dc_dux

ace...there are more than 500,000 people with a Washington DC zip code who have NO voting representation in Congress at all.....so we are paying for every federal program without having a voice.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Yes, I know. It is unfair. Our government should not have a segregated group of citizens based on where they live denied full participation in our representative democracy. The majority in the rest of the country has no incentive to act to correct the situation. Our apathy says it is your problem, just move.

I also think it is unfair to excessively tax smokers. Our government should not have a segregated group of citizens based on a habit or behavior arbitrarily paying for services to others. I accept taxation based on increased government/society costs due to a habit or behavior. Taxes for special services should be based on general taxation policies using a common objective standard of taxation equally applied to all. Otherwise the majority not affected by the tax has no incentive for fairness. Our apathy says it is the smokers' problem, just quit.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

joshbaumgartner

I agree as well. I've tossed about a number of solutions to this, but I'm not sure how best to handle it. Statehood for DC is a simple approach but probably not best. Remember there are also Puerto Rico and the other territories, as well as perhaps certain military or government employees who really don't have proper representation in the legislature. Perhaps an umbrella "state" that covers all these groups by giving them all the apparatus of the states that the rest of us have as an integral part of our federal-state system? In the end I believe all citizens ought to be treated the same by the federal government, whether you are speaking laws, taxation, benefits, or representation.

I do agree that taxation ought not to target specific groups, especially just because they are politically expedient to target. On the matter of 'special services' though, I don't know that I agree. The nature of 'special' services seems to indicate services which only benefit a select group of citizens, but I really don't believe that those kind of things are what the government should be involved in, and thus they shouldn't be taxing for them either. Services that the government does provide where the benefit is to us all, but for some the benefits are direct and others indirect, shouldn't be taxed off of the direct beneficiaries alone.

In short: If a program's benefits are to the society at large than the society at large should bear the cost of that program. If a program only benefits a select group of citizens, it probably is not something that the government should be providing.

aceventura3

I agree with your points in principle. My fear is that special interest programs and pork barrel spending issues are so entrenched into our government that we will never be able to go back to a condition of truly fair taxation.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

joshbaumgartner

That may well be the case, you are right, unfortunately. It does probably mean that fundamental 'ground-up' reform to basically recreate the system in a fair manner, would probably have the effect of a nuclear bomb in the economy. It might be better in the end but the price would be high for the moment.

So how do we go about ratcheting back on improper spending and at the same time reapportioning the tax code in a fair manner, while at the same time keeping changes from being so violent as to kill the patient?

host

ace and joshb....aside from a progressive income tax heavily weighted against the those making the highest incomes (the top ten percent already own 70 percent of all US wealth), and by inheritance taxes on million dollar plus estates,
how would you fairly tax the folks detailed in this post...
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=21 ?

Neil Bush, GHW Bush, his brother, William Bush, their lawyer, James Baker, the VP Dick Cheney, GW Bush's buddy, Joe Allbaugh, and the CNP millionaire and Blackwater founder and sole owner, Erik Prince, as the post at the link above informs us, all made appreciable sums as a direct result of their connections, and the opportunities from the war in Iraq.

Progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes will return to the government some of what their unique connection/influence driven opportunities have brought to them....will return some of "their money" fo the original source where it came from....our tax dollars, appropriated for war and foreign policy objectives.

Can you point to any comparable "fairness" and offset to the rest of us, compared to the profits that my linked post shows went to these guys, that would be included in your tax "reform"?

If you support "reform" which taxes everyone equally, will it be as fair as the current system is to the rest of us, compared to how it treats the Bushes, Cheney, Baker, and Prince, and compared to the current system, which already results in the top ten percent owning 70 percent of everything, won't your "reform" lessen the obstacles to men like this, soon owning much of the remaining 30 percent of all wealth, too?

Isn't what these men did during a time of war, extreme, and isn't so few owning such a high percent of the wealth, now, extreme for , too, and isn't calling for "reform" that is even more friendly to the wealthiest, incoherent and self defeating?

Isn't it incumbant on the 90 percent of us who have little but our voting numbers to offset the other ten percent's wealth, power, and influence, to use that vote to counter all of their advantages, or use it to increase their advantages at our further expense....

