chucK Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 From the Washington Post, in an article about the current plans for tax simplification. You can also read about it here, if you're too scared to engage in free registration. "Instead the administration plans to push major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth, according to several people who are advising the White House or are familiar with the deliberations. The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said. " So those of us who get more money from interest on our savings account and stock investment gains than we pay for our property tax will be happy with this news. Those whose major investment is their house, those who were excited about that new law to make WA sales tax deductible, and those businesses who provide health insurance for their employees are gonna be sad. I fall into the latter category How about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 Hmmm....I guess I wasn't confrontational enough... HOW MANY OF YOU LIBERAL COMPUTER JOCKS WITH NO HOUSE AND STOCK OPTIONS ARE EXCITED ABOUT BUSH SAVING YOU A BUNCH OF MONEY? HOW MANY OF YOU FAMILY VALUES WORKIN' STIFFS WITH NO SAVINGS AND A MORTGAGE ARE EXCITED ABOUT PAYING MORE TAXES SO LIBERAL COMPUTER JOCKS (SEE ABOVE) CAN PAY LESS TAXES? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Hmmm....I guess I wasn't confrontational enough... This is what I think of the plan: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I for one would lose out under this plan. Why is interest income inherently more virtuous then wage income? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 It fits with the Bush mentality, which is that capital is superior to labor. How else would W. be expected to think? Labor is for the little people. Capital is for the big people. Labor is something other people do for you, the person who has the capital. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any point in Bush's job history, outside of his illustrious tour in the National Guard, where he was simply an employee who worked for a living and did not share in profits. Instead, as a favorite son, he was given heaps of cash (capital) to play with, didn't have to pay anyone back when he lost other people's money, eventually got some sweet business deals which gave him heaps of capital (business investments, a phenomenon distinctly different from that of working for pay). Since then, he's been in the business of investing capital and getting returns on it, like all his ultra rich cronies. Bush was born into this elevated world of capital, where he and all his peers got their money from profits but never had to simply work for pay. Naturally, they consider capital to be sacred, so they support the economic theory that taxing capital is bad for the economy. I'm not an economist, as I have said, but I can see the pattern behind the Bush economic strategy: tax labor, not capital. Let the people who work for a living support the infrastructure. Let those of us who never had to work, but who own the capital, invest it and gain profit from the people who work for us, but don't expect us to pay taxes on that money. It's capital, we were born with it, it's our sacred right to keep every penny. Paying taxes is the duty of the little people-- those pathetic souls who have to work for a living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 In case you couldn't figure it out from the last post, I believe that labor is superior to capital, because without labor there is no capital. This idea was not first stated by Karl Marx, by the way, but by Abraham Lincoln. I believe that government tax policy should favor labor over capital: to a mild degree, but enough to keep the system in balance. Otherwise, capital reinforces its own holdings at the expense of labor, causing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer... hey, isn't that what's happening in the USA right now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 For me tax simplication means at least two things: 1) closing loopholes and shelters that are typically taken advantage of by higher income earners. 2) reducing the number of forms typical taxpayers have to fill out. I'm not talking about itemized deductions here, but things like the AMT form - I've had to fill this out 3 years straight even though the result is the same - it didn't apply to me. Ditto for making a little cash on 1099's. I've had to fill out 2-3 schedules for minimal consulting I have done (like < $1000). There should be a way to just add this into wages on the 1040 if you only consult part-time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 We could accomplish both of your goals by replacing the current income tax with either a flat tax or a national sales tax. Of course, doing this would mean that you would probably have to pay a greater percentage of your income to federal taxes, but HEY! it would save that tax time headache! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 We could accomplish both of your goals by replacing the current income tax with either a flat tax or a national sales tax. Of course, doing this would mean that you would probably have to pay a greater percentage of your income to federal taxes, but HEY! it would save that tax time headache! I think there are tax-neutral alternatives for the average taxpayer in line with what I suggest. I fill out forms right now with little affect on what I pay - better to eliminate the forms and have a simpler formula for including the taxable earnings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 2) reducing the number of forms typical taxpayers have to fill out. I'm not talking about itemized deductions here, but things like the AMT form - I've had to fill this out 3 years straight even though the result is the same - it didn't apply to me. Ditto for making a little cash on 1099's. I've had to fill out 2-3 schedules for minimal consulting I have done (like < $1000). There should be a way to just add this into wages on the 1040 if you only consult part-time. Why not have the government provide a software package for people to file with - input raw data, it spits out how much you owe (or get back) and files electronically for you. Quicken and M$ would be pissed, but them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 2) reducing the number of forms typical taxpayers have to fill out. I'm not talking about itemized deductions here, but things like the AMT form - I've had to fill this out 3 years straight even though the result is the same - it didn't apply to me. Ditto for making a little cash on 1099's. I've had to fill out 2-3 schedules for minimal consulting I have done (like < $1000). There should be a way to just add this into wages on the 1040 if you only consult part-time. Why not have the government provide a software package for people to file with - input raw data, it spits out how much you owe (or get back) and files electronically for you. Quicken and M$ would be pissed, but them As long as we don't have to pay to use the software, and it is easier to use than the forms, I think it is a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 As long as we don't have to pay to use the software, and it is easier to use than the forms, I think it is a good idea. That's my intention, free. How much does it cost them to print all the forms and instruction manuals nowadays? Just the savings from reducing/eliminating that would be large. Have the software encompass all personal IRS forms, and file it electronically. Given the size of the tax industry they probably have more lobbying power than the tax simplification groups Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.