logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> What Fiscal Policy Are You Voting For, What is the best taxation policy for our economy
Eeyore
post Oct 12 2012, 05:33 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



In the First Presidential Debate thread, a sub-debate has emerged about the best tax policies for the country. This is a conversation I am interested in. Here are several of the posts on this theme that stem from a comment about the best tax policy for our country.



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 11 2012, 01:39 PM) *
What proof is there that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will negatively impact the economy?

What proof is there that raising the taxes of anyone will negatively impact the economy? Would raising your taxes impact you? How about if the poorest had their taxes had their taxes raised? Prove that is a bad thing. Oh where, oh where is the proof?

Raising someone's taxes always hurts them. It is always negative. Some people may agree to pay more but that would be a rare bird. Most people do not care if someone else has to pay more. Some want to raise other people's taxes, "It does not hurt me, could help me, so I am for it."

Is it not obvious that having money taken from you without your consent is a bad thing, a negative thing? Is it not obvious that people who have money taken from them do not have that money available to invest for productive means?

It is a common theme in the United States to vote so you can get free stuff or at least get it on the cheap. Make someone else pay for it. As long as someone else, in this case a wealthier person, is the one being gored it is not a negative impact.

Taxes should be fair and low. Arbitrary and high are not fair nor good and such means of applying taxes are negatively impacting the economy. It is common sense to recognize this to be true. Arbitrary taxes can benefit some at the expense of others. Because some benefit does not mean the overall result is good.



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 11 2012, 01:49 PM) *
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 11 2012, 02:39 PM) *
What proof is there that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will negatively impact the economy?

What proof is there that raising the taxes of anyone will negatively impact the economy? Would raising your taxes impact you? How about if the poorest had their taxes had their taxes raised? Prove that is a bad thing. Oh where, oh where is the proof?

Raising someone's taxes always hurts them. It is always negative. Some people may agree to pay more but that would be a rare bird. Most people do not care if someone else has to pay more. Some want to raise other people's taxes, "It does not hurt me, could help me, so I am for it."

Is it not obvious that having money taken from you without your consent is a bad thing, a negative thing? Is it not obvious that people who have money taken from them do not have that money available to invest for productive means?

It is a common theme in the United States to vote so you can get free stuff or at least get it on the cheap. Make someone else pay for it. As long as someone else, in this case a wealthier person, is the one being gored it is not a negative impact.

Taxes should be fair and low. Arbitrary and high are not fair nor good and such means of applying taxes are negatively impacting the economy. It is common sense to recognize this to be true. Arbitrary taxes can benefit some at the expense of others. Because some benefit does not mean the overall result is good.

This may be the Post of the Year.

Thanks Gray Seal. I think just about everyone should agree in principle with what you've said but we know that some don't agree. They think that harming another (taxing them more heavily) is fair. As the President put it "At some point, you've made enough money!".

What these people don't realize (or don't seem to, anyway) is that these people's pursuit of money employs people. Does Bill Gates need Microsoft? Couldn't he just walk away? Should Jimmy Haslam (who just bought the Cleveland Browns) shut down all Pilot/Flying J's since he has enough money? Doesn't these men's pursuit of "more" employ a lot of people?

Economist Walter E. Williams always uses the analogy that government taxes are legalized theft. They take from some people and then they dole it out to people (sometimes the same people). The mugger on the street feels that he has more of a "need" for the money in your wallet than you do. The government has the same idea: "we will decide who needs this money, so hand it over". This is how government bureaucrats gain power: by taking from some people and giving to others.



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 12 2012, 08:14 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak)
I said "negatively impact the economy." Obviously paying more money in taxes is always a negative - nobody likes to do it, but that wasn't the question I asked.

I may be introducing a new concept. Take the entire economy and let's break it down to its individual parts. That would be the individuals within the economy. Individuals are making decisions about what they wish to do within the economy. Individuals are being harmed by taxes. It takes away from their choices by force. If they are willing to give the money it would be a contribution. The individuals have no choice as force is being used to take the money. They are being taxed. These individuals now have less ability to invest in their own business or to be productive.