Sheesh...it seems so obvious....but we are seeing these "let's be fairer in the way we tax those who have paid to convince us to tax them "fairer", opinions, coming from those who would seem to have no inclination to possess them.

aceventura3

I thought a good first step would have been to privatize social security. It simply makes so much sense for young wage earners. Certainly we have to keep our promise to those currently on social security and those near obtaining it. And for people like me (40ish) having some kind of combination. I think people being able to see how more efficient they can save for their future (even if forced) compared to government we may start a trend away from people wanting government to pay for virtually everything. Since their really is no social security trust fund and the money meant to be set aside is being spent, the folks in Washington would be forced to immediately cut current spending. This particular game of smoke and mirrors would end.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I won't give my money to a private corporation interested in turning a profit. I'll stop paying social security before I'll pay into a privatized system. Social Security is in trouble because the $509b surplus Bush inherited from Clinton was spent so that he could cut taxes and still spend billions on the Iraqi war.

host

ace....isn't your opinion that, "[there] really is no social security trust fund", even though that fund holds US Treasury bonds as assets in lieu of cash, just as every other US treasury debt holder, holds....an admission that the US treasury is bankrupt? It either is, or it isn't? If it is bankrupt now.....wa was s it in 2001, when it's total debt was $5.6 trillion, vs. $8.7 trillion, today? Did any SSI privitzation "reform", address where the money would come from to finance the government's portion of funding for private accounts/ Did any proposal offer a solution to cover the disability insurance and survivors' benefits components of the existing SSI program?

Doesn't the market for Treauries, at such low interest rates, considering your opinion that there are no SSI trust fund assets, contradict your opinion? ....or are buyers of T-Bills less informed than you are?

aceventura3

A progressive tax is one thing. But we have a system of taxation that is worse in the fact that it is a system that creates major obstacles for poor and middle class people from becoming wealthy. Our currents system tends to entrench the rich and creates a permanent class system. If you work, taxes are paid on your work before you see any of the money. If you save, taxes are paid on any income from those savings as current income. If you invest and have long-term capital gains you are taxed at a favorable rate. In order to become an investor you have to get past the first two. If you are already rich you start as an investor.

Rich people avoid inheritance taxes through complicated trusts and other means to shelter their wealth. For example, Bill Walton of Walmart made sure his children owned shares of Walmart in their names - no tax on his death. The Kennedy's still benefit from the wealth accumulated by Joe Kennedy, several generations after his death thanks to complicated trusts.

So did all of the investors in Haliburton. Why shouldn't the average person be able to invest in a company like Haliburton and start to creat real wealth that could be passed on to thier children. Imagine a 20 year old who could put a small portion of his social security taxes (most to be put into safe stable less risky investments) into a company like that, with a 45 year time horizon?

I think you underestimate the sophistication of wealthy people. They basically pay what they want to pay, if it ever becomes too painful they avoid the pain.

In principle, don't tax work, tax consumption. Don't tax savings, tax consumption. Don't tax investments, tax consumption. Tax based on usage.

We can have a safety net, but we don't need a system that in affect steals from one person so another can benefit.

Am I understanding correctly - You think the problem with social security is Bush's fault?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dksuddeth

everyone should know this. I'm pretty sure that everyone who approves of this method of government power to eliminate activities they do not approve of would have little issue with it having turned against them when it involves an activity they enjoy.

in other words, you either believe that taxation should be used to promote conformity in behavior, according to popular majority, or you believe in freedom.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

host

ace.... are you saying that anyone who bought Halliburton stock had connections, inside info, and influence that could be compared to "the juice" that the 3 Bushes, Cheney, and Erik Prince had with the folks who let the contracts, designated and appropriated the funds, and the knowledge that they all had, as to the timing of when and where to invest or to enter into business relationships?

If, as you say, the rich have ways to avoid taxes, rendering them meaningless, why did the fifteen welthiest US families spend more than $100 million, in a secret campaign to attempt to eliminate inheritance taxes, and why do their politics seem obsessed with lowering taxes and elimination of progressive income tax? Are their efforts to help the rest of us? Where do the billions collected from inheritance taxes, come from?

Why, after the Bush income tax cuts, did it take six years for tax revenue to rise just six percent, vs. the amount collected in 2000?

Why do you almost never support your claims with linked references that the rest of us can consider, learn from, or attempt to rebut?

dksuddeth, why can you not accept that progressive income taxes attempt to offset the outsized power and influence of the wealthiest and the oopportunities that those assets give them to accumulate even more?

