Hillary Clinton is going to write off her campaign debt. A debt of 13 million dollars, huh?
What does that say about our current tax program?
It says that, once again, those who have the finances to take responsibility for their debts can unburden themselves from responsibility instead of carrying the debt like the rest of America is expected to do.
Out government is *taking* our income to pay off the Big Three. Did we get to vote on it? No! Our representatives didn't hear our voices, so therefore our representatives are just as poor at being responsible.
This government has become like a spoiled child, constantly digging into the parents' pockets for more and more. Worse yet, the 'parents' are unwilling to 'just say no'.
Bush decides to pay off the Big Three's debt, for what? So they can continue making the lowest quality cars on the market? So they can pretend they are going to build cars they already should have been producing?
As far as the cars they have produced, the only cars capable of getting better performance or being 'green' are so expensive that the average person would pay more than their mortgage to own one of these cars. The savings on fuel would be far too little to offset the ridiculous car payment one would encounter.
If one of us owned a business and failed to operate it properly, would the government hand us other people's money to get us off the hook? Not on your life! We would be forced to go into bankruptcy reorganization or have all our assets seized. Why should we, the taxpayers, offer a different option to those who are privileged?
Come on, people!
Enough is enough!
Open your mouths and speak out against this action; perhaps even bring these people to trial for the misuse of our tax money and the system. Start writing - not only on Gather , Facebook and MySpace, but directly to your local newspapers, TV broadcasters and the big networks like Fox, MSN and CNN.
*BE* the voice of reason.
*BE* the people who take charge of their destiny.
*BE* the solution!
My solution is to dismantle the current taxation regime, and to start over, fresh, with a SALES TAX ONLY of 10%. It would be equitable; there would be no loopholes because if a purchase is made, then 10% goes into the tax bucket...end of story!
There would be 100%-plus participation, because the people who do not currently pay taxes (like those who are rich, or work under the table, or are visitors to this country - legal or illegal) would be paying into the system. At 100% participation, there would be far more money for the government to work with. End of story! No free rides! No preferential treatment!
If Americans had their full paycheck, they would spend more. If Americans spend more, the loans would get paid, the banks would get their interest and things would settle down in the financial industry. If Americans have more of their paycheck, they would then buy more cars (although I would not suggest buying from the Big Three, just yet) and the auto industry would be back up-and-running...no bailout needed.
I see no reason for all the assorted taxes on top of income tax. With the flat SALES TAX (retail and wholesale transactions) there would be more than enough to cover the expense of running this country. If not, then some paychecks in the government will need to be trimmed, just like would be expected of American workers within their companies.
"Above the law" needs to become a phrase of the past.
Back to Hillary -
Why should she get to write off this money and not pay taxes on it?
Why has Obama offered to pay off her debt? Is it so he can write it off?
I am ready to write all of these people off...how about you?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
If you mean she is going to stiff every one to whom she is indebted, that is a mater to be taken up with the creditors and the bankruptcy courts. She can not unilaterally decide not to pay someone any more than you or I can do that. We can, but there are repercussions!
And the American car manufacturers do make a quality vehicle! I've been a fleet manager for thirty years and can testify to the fine quality of most American vehicles. I own both Buick and Toyota and have driven them many miles with little repair. While there has been some with both, they are both fine vehicles. Our full size Buick gets about thirty miles to the gallon on the highway and that is not to be sneezed at!
I think an objective observer would agree that most American cars are of an excellent quality today, even though there was a time when there were problems.
Read the thread in my post. Search "Is government here to help us"
Despite your insulting me, I would like to know the rest of the facts about this! They have not been presented here.
My experience with those who use personal insults or ad hominem attacks is that they have just lost any realistic debate as they have nothing of value to contribute. So thanks for the concession!
Or they can read my post on this subject from a while back! I'll have to read yours, it sounds like we agree but perhaps I'm mistaken.
The so called "fair tax" is one of the worst tax ideas to come down the pike and is very regressive. In fact, in my opinion, it is anything but fair! It could be made fair but it would never happen as too many people with money would be severely hurt. And day trading would come to an end!
There are tax ramifications of her "writing off" her pay back to herself from the campaign. People are allowed to deduct "capital losses" due to bad investments, etc. I'm not sure of the specific rules related to campaign "investments," but she will likely be able to use the $13 million in "loss" to offset what is substantial "gain" (I believe her and Bill still have shared finances).