If you take the accumulation of all of these parts which are being harmed it is logical to conclude that the whole is being harmed. bad + bad + bad = bad

I was responding to your question by looking at the parts of the economy to determine what is happening as a whole. It is not a proof. It is a concept. I was suggesting you are asking for a proof which is very difficult to do (as the variables in a macro economy are so numerous). But, concepts are understandable. Simplifying, in this case looking at the parts which make up the whole, can lead to better comprehension and understanding. It is not a proof but it is an understanding.



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 12 2012, 08:55 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 12 2012, 04:55 AM) *
QUOTE(Amlord)
Politicians, even liberal politicians, all agree that raising taxes in a slow economy is a bad move.

Again... do they? In the article you cited, liberal politicians didn't have a problem with raising taxes, they just wanted to raise them for those making over $1M. Please provide proof that all politicians, even liberal ones, agree that raising taxes in a slow economy is a bad move.


President Obama agreed to extend the current tax rates because he didn't want to raise taxes during a downturn. I cited the quote. I should not have used the term "all", so I'll retract that.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 12 2012, 04:55 AM) *
QUOTE
The reduction of rates doesn't result in the reduction of revenues. It never does.

blink.gif On what planet? If you reduce the tax rates, revenue is reduced. You are taking in less money.

Look at the historical tables of income collection.


President Bush cut taxes in 2003. Receipts to the treasury in fiscal year 2005 (which starts in 2004), were higher both in terms of absolute dollars and in terms of percentage of GDP every year after that (except FY2004 itself where the percent of GDP was 0.1% less, total receipts were still higher) until the recession hit in 2007. 2007 is still the highest amount the federal government has ever collected ($2.568 trillion).

The same happened during Reagan's tax cut era which started in 1982 (FY1983).

Tax rates don't change tax revenues all that much. Here is a fairly straightforward explanation.

QUOTE
The clear message from the Wall Street Journal chart is that the gold line (tax revenues) has been pretty steady at about 18-20% of GDP for 60 years even though the other line (tax rates) fluctuated from a high rate of 91% to a low of just under 30%. Despite changing tax rates, the actual tax revenues as a percentage of GDP really have not changed much.


Tax receipts are relatively stable because people will only pay what they feel is fair.

QUOTE
Does soaking the rich work?

Unfortunately, tinkering with the tax code seems to be irresistible to almost all politicians. In addition, raising taxes on the ‘rich’ is a populist theme many politicians have adopted. This idea is widespread even though there is a very good chance that higher tax rates will not lead to higher tax revenues. Our political leaders often misunderstand the long-term consequences of tax law changes and they advocate policies that bear little or no relationship to economic reality.

As you can see from these charts, soaking the rich by raising tax rates generally does not work. And, there can be collateral damage in that high tax rates almost always reduce economic activity which hurts everyone. If the goal is to maximize economic growth and generate adequate tax revenues, we know what makes sense.




My questions for debate are:

What tax policies are you voting for this November?

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?




This post has been edited by Eeyore: Oct 12 2012, 05:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Ted
post Oct 12 2012, 05:53 PM
Post #2


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Does soaking the rich work?


Not really - as I have said elsewhere the tax increase so hyped by Obama and Biden as something that will mean a great deal turns out to be insignificant. Getting the 80 Billion/yr represents just over 2% of lasts years Budget and just over 6% of last years deficit – and that’s if there are no other negative affects.

Yet this is the centerpiece of the Democrats plan (with more deficit spending) to revive the economy.

What tax policies are you voting for this November?