I asked for anyone who objects to progressive income tax and inheritance tax to show how their proposed tax reform preference allows for any offset to the advantages of the wealthy that a progressive and an inheritance tax affords on them, and you have offered.....what ?

Willravel

How many people do you think would have retired on $509b? Of course it's not the only problem, but the fact that he raided the pantry, and then said the pantry isn't working is beyond disingenuous.

Yes, older people are living longer. Yes, the retirement age doesn't fit with Social Security. Yes, SS prolonged the Great Depression. Yes, I could invest my own money better. That hardly excuses the fact that the money intended for my generation to retire on was used to pay for a war of aggression.

I'd rather see the system abolished than privatized.

host

The first SS check was not paid until 1940....how did SS prolong a depression that reached it's bottom in late 1932?

Willravel

The Social Security Act was passed in 1935. There was a recession in 1937 towards the end of the Great Depression.

aceventura3

Publicly traded companies have to report transactions of "insiders" and "insider" have trading windows. A common indicator used by many investors is to monitor "insider" investment activity. The best indicator is CFO transactions.

In direct response to your question - no. However, it did not take an insider to know Haliburton's relationship with the government and the fact that the company had an inside track on very lucrative government contracts related to the war in Iraq. But so did Ceradyne (CRDN). It traded for about $3 per share at the start of the war and peaked in the $80 range and now is about $75. They specialize in ceramic armor or bullet proof vests.

Some people are simply greedy and would rather keep the money spent to set up expensive trusts and other tax avoidance shelters.


Warren Buffet is one of those guys(correction) who wants to raise taxes and increase the death tax. He could give away all of his wealth today and still maintain control of his company, but he doesn't. I wonder why? Rich people are often among the biggest hypocrites in my opinion. You have rich people on both sides of the issue. What do you believe? Many of the wealthiest people in the country are Democrats and many are Republicans.

We had to turn around a recession and the tax cuts were not all implemented at once. There is a built in delay in the impact of tax policy. Depending on who you ask or how you calculate it, a tax policy change could take from 2 to 10 years before the impact is felt.

When I do, they often get ignored or dismissed as right-wing propaganda.

In a case like this, I like to layout general underlying principles. If there is no basis in agreeing on the underlying principle, more data is pointless. For example - I say rich people easily avoid the "death tax" and I give two general examples. You don't believe it in principle, I could give pages of data on how they do it, etc., but it won't matter. So like I have stated in the past, often these discussions leads me to do research and to think of things I would not have ordinarily thought of, and when I do research, i do it for my education. If I felt others were interested I would share more of it.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dksuddeth

what part of my quote didn't you understand?
there is NOTHING progressive about taxes. The reasoning behind this is so very simple if one bothers to look at who makes the tax laws.

special interest groups will always get the power of legislative ears because of money. this 'attention' will almost always garner a favorable outcome for these special interests.

attempting to 'offset the outsized power and influence' is useless because it will only change the balance of power between two general sets of interest groups, especially considering the divide of political power between two radically different parties.

what you're really trying to promote is the redistribution of wealth by 'progressive' taxation, an oxymoron if ever there was one, instead of acknowledging that the reason this taxation looks necessary is because we've let special interest groups provide over-regulation of commerce, thereby providing those groups with even greater power over us.

The SS issue was totally destroyed when it was transferred to the general budget, decades before Bush was president. Trying to blame bush for a deficit or credit clinton with a surplus is nothing more than partisan hack BS.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Obviously partisanship hackship is blinding you. Maybe I should make this more clear:
True or false?
1) The Bush Administration used the $509,000,000,000 surplus from social security to help pay for tax cuts and the war in Iraq.
2) In 2004, Social Security's total annual amount paid was $500,000,000,000.
3) The amount of money collected could have paid for a little over a year of usage.

dksuddeth

EVERY administration has used the SS funds to pay for one thing or another. If you think my blaming EVERY administration, to include Clintons, for squelching SS funds is partisan hacking, then what would you consider non-partisan?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Clinton didn't pay for an illegal war.


Holy crap. I just read the OP and realized this the thread about taxing cigars. I didn't even realize.

/threadjack

aceventura3

Congress authorized spending for the war.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

For the life of me, I cannot understand the resistance to progressive taxes and inheritance taxes aimed at collecting more from folks like war profiteers, William, Neil, and GHW Bush, Erik Prince, Joe Allbaugh, and Dick Cheney. The demcorats did it in 1993, and my research shows, income tax revenue rose from $1154 billion in 1993, to more than $2025 billion in 2000, and then reversed dramatically for years, under the tax policies of a republican controlled congress and white house.

