catbirdseat Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 Corporations are already shipping plenty of jobs overseas at an alarming rate. This might increase if their taxes were to go up as they would under Gen. Clark's proposition. Fewer jobs is a bad thing of the economy as a whole and the citizens as individuals regardless of their salary. Don't confuse income tax with corporate tax. Quote
minx Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 Corporations are already shipping plenty of jobs overseas at an alarming rate. This might increase if their taxes were to go up as they would under Gen. Clark's proposition. Fewer jobs is a bad thing of the economy as a whole and the citizens as individuals regardless of their salary. Don't confuse income tax with corporate tax. cbs- i am not confused. both are a fine way to generate revenue for the government. Quote
JayB Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 Moore's endorsement is the K.O.D for Clark's campaign. Second only to Al Sharpton's endorsement in as a liability in the eyes of the national electorate. Quote
catbirdseat Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 This isn't a very liberal view to take, but I think all taxation should be levied on individuals. Corporations should not be taxed. That leads to double taxation and it leads to competition among nations to cut corporate taxes. Income tax should be levied by the country in which the income is earned. Quote
HRoark Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points. No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. What is my "fair share" of taxes, catbirdseat? Why, because I am successful and work hard, is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood? Roark Do you make over 1 million dollars? I don't thinks so. Why are you always sticking up for the ultra rich? How do you know how much money I make? That is irrelevant. What I DO believe in is the fact that I am the only one who is entitled to the products of my mind. What I "stick up for" is that each person should not be hindered maximizing their resourcefulness and success. Quote
catbirdseat Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 If your mind were taxed by the government rather than your income, you would pay a very low rate indeed... sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Quote
Bug Posted January 26, 2004 Author Posted January 26, 2004 Moore reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. Moore adds more substance but the overall effect is the same, baiting the other side. Quote
marylou Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. 1. The government is currently undergoing a huge expansion under a Republican president. Let me point out that this is complete deficit spending due to tax cuts (none of which I personally make enough money to see) 2. Restrictions on your freedom are currently undergoing a huge expansion under a Republican president. Tell us how the Democratic president will restrict your freedom. because I am successful and work hard, so the only people who "work hard" are the ones making over such and such an arbritrary number? Sad testament to the state of the good old USA. is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood? money is your life blood? dude! How do you know how much money I make? That is irrelevant. It is absolutely not irrelevant. The tax cuts haven't er um trickled all the way down. What I DO believe in is the fact that I am the only one who is entitled to the products of my mind. Not touching that one with a ten foot pole. What I "stick up for" is that each person should not be hindered maximizing their resourcefulness and success. Taxes hinder people's resourcefulness and success? How? What is your alternative, Mr. Brave New World? Quote
murraysovereign Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 What I DO believe in is the fact that I am the only one who is entitled to the products of my mind. Fair enough - you go ahead and keep "the products of [your] mind", but first please give back all the public resources that have gone into it in the past, and promise not to use any more in the future. The products of your mind would be pretty paltry were it not for the years and years of education that got pumped into you at public expense. And the products of your mind would have a tough time getting to market without a state-supported communication and transportation system. And once they got there, there'd be no guarantee that someone didn't just steal them from you without the protection of a state-supported legal system and enforcement of same. Here's a little challenge for you, HRoark - see how far you can get into your day tomorrow without consuming some sort of public resource paid for by yours and others' tax dollars. That means no turning on the tap, no flushing, no walking down the sidewalk or driving down the street. Depending on where you live, it probably means no using electricity. No buying any merchandise that was transported on public infrastructure to reach you. No using paper currency or coins produced at a state facility, in fact no reliance on the monetary system at all. Everybody loves to bitch and moan about taxes cutting into their incomes, myself included. But nobody ever acknowledges that, without the infrastructure provided by tax dollars it would be virtually impossible either to earn an income, or to do anything with it once you did. So the greater the personal benefit you derive from that infrastructure, the more you should pay. Seems fair. Quote
willstrickland Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 Murray, I can't quite agree with you there. I don't agree with HRoark, but I believe you're misinterpreting his point. I believe his view is that he shouldn't pay a higher percent in taxes than others simply because he makes more, i don't think he's arguing against paying some taxes. I like a flat tax idea, but I also believe that we should abolish the income tax altogether and instead put a national sales tax into place. That way consumption would be taxed and those who consume more resources (i.e. put a greater strain on the environment, infrastructure, etc) would pay a proportionate share. It would also vastly simplify the tax system and allow a massive downsizing of the IRS...smaller govt is a good thing in my opinion. I believe Bush's tax cuts were irresponsible fiscal policy. But at the same time, I'm really glad to not be paying state taxes in Oregon anymore...it's one of, if not the, highest taxed states in the country. AK has no state income tax or sales tax Quote