Romney/Ryan plan to cut Middle Class taxes by up to 20% to be paid for by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and big companies – a la Simpson Bowles.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

Because this has worked before (Reagan/JFK) and because its clear we are in a demand crunch. The middle class is the engine of growth. 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending so giving the folks that drive the demand more money will get us rolling and as new jobs are created by Demand more taxes will be paid and we will be on the road to the recovery we could have had.

This post has been edited by Ted: Oct 12 2012, 05:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 12 2012, 06:55 PM
Post #3


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



What tax policies are you voting for this November?

Democratic.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

Because Republican tax policies in the past have taken from the middle class and given to the rich. I don't trust Republicans as a result.

This attitude came about during Reagan's time in office. The two deductions that went away were on credit card interest payments and mortgage interest on second homes. Neither one impacted me, but it sure hurt one of my brothers who had a lake place that was considered a second summer home. I couldn't itemize due to not having a mortgage, so the CC interest deduction wasn't available. That was because I couldn't do a mortgage interest deduction, so my little pile of possible deductions didn't come even close to the standard deduction.

Regardless of the impact on me, I still learned that when it comes to taxation, Republicans favor the rich over the middle class. For a while there they tried to even things out, but now I'm pretty sure it'll be another ream job, and there won't be anything anyone can do about it until the next election cycle.

So that's basically the taxation angle. I have a bunch of other reasons not to vote for Republicans and to vote for Democrats. Perhaps the biggest is the two-faced tango being played this time around, but even if there were consistencies, I'd be against pretty much the entire Republican platform. The one attitude that really turns me off is that Republicans want everyone to pay federal income taxes regardless of income, so a year like this one would cost me more. Unless another side gig comes up that I can possibly interleave with the current major one, the full income will be under 10k. Next year could be four or five times greater, so maybe I should take a gamble that a Romney admin would lower taxes on that amount by 20%. Trouble is, I don't trust Republicans.

Back during the election season of 2000, I wanted to warn people that giving the White House to Republicans would be asking for war.

However, I didn't have anything but gut feeling to stand upon, so I kept silent. This time around I have something to stand upon: the history of the GWB admin in regards to war, and the history of the McCain campaign as well. There's no reason to believe Romney is any different.

So, more unfunded government expenditures, and someone is going to have to pay for them. But of course while the spending is going on, Republicans believe that running deficits doesn't matter. I guess military dollars are different from social dollars in those minds.

There's another reason not to trust them, so no vote for you!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 12 2012, 07:03 PM
Post #4


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



What tax policies are you voting for this November?

The least destructive of the two: more federal spending. Any form of deficit/debt reduction removes dollars from the economy, so in the absence of an administration that understands that, I'll vote for the one that isn't intent on cutting govt. spending.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

This is going to turn into another referendum on MMT, but the government needs to replace dollars lost to savings (t-bills), or else the economy will contract. So we need plenty of deficit spending. It's also about the only way for the lower end to see any money anymore, because the private sector has no jobs for them.

To me, taxing the rich isn't about finding money to pay down the deficit, or even paying for government spending. It's about preventing the rich from amassing too much money and becoming politically powerful in the process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Oct 12 2012, 07:16 PM
Post #5


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Personally I lean toward the tax policy in place in the 1990s with a higher top rate and a functioning estate tax set in place. I believe this is the best way to pay our bills for our country. We definitely have bills and need a way to pay for them.

The other side of this debate is tax cuts for both growth and raising revenues. Amlord has a post that cites federal revenues (great resource by the way) and asserts that revenues do increase with tax cuts. I believe this over-simplifies the point but it factually true about the revenue increases in 2003 and 2004. The fully story is that the economic cycle is the larger influence on revenues and the economy was coming out of economic recession. Additionally significant increases in federal spending fueled this economy.

The overall fiscal effect of the Bush administration was tax cuts that I assert decreased federal revenues and massive spending increases that began a new period of deficit spending that combined have harmed the American economy.