The 2006 NY Times article shows that, although the wealthiest ten percent owned 70 percent of total US wealth in 2004, they only paid 67 percent of all income taxes in 2005. Tax law changes in 1993 had the effect of making them pay more, until the reversal of policy, after 2001.

If they can be made to pay 2/3 of all income taxes collected, why not use our superior voting numbers to attempt to collect 75 percent of all income taxes collected, from them? in 2006, the wealthiest one percent nearly managed to bring a senate bill to the floor for a simple majority vote that, is it had passed, would have been signed by Bush and resulted in elimination of inheritance tax, slated now to return at 2002 level, in 2011. Why are there so many "have nots", who support the agenda of the rich? Aren't the rich the folks who put the crop of federal politicians in office who turned annual total treasury debt, reduced to just $18 billion, in 2000...back to an annual average of $412 billion, each year since 2001? They deliberately shifted their former tax burden to you and your grandchildren....from pay as you go in 2000, to borrowing $3 trillion since....yet there is an advocacy here for taxing everyone equally, a "fair tax"...why...where does that thinking come from?

<h3>Because the debt has increased by $3 trillion in just the last six years, interest payments on the debt rose to $406 billion, last year. The government needs revenue, and 70 percent of the wealth is in ten percent of the hands. The other 90 percent of us have the votes, but, as you can see in posts here, there is much sentiment against taxing the rich, like we did from 1993 to 2001...why?</h3>


This article suports the revenue numbers that I posted on 10-09-06, and my contention that the top ten percent have much less ability to a avoid progressive tax increases that are fairer to the rest of us, aong with inheritance taxes reverting in 2011, back to their pre-Bush admin levels that were as high as 55 percent, and affected <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800138.html">only 1.17 percent of all estates</a>:
From my post on 10-09-2006.....


<h3>1993 :</h3>

http://www.franceaccountants.com/tax...ates_in_France

...income tax and social security percentages paid in France....and isn't the result a universal and earlier and more financially secure retirement, as well as life during the pre-retirement years, and a 20 percent lower national poverty rate ?

dksuddeth

Did you ever stop to think WHY you can't understand that? Could it possibly be your subconcious approval of that system of government to begin with?

instead of thinking of ways to change the taxation, why not change the method of politics? would that not have a greater effect of freedom?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

aceventura3

Does the implication of this data, as you suggest, factor in the lag in tax policy changes, as well as the many other factors that affect tax revenue? I don't think it does.

There is a subtle but material difference between wealth and high income. Our system has a focus on taxing income, not wealth. If you want citations, spend some time reading the tax code. But understand that foe example a family farmer may control millions of dollars of land and equipment and net very little income and pay almost no federal taxes. On the other hand a doctor a few years out of medical school may have high debt (student loans, mortgage, car note, business loan to start his practice, etc), possibly negative net worth and makes $250,000 per year in income and pay a lot in federal income taxes.

I give you many examples showing some of the flaws in your theories regarding taxation, yet you show no interest in what happens in the real world. I think this illustrates a problem we have in Washington - there is no connection btween the theory and the real world.

Because some of "us" want to become "them".
Because some of "us" believe in fairness.

Do you understand the "fair tax"? Do you understand the difference between taxing consumption rather than income from work? Don't you see that taxing consumption in principle means that those who spend the most (the rich) will pay the most by far?

Read the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad".

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Back to the OP.

The Senate is debating the S-CHIP bill this week and according to the top Republican sponsor, it could get a veto-proof majority.
A truly bi-partisan bill. The debate should be interesting in that the Democrats have allowed other unrelated tax amendments to be considered.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

ace....you've, IMO, swallowed a line of "sheee-uttt" bought and paid for by the Richard Mellon Scaifes/Olin Foundation/CNP Billionaires who have created the cato/heritage/aei "think tanks" who inject heaping helpings of bullshit into the American psyche that persuade so many to vote against their best economic interests....

If "they" invest in convincing you to vote in ways that result in them paying less, either you will pay more, or, as we've seen in this decade, US Treasury debt simply increases hugely, and the tax bill gets transferrred to our grandchildren to pay "someday"......