Hillary's financial woes? I don't think she needs to worry.
Why all the whine about the auto companies and not the trillions given to the banks and others.
This seems to be coming from a Right Screamer!!!
If you really want to stop this cheating by the rich and powerful you will need to have a change in the context, in the circumstances in which we all operate. You need a solution that puts the rich and poor on the same side working for the same mutually beneficial ends. I know that is hard for anyone to imagine in this world or at any time in the past but it actually is possible. It doesn't require any spiritual awakening nor any change of heart by the greedy and selfish. Greedy SOBs can continue to be just what they are. But with the right context, they will act just like the generous and moral folks.
I learn a lot from the reponses - fact, opinion and of course, name-calling - in order of value, of course.
1) Somebody do the math. If you have 100%-plus participation in a 10% SALES tax (wholesale and retail) and there are no more write-off's, rebates, loopholes to dive through, the government would be swimming in funds.
The current tax program simply has too many loopholes and 70,000-plus pages of escape routes that it has pretty much become a worn out program which only has benefits for those who can afford to pay accountants and law firms to process their taxes. There are too many sources *not* paying their fair share, that it leaves those of us who work the 'normal' jobs of the everyday American to assure that *somebody* is actually paying into the system properly.
Regardless of how far in debt they tell us they are, the government has managed their funds as poorly as the companies begging for handouts.
The 'government' - like a spoiled child - whines that we do not pay enough in taxes, when in fact, they spend tax money like it has no end. How is it that government entities can vote for their own raises? It's our money, they work 'for' us, so as employers, why do we not get to *directly* vote on it, just like *they* get to vote on minimum wages? Government is supposed to be a two-way street under Democracy.
We simply have returned to the former British Rule from the days when we fought the Revolutionary war...we now have "Taxation with presumed representation"
2) James!Thank you for your comments! I love challenges, even if I come to battle with empty hands. :o)
"Our full size Buick gets about thirty miles to the gallon on the highway and that is not to be sneezed at!
You know, I have seen the results you speak of, and they are usually the result of new changes in automakers engine setups for particular years. In 1986, the Chrysler K-Car went from carburetor to fuel-injection. At that particular point, the gas mileage was a remarkable 33mpg, with an automatic transmission. As each year passed the same car lended up getting a best of 29mpg on the highway. Perhaps automakers de-tuned the cars or oil companies reduced the quality of fuel, but either way, we lose. Keep in mind, the 1957 Chevy Bel-Air was capable of 29mpg, running with a carbureted 283 V-8 engine, and this car weighed in at about 3,500 lbs with a hardly aerodynamic body. Add to that, there was no electronic ignition system to assure consistently perfect spark/timing control. We were not running electronically monitored fuel-injection (although mechanical fuel injection was available on this car in*1957*!!)
Surely, the 2009 Aveo I drive for company purposes, weighing in at about 1,900 lbs, running a 4-cylinder, electronically-controlled engine, radial tires, aerodynamically friendly body....should be getting far more than 29mpg on the highway...don't you agree?
If I were Chevrolet, I would be embarrassed to but my logo on the car....which leads me back to whether the company even uses any common sense in their cars and marketing.
Why would a Buick get better gas mileage than a tiny Aveo?
I owned a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado as my first car. It had a 5,500 pound vehicle weight, room for 6 people, a 425 V-8 engine and 4-barrel Carburetor. It got 22 mpg on the highway with our family of 5, riding from California to New York. This also had California emissions on it, by the way.
22 mpg in a 5,500 lb vehicle... hmmm!
I'll be back to continue
a sales-tax is exactly the solution that levels the playing field.
People *all* pay the exact same *percentage of what they spend!
For example, if I buy something for $10,000, I pay 10% tax. If someone can afford a 100,000 item, they still only pay 10%! How much fairer can it be? They still get 100% of their paycheck, but they have a job that pays more, so they can buy a higher priced item.
It still allows for everyone to aspire to earn more money (capitalism) and it assures that even those working under-the-table will be paying into the system along with the rest of us. What can be more fair? There would be no more offshore bank accounts to escape taxation, there would be no more manipulation of earnings to hide from taxation, and they could throw out the 70,000 pages of tax law items.