Grey Seal is drawing on a foundational idea of the United States. Simply put, the power to tax is the power to destroy. That an empowered government harms the liberties of its population when it arbitrarily taxes its citizens. Similar logic of the era asserted that a government is at its best when it governs least. Ben Franklin also asserted that there are two things that are certain in life, death and taxes. Grey Seal also argues that taxation harms the economy because it harms individuals. And that harming economic actors individually is aggregate harm to the economy.

IMHO, this is not a discussion about the morality of taxation as it is about the arbitrary nature of the taxation. I see a world in which we have individual spending and public spending. In the public spending area the bills need to get paid and an income is necessary.

One theory is about when to raise this income. Part of that theory is that certain times are not the best for arranging to pay bills. These are times when loans and credit cards are used. These tools have their limits. It always hurts to pay bills. Yet there comes a time that the bills must get paid. The Obama fiscal policy since inheriting a horrible economic mess in 2009 has been to put off income raising and deal with the free-failling (okay this was a typo at first, but I kind of liked it so I kept it) economy and take a series of emergency measures to try to get through a deep recession and to recovery. Obama projected moving toward reducing the deficit beginning about this time. It is time, the bills have been run up over the past ten years and it is time to begin the process. While it would be nice to continue to stimulate the economy and build up a more robust economy, I agree that it is time to begin inflicting a little bit more pain in the system to work on reducing the deficit with both spending cuts and revenue increases.

In the area of tax hikes, I support increasing the top level of income taxation. This is the sector of the economy that has done almost all of the growing in the past forty years, including in the 90s when this tax levels I am looking at using were in place.
I firmly believe that we are a consumer-side economy and not a supply-side economy. The strength of our economy is in a large middle class with doors to opportunity open to those able to work through them from the lower classes to the middle classes. The middle class is struggling and regressing right now. To turn the supply side argument around: These spenders are the job producers. When they are healthier they will spend and the economic engine will chug forward and at that point the high end earners who are paying more taxes will also earn more income buoyed, as much of the world economy is, by rejuvenated American consumer spending. I posit this as an alternative to supply-side based economics and other alternatives to increasing revenues.

I would also support aiming at withdrawing the entire Bush tax cut system as the economy moves forward. I would couple this with spending decreases and a hope to cut taxes again in the future when our fiscal house is in order.

I think the Obama administration is proposing and should use the 1990s tax structure to model its fiscal policies. And that is the system that I am voting for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 12 2012, 07:56 PM
Post #6


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
I think the Obama administration is proposing and should use the 1990s tax structure to model its fiscal policies. And that is the system that I am voting for.


that is not what they are saying. they are saying maintain the Bush cuts for the middle class. and to my knowledge have never said they would expire at some point.

they then say that they will end the Bush reductions for the "rich" (defined as 250K up). which as I have pointed out above will do little to solve the debt crisis or support economic growth.

I believe the Romney plan is consistent with Reagan style supply side policies. give the middle class more to spend and they will drive demand and employers will meet the demand while hiring the people they need to do that and this cycle will amplify generating more tax income to offset the reduced rate for the middle class.

at the same time phasing out more tax deductions on upper income people and corporations will provide needed revenue.

This post has been edited by Ted: Oct 12 2012, 07:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 12 2012, 08:17 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



What tax policies are you voting for this November?

Does the President have a tax policy? We know he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, but what else does he have? How will this spur economic growth? How will it close the deficit?

The leader of the free world has no plan. He just wants us to believe that he gets up every day and is fighting for us (by doing nothing, apparently).

He points to the guy who held his job before him for the status of the economy today. He takes no responsibility for the lack of progress in the right direction.

I'm voting for a change of direction.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

Lower taxes encourage economic activity. A simpler tax code, such as Romney is proposing, discourages tax cheats.