murraysovereign Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 In arguing against a graduated tax structure, though, he is effectively asking for preferential treatment for higher income earners. At the lower end of the income scale people have to pay out a far higher proportion of their income merely to survive. Food, clothing and shelter pretty much wipe out the paycheque, forget about health care or school supplies for the kids. To tax them at the same rate as someone at the top end means taking food out of their mouths, whereas taxing someone further up the scale at a higher rate just means they might have to buy a smaller SUV for a third vehicle or wait until next month before buying the 200" HDTV. So the Flat Tax thing has a few wrinkles that need to be addressed. It's an interesting idea, but it's not as perfectly fair as it may seem at first glance. I, too, like the idea of eliminating income taxes, and only taxing consumption, but it seems almost too easy. Does anyone know if it's been tried anywhere? I can imagine the first result would be the emergence of an underground economy of staggering proportions. Quote
marylou Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I love the Canadians. Thanks Murray, well put. Quote
willstrickland Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I see the potential black market surge as a problem as well, but at the same time we have shady tax schemes and shelters being employed in the current system. I don't know of anywhere that has tried a strictly consumption tax system, but I also am not exactly up on world affairs. JayB? As for the argument about survival income levels, I believe that is the intent of the std deduction, where you are essentially not taxed on the first several thousand (I just filed and don't even remember the std deduction amount...around $4500 or so?) whether it works or not is another issue. That said, I agree with you in principle...the disproportionate distribution of wealth is going to be a big problem at some point and it's irrevocably tied to democractic (Republicans and Democrats alike) representation which has sold out the constituents for big business. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 (edited) A couple of thoughts: 1 Former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen: "Taxation, in reality, is life. If you know the position a person takes on taxes, you can tell their whole philosophy. The tax code, once you get to know it, embodies all the essence of life: greed, politics, power, goodness, charity." Politically taxation has become a powerful signaling mechanism on a politician's potential behavior. 2 The US tax system is increasingly becoming skewed toward the wealthy. Almost 50% of the federal income tax burden falls on those with incomes above $200,000 and 40% of all tax returns now have a zero or negative tax liability. In aggregate, no one with an income below $30,000 per year pays any federal income taxes. Source: Joint Commission See previous posts for a link. 3 Flat taxers might consider that subnational taxes have increased dramatically. (eg an E&Y study concluded that corps. pay 3 times the volume of federal corp income taxes as subnational taxes.)This suggests that if subnational taxes are considered the nation is approachign a defacto flat tax system. PP Edited January 27, 2004 by Peter_Puget Quote
chucK Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I like a flat tax idea, but I also believe that we should abolish the income tax altogether and instead put a national sales tax into place. [...] It would also vastly simplify the tax system and allow a massive downsizing of the IRS...smaller govt is a good thing in my opinion. I'm sure they won't need a gigantic beauracracy to tabulate every goddamn thing sold in the United States and bill somebody for it. Quote
HRoark Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 In arguing against a graduated tax structure, though, he is effectively asking for preferential treatment for higher income earners. That is so fucking wrong-headed in my mind. You have no basis for taking more of my money than, "because he can afford it." That's no justification. I'm not against taxes, per se, I believe that the government's main function is to supply and maintain public infrastructure (roads, military, etc.). Murray, by giving individuals below a certain earnings level a pass on taxes you are saddling those who earn more with their burden. We will never agree, so don't try and strongarm me like marylou does, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss. Enjoy. Roark Quote
sk Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I have said this so many times it makes my head dissy. the only kind of tax that is fair is a flat percentage tax. not shelters no bull shit, just a simple 3% tax. let the government learn to live in a budget. God knows it has done me some good. okay back to your argument Quote
chucK Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I have said this so many times it makes my head dissy. the only kind of tax that is fair is a flat percentage tax. not shelters no bull shit, just a simple 3% tax. let the government learn to live in a budget. God knows it has done me some good. Mmmmm OK, we'll just get Santa Claus, Peter Pan, Enron and the Japanese to pick up the other 90% of the tab. Quote
sk Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I have said this so many times it makes my head dissy. the only kind of tax that is fair is a flat percentage tax. not shelters no bull shit, just a simple 3% tax. let the government learn to live in a budget. God knows it has done me some good. Mmmmm OK, we'll just get Santa Claus, Peter Pan, Enron and the Japanese to pick up the other 90% of the tab. BUDGET Quote
minx Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 no sarcasm intended here: where did you come up w/3% as a suitable number. i've always thought a flat tax might not be a bad way to go but i've leaned more towards a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax. Quote
lummox Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 no sarcasm intended here: where did you come up w/3% as a suitable number. i've always thought a flat tax might not be a bad way to go but i've leaned more towards a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax. her head is 'dissy'. leave her alone. and sales tax always burdens the poor more than the rich especially if its on food. Quote
Stonehead Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 A payroll tax cut would give immediate relief to working class families now. Quote
marylou Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 Muffy is my friend. She is an absolute doll. She is not an economist. Furthermore, at least in her current situation, any viable flat tax scenario would cost her more of the collective tax burden than she is already shouldering. Tax reform is really complicated, and that's why we've had a sort of fucked up tax code for like ever. Quote
Dru Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 Isn't a "flat tax" one that gets levied on A-cups Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.