The other benefit is that the government would not be able to manipulate how well we live based on lobbyist concerns pushing for taxes to fund their special interests.
Why should I buy a car, for instance, for say, $20,000, pay sales tax on it, then for the rest of my ownership also pay a tax on owning it as well? That makes me want to own less so I don't have to pay property tax on it. Certainly not an incentive for me to purchase goods which would support the auto industry's sales and production.
I have no problem with helping a company stay in business, but I feel that if they put themselves in that position, then why should we bear the burden of bailing them out?
If I owned a business, mismanaged it, and was in danger of going out of business, would *you* dig into your income to bail me out? I think not. It was my own failure, therefore I would be expected to reorganize under bankruptcy laws. End of story.
In this age, where a space station is floating over our heads, independently maintaining itself on solar power, why is the country not already powereing itself by the same source? Solar power has been available since the 1960's...nearly 50 years! Tell me it hasn't been developed enough for commercial and public use by now.
Electric cars were available in the late 1920's. I saw one - a year ago - at a car show in Galax, VA. It was restored and *drove* to the show under it's own power, using the technology of the year it was built. NO, I say there is no excuse for the automakers failure other than greed, manipulation and disregard for energy source responsibility. I choose *not* to support bailout. Their failure is their own fault.
"I own both Buick and Toyota and have driven them many miles with little repair."
Do you think that Toyota might have a part in making that Buick as good a car as it is?
GM and Toyota have a partnership, right?
Consider the fact that the foreign automakers are showing profits while the Big THree show major losses.
One reason is that the foreign automakers treat their employees equally fair if not more fair than the Big Three. However, the foreign companies do not fall prey to the unions which promote slow-moving workers at astronomical pay rates.
I had the pleasure of knowing a union worker on the job for a nuclear power plant employing union labor. He was directed to paint and repaint the same array of pipes until told to do another job. Athough he was delighted to have finally attained a job which paid much better than locally available work, he was not only bored to tears, but threatened by co-workers not to move faster than they or they would all be done with the job too soon and lose income. His conscience led him to leave thejob and return to the dealership we both originally worked for. Oh, and by the way, the nuclear plant ended up taking 3 years longer than projected, and cost taxpayers and investors millions more than the original assessment. Unions have outlived their purpose.
Unions were advocates of the employees getting fair pay for a 40-hour week of work.
Now the workers get so much, a company can only afford them if they overprice the resulting product. Everyone loses except the union.
I cannot see why an assembly worker should get 60-90 dollars per hour to do the same assembly line work that say a wood-stove welder on an assembly line for about 15 dollars an hour. THere is not much an assembly line worker does that requires more than to repetitively do the same task. No variables, no challenges, just repetitive robotic action.
I would pay more for the person at the cash register who constantly has to deal with varying circumstances, 7-days a week on a 24/7 rotating schedule. THink of all they deal with!
Drunks, people trying to run off without paying for gas, stealing goods when there is a crowd covering their actions, angry people, sick people, handicapped people, stocking shelves, sweeping floors, cleaning bathrooms...all for minimum wage!
You know who I respect more, ok?
So many people say the 10% tax is too little.
THe other side of the coin is the government has too big a budget. They need to do as we do. Re-adjust their budget, tighten their belts, arrange plans with their creditors to make payments based on their ability to pay, and to quit adding to the budget when they don't have the money to afford it. Simply put, the government should do as we do in the same situation, reorganize!
THink of the overhead you would cut in just dropping the tax system!
The employees of the IRS and all those assessors would be relocated or outsourced to other positions of value dealing with finance. Perhaps the paperwork of taxation would be reduced!
Personally, the SALES TAX ONLY program would solve all our issues.
If Americans get 100% of their pay, they spend more. They spend more, demand rises. Demand rises, production increases. Production increases mean more job openings. MOre job openings means more spenders with jobs. MOre spenders with jobs means more tax revenue. It's a circle of prosperity for all. It's so simple, even a caveman could do it!
