out there who think this wholly unfair. Would that 17% include payroll taxes? You mean withholdings for Social Security and stuff? Interesting question... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #64 November 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Some people (like me) think taxing everyone at 17% - no loopholes - would be a much more equitable way of handling things. But there are people out there who think this wholly unfair. Would that 17% include payroll taxes? You mean withholdings for Social Security and stuff? Interesting question... Yes, that is what I mean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #65 November 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere's that word again. Those who make the most would pay the highest taxes in a flat tax environemnt. We have a sliding scale that ensures success is penalized at a greater rate than a flat tax would provide. You want to raise taxes on those who already pay the highest percentage and dollar amount. . Well, except those that make a lot more and pay a lower percentage, Like Mr. Romney. And he still pays more each year than you and I will pay in a lifetime. How, exactly, is it 'fair' to want him to pay more? I've never been one to hate another because that other was successful. I would hate to think anyone hated me for what meager success I have enjoyed. Explain why someone making $tens of millions a year should be paying at a much lower % than a middle class professional making 1/100 as much. Pay attention. I am advocating the same percentage for everyone. However, to answer your challenge, what Mr. Romeny paid was more than he was legally required to. In this specific case, he should pay a lower percentage because that is what the law required. I am suggesting changing the law to prevent that.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #66 November 9, 2012 QuoteQuotePutting the tax rates back where they were under Clinton would fix most of the revenue side, http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2010USk_12s1li011mcn_F0f Looks like, by golly by gee, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (aka, "Bush Tax Cut") may have had a bit of an effect. I have ZERO idea why on earth you and kallend want to go back to the the revenues of the Clinton years when the Bush Tax Cuts led to more revenues than this country had ever seen. . Try accounting for inflation and population growth, and then report back.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #67 November 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteThere's that word again. Those who make the most would pay the highest taxes in a flat tax environemnt. We have a sliding scale that ensures success is penalized at a greater rate than a flat tax would provide. You want to raise taxes on those who already pay the highest percentage and dollar amount. You describe that as 'fair'. I'm not sure that penalizing success and calling it 'fair' is a good thing. Nope. Not sure at all... Well, the logic behind it, and I'm sure you already know this, is that the higher your income, the more you can afford a higher tax rate, given what you still have left over after taxes. Take the difference between, say, a 10% flat tax on a family of 4 making $40K vs. one making $200K. You can buy a hell of a lot more with $180,000 left over than you can with $36K left over. But with a graduated tax, the $40K family getting taxed at 5% would have $38K left over; and to them, that extra $2K makes a big difference in paying for basic necessities. Taxing the $200K family at 20% still leaves them with $160K; for them, that might make the difference in what kind of 3rd or 4th car they can buy for the family, but it's unlikely to reduce their ability to pay for basic necessities. (Also, as Wendy points out, we already have one form of flat tax, in the form of sales taxes which everyone pays at the same rate.) A couple times you've expressed a dislike of massaging semantics to rationalize an agenda. OK; well, I get tired of affluent people claiming that their taxes are penalties on their success which get paid to poorer people to reward them for being lazy. Affluent people in the US (even those with only first-generation affluence like, say, doctor children of poor immigrant parents) are affluent not only due to the sweat of their brows, but also, in part, because because the particular nature of American society, resources, economy, etc. gave them the opportunity to become affluent in a manner that would be far less available to them in most other countries. So, paying taxes is one of the several ways (in addition to spending in the economy, creating jobs, etc.) they pay something back into the society that gave them the opportunity in the first place. It's not free payment to the poor and lazy, it's payment-back, and payment-forward, into society at large in exchange for the opportunity given by that society and benefited from. Andy: You are adding things to my argument that I did not put there. I did not suggest anything was being given to anyone. I did not use any terms such as 'lazy'. I just said nobody has explained to me how a flat tax is unfair. You make the argument that those who make more should pay more because they can. Please think that through. It suggests that government is entitled to anything we do not absolutely need to survive. It suggests that people are not entitled to the benefits of their hard / smart work. It also sounds very much like, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need." That was tried. Didn't work too well. I agree with your argument that those who benefit the most should pay the most. A flat tax does just that. A sliding scale tax doesn't make those who make more just pay more. It increases the definition of 'more'. It attempts to remove any excess. The logical end-state to that idea is that anything you don't NEED to survive should go to the government for re-distribution.