Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Unfair Taxation? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/121228-unfair-taxation.html)

CheapBastid 07-19-2007 01:20 PM

Unfair Taxation?
 
You can argue with me regarding the wisdom of smoking cigars. Argue with me about the wisdom of many things, but can you argue that a 20,000% increase in taxes is fair? Here is the text of a letter that I sent to my representatives:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me
There has been buzz in the media regarding the Senate's S-CHIP legislation that would be funded by a 220% increase in cigarette taxes, from 31 cents to $1.00 per pack. And while children’s healthcare is a worthy and noble endeavor what has sadly been overlooked is the fact that this legislation would increase federal taxes on premium cigars up to 20,000%.

The Senate's current plan increases the tax on premium cigars from 5 cents a cigar to a maximum of $10.00 per cigar. The effect of such an enormous, disproportionate tax increase will be devastating to an industry populated by many small business owners.

For example, a typical handmade cigar that is imported for $9.00 currently pays a federal tax of $0.04875. If this tax increase is imposed, the new federal tax on this same premium cigar will be increased to $4.6017. This represents a real tax increase of well over nine thousand percent.

Unlike the cigarette industry that is controlled by mega-conglomerates, the cigar industry is heavily populated with small family-owned companies that have been working through generations. Virtually all of the major tobacco growers, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are small, family businesses.

In addition to this astounding increase in taxes on new sales the Senate proposal includes a hefty Floor Tax. Specialty cigar retailers would be forced to pay the increased tax on all existing inventory next spring. Requiring specialty cigar retailers to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes will force many of them to close nationwide.

A 20,000% tax increase is not only grossly unfair but ultimately unsupportable, as it will cripple and destroy much of the premium cigar industry along with many of the old family, small businesses that have worked hard to survive the changing and difficult marketplace.

I actually know a few folks who run small cigar related businesses and this is going to shut some of them down.

:no:

Willravel 07-19-2007 01:35 PM

Tax cigarettes that way, not cigars. When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent.

This is almost as stupid as requiring children to pay sales taxes. No taxation without representation.

ratbastid 07-19-2007 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Tax cigarettes that way, not cigars. When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent.

To say nothing of how vastly many more cigarettes are smoked than cigars...

Compared to the public health scourge cigarette smoking is, cigars are nothing. I agree with the OP: they should either be exempted from this tax, or taxed at a more reasonable rate.

Kadath 07-19-2007 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent.


Haha, that's some stellar reasoning there. This product only causes a DIFFERENT kind of cancer, and not as much as the other thing! will, let me guess: you smoke cigars and not cigarettes?

Willravel 07-19-2007 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath
Haha, that's some stellar reasoning there. This product only causes a DIFFERENT kind of cancer, and not as much as the other thing! will, let me guess: you smoke cigars and not cigarettes?

I didn't say it was reasonable. It's not reasonable for an addictive vehicle for poison to be legal. I do think that the worse of the two, cigars and cigarettes, should get more attention. All things being equal, alcohol should be taxed more than cigarettes and cigars.

I don't smoke.

flstf 07-21-2007 10:00 AM

I agree with the OP. Why should a select group like smokers, drinkers, etc... be targeted to provide some universally desirable and specific program as child healthcare that benefits all society. Shouldn't we all pay for this equally?

CheapBastid 07-21-2007 10:22 AM

I'm not necessarily against the concept of a 'sin tax'. The idea behind which is that the impact of activities that are not necessarily good for an individual is not going to only impact that individual.

To help a government deal with those effects by adding a simple tax makes conceptual sense. But, on the other hand the effect of a 20,000% increase will serve to further destroy an ailing industry. Doing this under the banner of 'saving the children' is dishonest and ultimately will not help as the revenue source will be reduced due to the destruction of the very business that is being saddled with the tax.

aceventura3 07-22-2007 06:11 AM

It is pretty ironic that they connect children's health care to smoking. I would think if children's health care is an important enough issue - funding would be tied to stable and secure funding. If everyone stopped smoking or if smoking where to be made illegal, the way some want it to be, what is going to happen to the child health care funding? It is odd that on one hand the government wants to discourage smoking, but on the other hand would have programs tied to the need for people to smoke.