One problem with the flat 10% sales tax idea is that it assumes everyone has the same relative disposable income versus costs. That just isn't the case. Someone making $1 million a year has lots of options about what size car and house he buys without ever having to worry about having enough money left for food. Someone making $20,000 bumps up against the minimum for housing and car and fuel and food (and insurance) costs right off the bat. The net result will be that the lower income person will give up buying stuff because it "taxes" him (it does now anyway, and sometimes up to 8 or 10%, but the taxes will be proportionately higher and psychologically more obvious). Meanwhile the rich guy probably sends his assistant out to do the shopping and his accountant does the taxes so he never knows how much he is paying anyway. He doesn't have to. He can afford to pay other people to watch his money. The lower income person cannot do that and so will stress every cent.
The other part of this is the arbitrary 10%. Sales tax already is pretty high in many places. Furthermore, much of it goes to the local and state governments. So the 10% would have to be added on top of the local/state sales taxes, which further disproportionately burdens the poor.
Don't forget that the whole reason we've had a progressive income tax (i.e., the wealthier theoretically pay a higher rate than the poor) for the last 100 years is because the wealthy can afford to take on the added burden - they don't even sweat it. The poor cannot afford to take on the added burden of a flat sales tax type of funding for the federal government. That's why the idea doesn't get any traction.
If I didn't have to pay taxes other than sales tax, then I would have more of the $20,000 to spend. At present, with all the various taxes we are burdened with, I am lucky to have 50% of my income to work with.
We live in a home which took us 9 years to find. We looked at our budget, figured out how much we could invest in a mortgage payment. Once there, we were able to figure out what price home we could purchase. With patience and a good realtor, the 'right' home was presented to us. I know of nobody else who has a mortgage payment of $450 per month, and lives in as nice a place as ours. Patience and common sense will prevail.
The taxes we pay out for the 'privilege' of owning our own home vs renting and throwing away income are atrocious. Every year or so, the assesor comes out and assesses our home as worth more. It is not worth more...it is depreciating as it gets used and ages. We should get a discount each year.
My 1998 Ford Ranger with 177,000miles on it is assessed at $5,200. Nowhere do I find anyone willing to buy a vehicle such as this for that price. Being safely driveable with some issues in need of repair, the best I could hope to get for it (and not feel guilty) would be $1,000. WHere does it say the tax dept can assess my truck for more than it is worth, then collect tax on that basis?
I still vote for the FLAT SALES tax.
Keep those comments coming. This is a pleasure to debate!
It's called the FairTax, Eric. And, no, James, it's not "one of the worst tax ideas to come down the pike and is very regressive." It's the most thoroughly researched and vetted taxation idea ever put before the Congress (H.R. 25), and it's been *proven* not to be regressive. In fact, it totally untaxes the poor. When I read comments such as yours, James, it tells me that you have not researched the idea. You should. I think you'd become a believer if you did; you sound like a sensible person. If you wish to take the time to find out about the FairTax, go to the website, www.fairtax.org.
I still like the 10% to start with because it would force the government to weed out the necessary funding against the necessary funding. I assume the figures you present are assuming status quo on current programs already funded.
Once it's in place, though, the FT tax rate is totally obvious and transparent. No more hidden taxes, or corporate tax grabs, which the Congress knows are easier to pass because they think we dopes believe corporate taxes are paid by corporations and not just passed on to us, which, of course, they are.
But imagine if the FT were in place, and the Congress wanted to increase it. When was the last time your state or local government wanted to increase a sales tax, and did so without a knock-down, drag-out battle with the citizenry? Most of those battles don't result in the increase being successful. It'll be much easier to force the Federal government to live within its means with the FT than with the current system, which everyone knows is gamed full-time by half the lobbyists in DC.
I became an advocate of the FairTax after I studied it. I think it's the last best hope for this country to right itself, and put power back in the hands of its citizens, instead of in the hands of just 535 people in Washington. I hope you take a look at the FT as well. If you do, I believe you'll also become an advocate.
Maybe the rich will have less use for these particulars if they weren't out trying to escape paying into the system. Either way, the citizenry will have their earnings, instead of what the tax department allows them to keep.
DO you remember the days of the Lords and serfs?
Well, we are pretty much living that life today.