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #68 November 9, 2012 QuoteA sliding scale tax doesn't make those who make more just pay more. It increases the definition of 'more'. It attempts to remove any excess. The logical end-state to that idea is that anything you don't NEED to survive should go to the government for re-distribution. Yet you have had a tax system like that for quite some time and people have still been succesful and the country hasn't turned communist. Your reasoning seems to be more routed in fear of this possibly happening. A flat tax is limited by what the poorest can pay, which probably isn't the best way of setting up a solid revenue stream. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #69 November 9, 2012 QuoteTry accounting for inflation and population growth, and then report back I chose 2005 dollars. Inflation was accounted for. And population growth? Interestingly, I have a tendency to think that "full employment" plays a big role in revenues. A population of 320 million where 150 million are working would end up with less revenues than when 200 million out of 300 million are working, even if those 200 million are paying less as a percentage. Have you considered expanding the tax base by expanding employment as a possible way of increasing revenues? Think about it - if we had 100 billion people paying $2k more per year in taxes we would have balanced the budget.* And by golly by gee, look what the "Bush Tax Cuts" did to the deficit. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2010USk_12s1li011mcn_G0f And WOW! Take a look at total spending! http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2010USk_12s1li011mcn_G1f in ten years we went from $2 trillion in spending up to over $3 trillion. Sorry, kallend - do the math. There is ZERO way that taxing the wealthy out of existence will balance the budget. You could liquidate Apple and get $515 billion for it. "But lawrocket," you say. "Throw in Google" - there's $217 billion. "Kill Microsoft." - $243 billion. "Then kill off Exxon" - $398 billion. Whoa! We're only at about half of the deficit FOR ONE YEAR. So it looks like something else - besides or in addition to taxing - needs to be done. * no we wouldn't have. It would mean more money to spend and we'd still have a massive deficit. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #70 November 9, 2012 >The logical end-state to that idea is that anything you don't NEED to survive should >go to the government for re-distribution. No, that's an interpretation, as valid as the interpretation that "flat taxes mean that we don't care about poor people." The underlying principle is one of economic impact. Increase taxes on the bottom 25% and all that money is instantly removed from the retail economy, which is the engine that drives our economy as a whole. That harms the economy, thus reducing revenue. Increase taxes on the top 5% and very little changes in the retail space. They are a smaller group and their retail spending is not capped by their income. Thus revenue decreases slightly due to this effect and overall is increased. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 November 9, 2012 QuoteA flat tax is limited by what the poorest can pay, That philosophy is based upon the notion that economic policy should have as its chief goal the maximizing of government revenues through taxation. I challenge that notion. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #72 November 9, 2012 So you didn't account for population growth. Thought not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #73 November 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteA flat tax is limited by what the poorest can pay, That philosophy is based upon the notion that economic policy should have as its chief goal the maximizing of government revenues through taxation. I challenge that notion. And I challenge your interpretation of what he wrote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #74 November 9, 2012 >That philosophy is based upon the notion that economic policy should have as its >chief goal the maximizing of government revenues through taxation. Close. Taxation (not economic) policy should have as its chief goal the maximizing of government revenues while minimizing effects on the economy, with the goal being matching revenue to expenditures. (We've seen what happens over the past 20 years when you don't do that.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #75 November 9, 2012 Quote So you didn't account for population growth. Thought not. Nope. I did not. Somehow increases in elderly and children don't seem to mean much. But if you want to tax them to get more revenue then... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