Here's an article from the Cato Institute from the "you didn't build that" time frame, but it makes an important point about taxes:

QUOTE
The argument against paying more taxes or creating more federal programs is not that we all should keep our money even if it means accomplishing nothing and having no nice things. Rather it’s that if we kept our money and had fewer federal programs, we’d accomplish more and have more nice things. Without the state stifling innovation, hindering entrepreneurs, wasting resources, and crowding out private action, we would get even more done together.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we haven’t each gained something from Obama’s welfare/warfare state. But the fact that we have doesn’t do much to support the president’s call for higher taxes. After all, even an abusive parent can give birthday presents.

There’s a certain class of argument that sounds utterly convincing to those already convinced–and entirely preposterous to those not. Obama’s remarks exemplify it. In order for his argument to get off the ground, Obama has to assume the truth of his conclusions. He asks us to believe that it is only through government that good things happen. He asks to us accept that we’d be helpless without Washington’s officiousness.


Good things don't come from Washington. They never have.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Oct 12 2012, 08:55 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 12 2012, 03:17 PM) *
Good things don't come from Washington. They never have.


This is the line that most bothers me about a common Republican approach to government policies. When you believe this, why should I pick you to manage a bureaucracy that consumes 15% or more of the GDP of this country. Clearly the government is a giant player in our economy and a dismissive approach to the efficacy of government is simply not realistic. It is fun to say, but the government can and must do many things well.

Anyone reading this, come up with good things that have come from Washington in the past. There are a lot of areas to focus on (infrastructure, defense, technology, regulation). The honest and informed person could probably at least come up with a short list. I'll refrain from posting the first ten things that have pooped in my mind since I started typing this sentence.



I think the Obama administration has a clear tax policy. It has been primarily to stimulate economic growth. To respond to Ted's comment, yes he is targeting the upper end Bush tax cuts first, and I definitely would like to see corporate loopholes closed. I want businesses in the American economy to prosper because they are the most efficient competitors on a level playing field, not because they have created the best tax evasion plan.

We are definitely not out of the economic woods right now, and the middle class is struggling and facing downward pressure on wages as unemployment remains high. So for now the policy is not to remove the middle class tax cuts. If we go into a stronger economic recovery I think removing these to pay for some of the massive bills racked up over the past ten years would be very helpful.

This post has been edited by Eeyore: Oct 12 2012, 08:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 12 2012, 09:03 PM
Post #9


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Eeyore @ Oct 12 2012, 03:55 PM) *
I think the Obama administration has a clear tax policy. It has been primarily to stimulate economic growth. To respond to Ted's comment, yes he is targeting the upper end Bush tax cuts first, and I definitely would like to see corporate loopholes closed. I want businesses in the American economy to prosper because they are the most efficient competitors on a level playing field, not because they have created the best tax evasion plan.

We are definitely not out of the economic woods right now, and the middle class is struggling and facing downward pressure on wages as unemployment remains high. So for now the policy is not to remove the middle class tax cuts. If we go into a stronger economic recovery I think removing these to pay for some of the massive bills racked up over the past ten years would be very helpful.

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this. After reading the OP, I pulled up both candidate's official websites to read their proposed tax plans. Neither was full of substance, but it's my opinion that there was more specific information on the Romney plan than Obama's and I think that is saying something. This is why I have not taken a position on any of the debate questions. On the Obama website, there was a lot of talk about what he is claiming as accomplishments, but nothing besides raise the taxes on the rich for going forward. If I missed a detailed plan for either candidate, please be sure to post a link.

Edited to add:
To be fair, here is where I am finding their 'plans': Obama; Romney

Like I said, if anyone has an official plan that isn't on their campaign site that gives specifics, please share. I am not saying they don't exist, I am saying they don't exist on the website voters are likely to go to in order to learn about the candidates.

This post has been edited by scubatim: Oct 12 2012, 09:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Oct 12 2012, 10:43 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Here are some numbers on Obama's tax proposal. I am not certain if there is an associated bias with this organization.