"Every Revolution eventually wears the clothes of its predecessor"
"History repeats itself, especially when the ensuing generation fails to learn from the previous generation's advice"
"Take tradition, family and unity out of your opponent and he stands alone, easier to defeat"
"Fight and defeat the loudest of the gang of bullies at school, and the rest of the gang falls apart"
"Take Achilles out of the army, the rest of the army becomes demoralized"
These are the things that foreign competetion has done, as well. Stop at your local Wal-Mart. 99% of the goods there say "Made in China", and - what did the media push only a month or so ago? "Shop at Wal-Mart to support your economy" ....OUR economy? THink again.
Looking at only the regressive characteristic of the so called "fair tax" consider the man who makes $100,000,000 per year and the man who makes $25,000 per year. Now consider what percentage of the lower wage earners income is subject to taxes. Say fifty percent? I think that's reasonable.
The person will probably not have to pay tax on his rent or home payments and a few other things, so 50% sounds reasonable to me.
Now consider the person who gets a hundred million a year. 50% of his income would be fifty million dollars. Do you suppose that he will spend fifty million dollars a year on items for which the tax is levied? Under no consumption tax I've ever heard of including the so called "fair tax," will the high earner pay tax on fifty million dollars a year because it will be spent on stocks, bonds, various other investments, the purchase of a company, the purchase of a farm of office building, etc.
If I am allowed to define the taxable items, I would feel a lot better about it. But try to put through something that hits people on all investments, the purchase of insurance, and all other expenses! Jut try. Like I said, it would totally eliminate day trading. And until you get to that level of equity, I am not at all interested in a consumption tax.
If every company hiring people had to pay the tax on the funds spent on wages, on all costs spent on attorney services whether hired by the company or external, they would never approve that tax. And the big companies must buy into the tax for it to ever become reality. That level of equity would remove the forces currently pushing for such a plan and leave it high and dry.
But any means short of that they might well decide to support, hoping to get the nose of the camel under the tent and then fine tune it to exclude them and hit the working person as soon as possible. Someone above alluded to the gradual sweetening process in relation to the rate for such a tax, thereby acknowledging that getting it in is important, and we can always tweak it to where it doesn't effect me, in the next stage. No, better to never let this monster get its head out of the box at all. That will keep it more fair!
Were the tax enacted in the manner of which I would approve, probably a five percent tax would do it. Enacted as it would probably be constructed, it would take about twenty three to twenty five percent. There is no point of doing a "revenue neutral" type program as that simply begs the question of when do we raise taxes to start getting things paid off like we need to.
I've said for a number of years that a candidate who said "folks, I'm going to be honest and tell you that we are in a mess financially and to responsible thing to do is to raise taxes to deal with it," would get my vote as the first really honest candidate in my memory! But no, they all talk about cutting taxes and pandering for votes!
I have absolutely no problems with a graduated income tax as a means of raising revenue. It is probably the most fair and equitable of all the taxes I've seen. Every time a president has wanted to cut taxes or improve them is any way, I've wound up paying more tax! This was true under Regan, Nixon, and Bush. So I don't trust any politician and especially not Republican politicians, to be attentive to my needs when their corporate friends have their fingers in the pot!
The so called "flat tax" has some of the same inherent character flaws as the so called "fair tax," and is inherently regressive and punitive to the working class. While I'm retired, I still consider myself a member of the working class, with the same goals, needs and limitations. Mention is mad of status quo above and the problem with that is that we are not pay g for the status quo! We are charging it to our grandkids who can't vote.
I'm very discouraged with the knock down, drug out battles over taxes that occur. If we are going to have government, we need to have the taxes to support it. If we want less taxes, we want less services from government, by default. Not a case of needing to charge it all to the grandkids who have no say! That is moral, unethical and is just plain wrong! If you want to have a damned war, pay for it or drop it. If you want health care, pay for it or forget it! If you want a massive standing army, pay for it. Highway systems the same. Instead, we doom programs which may be excellent, to failure by underfunding them and waste money on wars that needn't be fought by us and other things that we don't want, simply because there is no direct corollary between programs and taxes.
I wrote an entire article entitled "Two really baaad tax ideas" on this very subject some time back and I've seen no reason whatsoever to change my mind in the intervening months.
Eric, Ken, Larry and Dave, have a great Christmas!
I shop at Walmart and Albertsons and the brands are the same at either place. Only the prices have been changed!
By the way, Eric, you have written a very good article and expressed your thoughts well. My disagreement with certain concepts in no way diminishes the quality of your article!