Is it even possible to overtax war profiteers like Neil and William Bush, and Erik Prince? I don't see how that is possible.....

Here's some "stuff" that shapes my opinions:


I am not impressed with "Rich Dad, Poor Dad".....everyone cannot "Double down" and "roll the dice", as a reliable path to "riches"......but the book's author and I agree on two points:

joshbaumgartner

Well here it is Host, I want to see a single-schedule comprehensive income tax on individuals and corporations. This is where I am at. I continue to listen and learn all I can to further hone this into the best possible plan for fair and honest taxation.

The goals of my system:

A - Simple: A system where everyone knows exactly how much they are spending in taxes, and can directly correlate government spending with the impact on their taxes.

B - No loopholes: All pay their fair share. Loopholes, shelters, credits, etc. cost honest payers money.

C - Fair burden: All should share the cost evenly (does not equal flatly) of the things which we all benefit.

D - No social engineering: Tempting as it may be, using the tax code to do social engineering invites more corruption than positive social change.

So here's what I want to see in a working system:

1) All income is equal. It shouldn't matter whether you got it through a hard day's labor, cagey investments, or just an allowance from your inheritance trust fund.

2) All gains from operations in the US should be taxed, meaning you can't gain anything by setting up an 'official' headquarters in the Bahamas. Additionally, foreign citizens and companies also will have to pay on the same schedule for gains they make here as well.

3) 'Windfall' income should be able to be amortized over more than one year (up to ten years maybe?), eliminating being 'penalized' for gaining something like an inheritance or lottery, but taxes are still collected.

4) All 'special' taxes should be abolished. This includes taxes on specific events (inheritance taxes), taxes on specific goods, and taxes for specific programs (Social Security payroll taxes for example).

5) All 'user fee' taxes should be abolished. Things like fees to enter National Parks for example. All government services should be available to all regardless of ability to pay, and the poor shouldn't be penalized for utilizing them.

6) All 'penalty/fine' taxes should be abolished. This doesn't mean no fines for law breaking. It just means fines may not be collected to fund the law enforcement process (that leads to corruption). Also, fines should be levied on a basis of burden (i.e. according to one's ability to pay), not on a flat rate that means while a rich and poor man may commit the same crime, the payment may be budget breaking to the poor man but a sneeze to the rich man.

7) There should be no 'sales' tax of any sort (VAT or other such things included). Sales taxes are extremely regressive as they are at best a flat tax (regressive) but in reality when viewed against spending habits, they are unfailingly regressive. The only alternative is to start exempting stuff people have to buy (food, medicine, etc.) but then you are back in the loop-hole game. Unless you are going to have a truly comprehensive sales tax on all purchases (including real estate, stock certificates, labor, b-to-b items, and all other items) then it is unfair and dishonest, because it is really a consumer tax.

8) Individual taxes should be calculated by 'household' permitting all types of family units to be taxed fairly without prejudice to one type or the other. For example, a home with two wage earners earning $25K each should pay the same amount as one with two adults where one earns $50K and the other nothing.

Host, hopefully this clearly answers your question as to what I'm seeking...let me know if you need any more details.

Democracy isn't about 90% of the people using their majority to exploit the other 10% unfairly. It supposed to be about the 90% being able to not be exploited by the 10% just because the 10% has the guns and the money. It's a delicate line perhaps.

The taxation system has to assess a fair burden on all segments. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be progressive. It just means you can't be exploiting a specific group just because they don't have the votes to defend themselves.

aceventura3

I read the link from Fact Check. Seems you cherry picked data to support your position (something I am often accused of) and ignored this:

Seems like their biggest concern is whether the Fair Tax is 30% or 23%. Based on that analysis they seem to miss the looking at the bigger picture relative to developing a fairer tax system. A system that isn't so easily "gamed" by rich people.

Here is a portion of the Fair Tax rebuttal from their website:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ..._053107_tomato

Here is more stuff:

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-F...cts-070122.pdf

O.k. maybe the Fair Tax is not the solution, perhaps it will never pass. But here are words from a member of the Mises economic think tank, who does not support the Fair Tax.

http://www.mises.org/story/1814

No matter what side you are on regarding the Fair Tax, reasonable people recognize the problems with our current tax code.

Neither am I, however he does make a good point about how the average person doesn't get "it". The "it" being income focused rather than asset focused.

Try the "Millionaire Next Door" too. It will help you understand who "us" and "them" really are.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."