Tax Policy Center


Here is a Washington Post blog post that claims to have all of Obama's policies on taxes in one place
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Oct 12 2012, 10:46 PM
Post #11


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



For me, these two question are in the area which should be of paramount importance over any other issues.

What tax policies are you voting for this November?

I wish to support anyone who recognizes the failure of the Federal Reserve System, the failure of Keynesian based policy, and the failure of deficit spending. I will vote for those who want to end the FED. I will vote for those who will not have the government spend money it does not have. I will vote for those who do not wish to use government to make people better or manage them towards this end. I will vote for those who wish to reduce the impact of government and make it smaller.

It will be nice to have it where taxes really matters. Right now, taxes are not needed. It used to be taxes helped determine revenue and revenue determined how much could be spent. Today, revenue does not matter. The government spends whatever it wants with no regard to revenue. Taxes are not needed. Taxes are a means to punish those who lack political clout.

If spending is once again determined by revenues, I would prefer a flat tax with a single deduction. I would favor a transaction tax; if you use money the government gets a small per cent. But first, we have to get to where taxes mean something more than manipulation.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

Humanity is most successful when people have freedom and free markets. Government should be formed to protect freedom and free markets.

Taxation should be low and their determination/collection simple. There should be few of them. A flat income tax with a single deduction and a transfer tax are consistent with a government having a small focused role of protecting freedom and free markets.

-------

Romney and Obama have very similar tax and spend ideas. They both plan to spend with no regard to revenue. (JohnfrmCleveland, you will be happy with either of them.) Neither will simplify taxation . Both will grow government. Both plan to tinker here and there to look like they are giving advantage to this special interest group or that. Neither Obama and Romney will diverge from Keynesian based manipulation of the markets. Neither will protect free markets but will do their best to mold it towards their vision of what people should be getting.

The poor voters will continue to be willing to be bought with free stuff. The middle class will continue to suffer as they vote to give away what they have. The wealthy will continue to buy their way to economic prominence. The two major parties will be glad to oblige to these three sectors. As long as they remain in the wealthy group, it is all good.

The middle class is easy suckered by promises of tax code tweaks. Tax changes are never fair nor clear nor understandable. They just get more complicated and the middle class falls for the promise of fairness every time.

Obama and Romney are the same. They have the same big business money behind them. They have the banks behind them. They have the military industrial complex behind them. There is no substantive difference. They have the country convinced to put one of these two in office like there is a choice. Socialism and fascism is taking over and the country is going to vote for more of it.

When we lose the dollar and the economy tanks big time, just pick up a mirror and know who to blame if you keep voting for this travesty of government in the land of the free.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 12 2012, 11:05 PM
Post #12


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private




What tax policies are you voting for this November?

My tax policies aren't up for a vote. I support a flat tax on assets.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

It is fair and simple and hard to cheat on. A nice dose of integrity is a boost to any country at any time. You can hide income but not a major asset like a house or car. The key is no deductions or tax credits other than maybe an initial modest deduction to cover minor items. Make anything that is hidden forfeitable upon discovery. That should be a good deterrent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 12 2012, 11:17 PM
Post #13


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 12 2012, 06:05 PM) *
What tax policies are you voting for this November?

My tax policies aren't up for a vote. I support a flat tax on assets.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

It is fair and simple and hard to cheat on. A nice dose of integrity is a boost to any country at any time. You can hide income but not a major asset like a house or car. The key is no deductions or tax credits other than maybe an initial modest deduction to cover minor items. Make anything that is hidden forfeitable upon discovery. That should be a good deterrent.

On all assets, like my shoes? My cell phone? My laptop? Who does the inventory?

No deductions? So someone on minimum wage and an old beater of a car has to pay a tax on an old car that they scrimped for months to save up $500 to purchase? Kind of regressive, don't you think?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 12 2012, 11:38 PM
Post #14


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 12 2012, 04:17 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 12 2012, 06:05 PM) *
What tax policies are you voting for this November?