To address just one of your issues, the purchase of insurance under the FT is effectively a tax-free process (and it's bought with tax-free dollars, too, by the way, unlike the after tax dollars you must use today under the current tax system to purchase insurance). There is even a pretax credit added to your insurance benefit to pay for the tax you'll pay as you (or your heirs) spend your insurance benefit. Again, this is all laid out and waiting for you at the FairTax website.
One curious item is your apparent hang-up on the FT somehow affecting day trading. That one you'll have to explain to me.
I'm not going to attempt here to rebut each of your erroneous arguments against the FT, because I sense that you look upon the FT as an invention -- a ploy -- of the evil rich to saddle us and our posterity with crushing indebtedness. So there probably isn't anything I could provide here that would convince you of the benefits of the FT over the current tax system. A system, incidentally, that you tell us "is probably the most fair and equitable of all the taxes I've seen," only to go on in the next sentence and bemoan the fact that you always wind up paying more tax under it, because politicans are prone to fiddle with it. Well, I suggest you help cast aside the over 65,000 pages of that idiotic, destructinve current tax code along with the two changes PER DAY that have been made to it on average since its last major overhaul by becoming an advocate for the FairTax.
But you seemingly can't get past your us versus them (them being those greedy rich) world view, which negatively colors your thoughts about the FairTax. Too bad, because the FT is the one sure way to insure that the wealthy pay their "fair share" of U.S. federal taxes, while the working poor are effectively freed of paying any tax. I'm afraid that until you are able to look at the FT objectively, dispassionately, and, yes, fairly, you will continue to be blinded by your currently held misconceptions of it.
Hope you have a happy and festive Yuletide.
"Now consider the person who gets a hundred million a year. 50% of his income would be fifty million dollars. Do you suppose that he will spend fifty million dollars a year on items for which the tax is levied? Under no consumption tax I've ever heard of including the so called "fair tax," will the high earner pay tax on fifty million dollars a year because it will be spent on stocks, bonds, various other investments, the purchase of a company, the purchase of a farm of office building, etc."
Is this assuming that all the other taxes stay in place along with my flat sales tax idea?
My idea is to do away with all the assorted nickel-and-dime antics, eliminate the loopholes, and make every transaction subject to sales tax whenever money changes hands for goods.
I do appreciate your last comment, too. It is that kind of thinking about posts that allows us to 'hash out' ideas. Perhaps government officials should try Gather, eh?
I had a thought today, as Carolyn and I were discussing taxation. (A thought! Wow!)
Under the current tax plan, the 'poor' or people earning less than a certain dollar amount, get *all* their tax back in their refunds. That means that the top and bottom scale Americans virtually escape contributing to the tax base....leaving the 'middle' bunch to shoulder the load.
A flat sales tax involves *everyone* who spends money for goods, therefore equally sharing the load based on the equity of what we purchase. It is consistent, because a *percentage* is always fair when applied equally. I can afford a $10,000 car, they can afford a $1,000,000 car. I pay 10% tax on my purchase, they pay 10% on their purchase. Both of us effectively get to keep 90% of our income to purchase with. If we do not spend, we get to keep 100% of our income, whether it be a billion dollars a year or $20,000 per year.
Everyone who buys, contributes at the same rate...10%.
Assume that the 300 million Americans *all* earn $20,000 per year.
Assume they spend every last cent in that year.
Add it up! It is $6 *billion* dollars!!!!
Not only would the government have more than enough to fund their current budget, but they could put the money back into our Social Security Fund.
Sure, they could not pay off all the debt in one year, but if they manage their budget properly, just as we do, then thay would be paid up in a reasonably shorter period.
If they are in such dire need, there would be no money for the parties and certainly *nobody* in the company would have *earned* a bonus if the company is going belly-up!
How do you get a bonus for screwing up the company?
Hey, it's *our* money, isn't it? YEah, us - the taxpayers' money.
AAAAAHHH!
I gotta quit thinking. It's Christmas Day.
We had a sunny, 63 degrees. I got a lot of work done outside and it was our gift for Christmas to either get a snowy day or a sunny, warm day. We got our wish.
Merry Christmas!
I'll be back tomorrow.
