What are the US problems that need to fixed in the next four years?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Are you an advocate of a National Sales Tax and/or a Flat Tax?

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Are 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.

I've never had it explained to me why the flat tax is bad. Everyone is invested. Those who make more, pay more. We eliminate lots of useless dead wood...excess accountants, excess tax attorneys, excess IRS beurocracy, excess paperwork...you don't even need tax returns. 10% monthly is the same as 10% annually. What's to report? Do away with deductions; it's not the government's business what you do with your money, anyhow.

Seems straight forward to me.

ETA: Did a quick search to find cons to a flat tax. Two were brought up. One is that IRS employees would lose their jobs. I considered that a 'pro'. The other is that government dead wood costs so much, they need to tax higher earners to survive. Seems related to the excess IRS problem to me. So, I am still a proponent of the flat tax.

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.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Are 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.

I've never had it explained to me why the flat tax is bad. Everyone is invested. Those who make more, pay more. We eliminate lots of useless dead wood...excess accountants, excess tax attorneys, excess IRS beurocracy, excess paperwork...you don't even need tax returns. 10% monthly is the same as 10% annually. What's to report? Do away with deductions; it's not the government's business what you do with your money, anyhow.

Seems straight forward to me.

ETA: Did a quick search to find cons to a flat tax. Two were brought up. One is that IRS employees would lose their jobs. I considered that a 'pro'. The other is that government dead wood costs so much, they need to tax higher earners to survive. Seems related to the excess IRS problem to me. So, I am still a proponent of the flat tax.

I would also add that it would give the government less control over peoples lives because once everyone shares in the same pain, there would be a greater demand to reduce spending. I still think the best thing to do in the meantime is to reduce the size of the IRS and have people write out a check every month to pay what theyowe in payroll and income taxes. Taking out of workers checks only makes high taxes seem more palatable.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

There'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.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Are 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.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

Don't quibble over semantics. Placing a tax burden on an economic activity that is essential to economic health is a bad idea. In other words, it is economically healthy for people to spend money. Taxing that activity is not good.

Happy?

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.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

There'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.

I'd love to be able to afford his CPA. If you think Obama is going to get away with raising taxes on wealthy people, you better think again. Private CPA firms have brilliant people who will run circles around government. Everytime they raise taxes, there is always a loophole or it will result in businesses employing more Independent Contractors and Sub-Contractors. That's going to result in less revenues. Or they will just take their money off-shore and invest in other economies.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

There'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.

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.

[wmw999 2,583]

Most states have sales tax already -- it's how poor people pay their taxes currently. It just goes to states and cities instead of the feds. In states where food is taxed, it means they pay a fairly significant amount; less so where it isn't.

That said, while it's not cost-effective to pay people to collect money from welfare recipients (whom we just gave that money to), some sort of buy-in to the system seems like a good idea.

It's ludicrous to say that all these people should just get jobs. Those jobs aren't out there, and even if we can educate every single one of their children into high-tech jobs (and would there really be that many high-tech jobs then???), we still have the problem of the current generation. I volunteer at a homeless center; a large number of our clients would love to find work, if they could just find something that they could do.

To really help the situation with the poor, hire someone who's long-term unemployed.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Don't quibble over semantics.

Not quibbling over semantics, quibbling over a mindset that equates paying tax to run the country with "PENALTY".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

True. And those sales taxes effect buyer behavior. I buy plenty of things over the internet just to avoid the taxes. I think a national sales tax would have to be sufficiently high that it would discourage some purchases...negatively effecting the economy.

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.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There'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.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Yes, the tax code needs to be fixed so the super rich can't escape paying a fair share.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

There'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.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

True. And those sales taxes effect buyer behavior. I buy plenty of things over the internet just to avoid the taxes. I think a national sales tax would have to be sufficiently high that it would discourage some purchases...negatively effecting the economy.

Every tax scheme leads to tax avoidance schemes. It is inevitable. Policy makers always have to take that into account.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wmw999 2,583]

And it's better to take it into account up front, rather than devising one that requires a lot of enforcement. The overall cost in the long run is smaller, and if part of the rationale is to increase revenues and decrease costs, then cost has to take a higher priority than moral superiority.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Bertt 0]

So far, this is a more sensible thread than most of what goes on in Speaker's Corner or in Washington.
I'd just like to add a wish for tort reform, specifically going to a "loser pays" system like this:

LOSER PAYS
By Walter Olson, 05-21-2004
Adapted from a fuller treatment originally written for overlawyered.com

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Our editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". For a more extensive look at an argument for the loser-pays system, see chapter 15 of The Litigation Explosion, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[mirage62 0]

In the end we as Americans have to realize that we can allow our politicians to keep spending money we don’t have – no matter if we happen to like it (for our “cause”) The politicians AREN’T going to stop unless “we the people” make them through the ballot box, that’s really all that most of them understand.