My tax policies aren't up for a vote. I support a flat tax on assets.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

It is fair and simple and hard to cheat on. A nice dose of integrity is a boost to any country at any time. You can hide income but not a major asset like a house or car. The key is no deductions or tax credits other than maybe an initial modest deduction to cover minor items. Make anything that is hidden forfeitable upon discovery. That should be a good deterrent.

On all assets, like my shoes? My cell phone? My laptop? Who does the inventory?

No deductions? So someone on minimum wage and an old beater of a car has to pay a tax on an old car that they scrimped for months to save up $500 to purchase? Kind of regressive, don't you think?

You don't read very well. What about "an initial modest deduction to cover minor items" don't you get. Maybe 10 or 20 thousand, whatever some best minds come up with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 12 2012, 11:42 PM
Post #15


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 12 2012, 06:38 PM) *
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 12 2012, 04:17 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 12 2012, 06:05 PM) *
What tax policies are you voting for this November?

My tax policies aren't up for a vote. I support a flat tax on assets.

Why do you see your policies as the best for our country in the current economic and fiscal climate?

It is fair and simple and hard to cheat on. A nice dose of integrity is a boost to any country at any time. You can hide income but not a major asset like a house or car. The key is no deductions or tax credits other than maybe an initial modest deduction to cover minor items. Make anything that is hidden forfeitable upon discovery. That should be a good deterrent.

On all assets, like my shoes? My cell phone? My laptop? Who does the inventory?

No deductions? So someone on minimum wage and an old beater of a car has to pay a tax on an old car that they scrimped for months to save up $500 to purchase? Kind of regressive, don't you think?

You don't read very well. What about "an initial modest deduction to cover minor items" don't you get. Maybe 10 or 20 thousand, whatever some best minds come up with.

I read fine...you wrote 'maybe an initial', that doesn't sound very concrete to me. So which is it, with deduction or no deduction? You are worse than Romney at proposing tax policy!

So I am supposed to read minds while reading posts? I responded to what you wrote. No one can do anything more.

Is your '10 or 20 thousand' refer to income?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 12 2012, 11:46 PM
Post #16


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 12 2012, 04:42 PM) *
Is[does] your '10 or 20 thousand' refer to income?

No assets. It's an assets tax.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 12 2012, 11:56 PM
Post #17


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 12 2012, 06:46 PM) *
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 12 2012, 04:42 PM) *
Is[does] your '10 or 20 thousand' refer to income?

No assets. It's an assets tax.

So a deduction on the first $10-20 thousand in assets? Who assesses the value of your assets and by what measure? How much is my 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup valued at?

Do you base the value on it's assessed value only, or do you deduct debt secured with the asset? A $250,000 home isn't worth $250,000 to someone with a $275,000 mortgage debt. Since most families have mortgages on the home, who pays the tax on the home, the family living there, or the bank that actually owns the home?

If I lease my car and rent my home, do I pay taxes?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 13 2012, 12:00 AM
Post #18


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 12 2012, 04:56 PM) *
If I lease my car and rent my home, do I pay taxes?

You don't own them so of course not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 13 2012, 12:06 AM
Post #19


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 12 2012, 07:00 PM) *
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 12 2012, 04:56 PM) *
If I lease my car and rent my home, do I pay taxes?

You don't own them so of course not.

So it is possible to hide from paying taxes just like people do today on income taxes. I was getting interested in this plan until I found the obvious flaw.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 13 2012, 12:11 AM
Post #20


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 12 2012, 05:06 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 12 2012, 07:00 PM) *
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 12 2012, 04:56 PM) *
If I lease my car and rent my home, do I pay taxes?

You don't own them so of course not.

So it is possible to hide from paying taxes just like people do today on income taxes. I was getting interested in this plan until I found the obvious flaw.

Whose hiding? The owner of the house pays and the owner of the car pays. One could say indirectly you contribute to the tax through pass along costs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 19th, 2018 - 01:53 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.