If you answered my question above about whether the tax applied to every purchase including such things as stocks, bonds, and lawyers I missed it. Please tell me whether it applies to all purchases or just some.
Thanks and the best of new years to you.
Appreciate your comments! I will acknowledge that the way the tax is implemented would be a major factor in its fairness. And I stated that if I could design it, I'd be much more interested.
First, if you are a day trader and have to pay sales tax on whatever shares you purchase, how much day trading do you think would be done? Those shares may be purchased and traded the same day, resulting in a net loss overall. And them being taxed would be integral to a truly fair tax.
You do not address the fact that I've called here for taxes to be levied on wages paid to workers to make to all fair. Would that be acceptable to you? Now, if there were no tax on any kind of labor at any time or place, that would have to be reconsidered. But you know that ere will be if this monstrosity ever comes to fruition.
I believe that persons such as yourself have been sold a bill of goods on this one as the people who would benefit the most would be the high earners. They have worked hard at making this a salable product for that reason. Common sense tells us that they would not favor it were it going to cost them money. The way I would implement it would cost them and that is why it won't happen.
You state "My idea is to do away with all the assorted nickel-and-dime antics, eliminate the loopholes, and make every transaction subject to sales tax whenever money changes hands for goods." is exemplary of idealism unattached to realism. This kind of radical change without it being twisted and warped to the satisfaction of the powerful is not going to happen. And the various other taxes would be left in place at least to some extent. Some of that would be for the ostensible social factors involved, such as the tax on liquor.
To me any tax that takes less of the high earners and corporate income than it does of common working people is regressive. If you don't like that term for it, fine, use what you like but that is the epitome of regressive to me.
No I wouldn't expect anything on the FT website to acknowledge any form of regressiveness. That's the nature of the beast. No one advertises the drawbacks unless they are patently obvious. I've only been on the site once and only until I had seen enough to know I didn't like it.
I've absolutely no doubt of your sincerity and belief in the FT. I've no doubt that you have been sold a bill of goods. There is no sale tax that is patently fair. I object to on on the state level. The reason for such taxes is to add to the total tax when just raising taxes became too abhorrent to the populace. And then it is usually sold for specific purpose as the one in Idaho was going to fund the schools. They just failed to tell how much would be taken out of school funding from the general receipts they had received.
Neal Bortz is a great pusher of the FT. What do you suppose his income is? There is a reason. And any tax changed must be made with the full knowledge that it won't be installed with the ideals of most of its proponents but with the conniving, cajoling, dealing and finagling of any current taxes. Think of them being installed in the worst way you can imagine and you will have a pretty good idea of how it would be installed were it to come to fruition.
Frankly, I have no problem with the graduated income tax and believe it is the fairest possible of all taxes. It is the implementation of that tax over the decades that has been corruptive and that is from those with money and influence wanting a lessor portion of the tax to come from their monies. Power works! I've never had much power so I tend to distrust it. And anything that is designed to rely on the better nature of man is doomed to be a disaster.
I have trouble believing a sales tax is not a sales tax with all the incumbent advantages, disadvantages, problems, etc of any other. I would fervently hope that we just keep what we have rather than go this route. Not that our system couldn't use an overhaul, but there is no congress to whom I'd be willing to delegate the task of doing the job. Adding a new tax fits the same bill.
A final note, I would hate to see them change the Social Security to where it was tax supported rather than user supported. It would destroy one of the major factors in the implementation of the original program. I would prefer it to be continued under dedicated payroll deducted contributions.
I think your idealism is exemplary but reality is sobering. And if we are to make any change in the tax structure, we need to be very sober in our approach.
On another subject, I'd agree with you about holding the CEO of companies giving the bailout money in bonuses but I'm afraid there is no conceivable way to do that. We lent that money or purchased stock, with no restrictions or guidelines in place, even very informal ones. You must have a law against what they do if you want to hold them criminally accountable. The way we rushed to help the financial industry was unprecedented and done with zero accountability.
I agree that I've never heard of a way that a person could "earn" a bonus by bankrupting a company! That is a job for me as I'm sure I could bankrupt a few, given the opportunity.
And your comment about the temperature there is simply a concerted effort to make the rest of us jealous! It worked. We've been having temperatures down to four and six degrees here.