I have no problem paying more in taxes IF and it it a REALLY BIG IF the money is spent to lower the deficit. People in the top brackets can afford to pay more and as long as the amount is not oppressive (15% is close but IMO we have to get this deficit under control)

The biggest problem is that we all have to be in it together. You can’t just tax the rich out of it, you can’t get it from the poor and you certainly have to GROW the economy because more tax revenue WITHOUT increased spending is the only way out.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[wmw999 2,583]

I really like reading that, because I'm in complete agreement. I'm not sure that 15% is a reasonable top limit; we've gotten awfully used to exceedingly low taxes in the US (really -- those of us here who think we used to pay less have to remember that 30 years ago most of us were also earning less -- tax rates on our current earnings were higher then).

I don't remember who it was, but after the election some pundit or official said that we have to get out of the habit of spending money when we have it, because then we're committed to spending it when we don't have it.

That means that in the good years, when the coffers are full, we invest in infrastructure and paying down the debt, so that in teh future we can weather a storm. Texas does have its rainy day fund (which is a good idea, even if currently a hostage in a power struggle). That's really what our strategic oil reserves are, as well. This isn't something to spend when things are a little bad, it's what you scrimp a little so that when things really go south in ways that you never thought would happen, you can still recover.

But we don't do that -- many electors don't want to hear that from candidates. They want to hear about all the cool stuff they can buy with their new raise, without remembering that the raise shoudl go towards savings.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

In the end we as Americans have to realize that we can allow our politicians to keep spending money we don’t have – no matter if we happen to like it (for our “cause”) The politicians AREN’T going to stop unless “we the people” make them through the ballot box, that’s really all that most of them understand.

I have no problem paying more in taxes IF and it it a REALLY BIG IF the money is spent to lower the deficit. People in the top brackets can afford to pay more and as long as the amount is not oppressive (15% is close but IMO we have to get this deficit under control)

Not sure what you mean. 15% of what?

I currently pay federal income tax at an overall rate of around 21%. No multi millionaires should be paying only 14%.

(Be safe at POPS).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[blueblur 0]

Quote

True. And those sales taxes effect buyer behavior. I buy plenty of things over the internet just to avoid the taxes. I think a national sales tax would have to be sufficiently high that it would discourage some purchases...negatively effecting the economy.

The arguing point of a national sales tax would be that it replaces a federal income tax. So while your purchases would cost more, you are bringing home more of your paycheck without the fed taxes being taken.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

IYou can’t just tax the rich out of it, you can’t get it from the poor and you certainly have to GROW the economy because more tax revenue WITHOUT increased spending is the only way out.

Putting the tax rates back where they were under Clinton would fix most of the revenue side, with much work still required on the spending side. You are correct that the rates need to extend down to the middle class, not just to the upper few percent. Not popular politically (with the middle and upper middle class), but I don't see how to avoid it.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

IYou can’t just tax the rich out of it, you can’t get it from the poor and you certainly have to GROW the economy because more tax revenue WITHOUT increased spending is the only way out.

Putting the tax rates back where they were under Clinton would fix most of the revenue side, with much work still required on the spending side. You are correct that the rates need to extend down to the middle class, not just to the upper few percent. Not popular politically (with the middle and upper middle class), but I don't see how to avoid it.

+1

There was no mass exodus of Millionaires during the Clinton years, neither did the economy tank.
Returning rates to those levels will not be the unmitigated disaster that Boehner and his cronies want you to believe.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

Returning rates to those levels will not be the unmitigated disaster that Boehner and his cronies want you to believe.

It might be, for their next campaign funding.

[billvon 3,107]

> Placing a tax burden on an economic activity that is essential to economic health is a bad idea.

Every tax is a "burden on an economic activity that is essential to economic health." Income taxes? Burdens people who work (who form the backbone of our economy.) Property taxes? Burdens the real estate market, and as we've seen damaging that can easily lead to recessions. Sales tax? Burdens retail sales, which are also a very important part of our economy.

There is no tax (with the possible exception of inheritance tax) that is not a burden. We pay them because we need to to support the government, not because we want to shape society. The various strategies we use (progressive taxes) are used primarily because that's how we can tax people while impacting the economy the least.