I agree that politicians could review some of the Gather threads for a fairly good understanding of just how the people of this nation view a particular problem and the ideas that might arise from the general population. Tain't gonna happen.
You have a great new years and may it be a prosperous one for you and yours!
Sorry for the confusion.
Ok, we leave SocialSecurity as a wage deduction/contribution. Let's lock it so NOBODY but the contributors can receive any of that money and also insist the government put back every dollar it has stolen from it.
"You state "My idea is to do away with all the assorted nickel-and-dime antics, eliminate the loopholes, and make every transaction subject to sales tax whenever money changes hands for goods." is exemplary of idealism unattached to realism. This kind of radical change without it being twisted and warped to the satisfaction of the powerful is not going to happen. And the various other taxes would be left in place at least to some extent. Some of that would be for the ostensible social factors involved, such as the tax on liquor."
Ok, here's a point to make note of. A FLAT 10% sales tax would make all the "special targets" included. There would be no "special rate" for selected items, therefore alcohol, cigarettes, and my favoite pet peeve - fuel would all be taxed at 10%.
Evryone looking at my idea keeps allowing the nuances of the present system in place...those would all be gone!
Do you *really* like reporting all your income and expenditures to a government who uses this info to control the economy to the best interest of big business? They surely use the info to be sure we are always spending our last dime and financing the rest up to our ears. Why do you think there are so many holding 2 jobs or having both parents working while leaving the kids with daycare? "Two chickens in every pot and a car in every garage" has turned into "two missing parents ands a child left on every street".
"First, if you are a day trader and have to pay sales tax on whatever shares you purchase, how much day trading do you think would be done? Those shares may be purchased and traded the same day, resulting in a net loss overall. And them being taxed would be integral to a truly fair tax."
It is likely that once people are able to take in their whole paycheck, other things would change. If the stock market wants to continue day-trading and other trading, the percentages would change to favor getting people to continue day-trading and the like. businesses would adjust to gain our attention and business. Things would simply *not* stay the same!
"You do not address the fact that I've called here for taxes to be levied on wages paid to workers to make to all fair. Would that be acceptable to you? Now, if there were no tax on any kind of labor at any time or place, that would have to be reconsidered. But you know that ere will be if this monstrosity ever comes to fruition."
You still think that with the plan I have presented, that there shouold still be an income tax? I propose elimination of the income tax. I would also say that taxes levied on inheritances, for example (50%!!!, that's a lot to take from someone!) should be dropped. Windfall taxation is just a way of saying the government doesn't want us to have a good thing happen without cutting them in on it...none of it is rightfully theirs.
You want more money for highways? Issue more speeding tickets..and then do not let the courts continually reduce them to loud mufflers or the like, so the fools can keep their licenses without points adding up. People who break the laws need to get the fines and punishments directed by the law, otherwise, why do we waste the money (our tax money) on speed limit signs, police cruisers, or even traffic cops? There should be more road blocks, checking for expired licenses, uninsured motorists and vehicles, unsafe vehicles (like the guy with no tailgate hauling junk that is not even tied down, or overloading the vehicle). There are plenty of ways to accumulate the money to maintain our roads, but they are not being employed. Instead we are overtaxed for fuel, property tax on our vehicles, along with all the assorted other taxes.
Let's say, no New Year's Day, we cease *all* taxation. I mean *ALL* taxation.
Once done, the only tax to be imoposed would be 10% on all TRANSACTIONS.
How hard is that to accept?
Here's a quote from the FairTax website on this point: "The purchase of stocks is considered a purchase for investment purposes and not personal consumption so they are purchased tax free. The service fees charged by the broker, however, are personal consumption and therefore subject to tax." So your $100 purchase of stock is not taxed, but your $7 transaction fee (or whatever your particular fee is) is taxed. But given that the embedded federal tax in that $7 fee will mostly disappear under the FairTax, and be replaced by the 23% FairTax, your $7 fee today will be about the same amount under the FairTax. Hence, your inordinate fear that day trading will be devastated under the FairTax is simply wrong.
Finally, I'm going to leave this thread now because, first, we're discussing a mixture of Eric's 10% flat tax idea and the FairTax, which doesn't do justice to either. Second, James, you are too misinformed about the FairTax legislation to make any dialogue with you fruitful. Instead, it's become extremely frustrating and a waste of time.