I guess the reality for this tax proposal has more to do with the proponents being able to say anyone against this tax is against helping children. A pretty sad commentary on the proponents of the tax.

It also illustrates a certain level of incompetence in Washington given matching a declining revenue source to a program that will have increasing costs.

Another way to look at it - imagine a Reverend preaching against prostitution, but then saying if you are going to be a prostitute, don't forget to donate a special 10% of your earnings to the church Sunday school program. Connecting the financial success of the prostitutes in his congregation to the success of his Sunday school. Interesting moral issue for the righteous.

From Heritage Foundation:

Quote:

While a tobacco tax is a politically popular funding source, it has several significant shortcomings:

* A tobacco tax disproportionately burdens low-income Americans, lacks long-term stability, and ultimately results in significant shifting of health care costs onto others.
* With the number of smokers already declining, a tobacco tax would further reduce the number of smokers, thereby eroding the funding source.
* To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund SCHIP expansion through such a tax would require 22.4 million new smokers by 2017.

Rather than making SCHIP dependent on increasing the number of smokers, Congress should refrain from narrow government program expansions and work on a broader strategy for improving access to affordable, private health insurance for all Americans--including children.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1548.cfm

willynilly 07-22-2007 10:03 PM

To me it sounds that the tax on cigars will finally be on a parity with the tax on cigarettes. Let's keep things balanced, here.

I love it, the Heritage foundation states that the tax on tobacco disproportionately effects the poor. If tobacco is priced out of their reach, then it will cease to effect them. We are not talking about food or medicine hear. Much like the gas guzzler tax on a Dodge Viper does not effect them.

highthief 07-23-2007 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Tax cigarettes that way, not cigars. When smoked like an adult (not in the lungs like someone who doesn't know how to smoke a cigar), they only cause mouth cancer, and the occurrences are SUBSTANTIALLY less frequent.

That's simply bizarre reasoning.

If you're going to tax cigarettes substantially, then tax cigars the same way. Ditto chewing tobacco. All are addictive, unnneccesary substances that do nothing but hurt the people who use them and people around them.

aceventura3 07-23-2007 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willynilly
To me it sounds that the tax on cigars will finally be on a parity with the tax on cigarettes. Let's keep things balanced, here.

I love it, the Heritage foundation states that the tax on tobacco disproportionately effects the poor. If tobacco is priced out of their reach, then it will cease to effect them. We are not talking about food or medicine hear. Much like the gas guzzler tax on a Dodge Viper does not effect them.

The Heritage Foundation also made a few other points and the points all have merit.

I am not sure but I think your point is basically saying - screw poor people - if the government excessively taxes what some poor people want to the point they can not afford it, then that's what they get for being poor, even when the excessive portion of the tax has nothing to do with the actual costs to society and the excessive tax benefits others. That does not seem fair to me nor should that be the role of government.

dc_dux 07-23-2007 07:27 AM

I think it is a reasonable bi-partisan bill to continue to provide (and expand) basic heath care to children of working poor and uninsured but not eligible for medicaid. It would potentially expand the number of covered children from 6+million to 9+ million.

The original CHIPs program enacted in 1996 was funded through the federal cigarette tax and by all accounts worked well and gave states the flexibility to run the program.

Increasing the cigarette tax (the first federal increase in 10 years) and a higher cigar tax seems like a reasonable trade-off to me to provide basic health care to millions of poor children (which ultimately saves money in the health care system).

I dont like regressive taxes that adversely affect the lowest income groups' ability to meet their basic needs. Cigarettes are not a basic need and in this case, a regressive taxes is not all bad. At the very least, it would likely help prevent more young people (from most income levels) from starting to smoke but would not significantly result in lower revenue (based on the experiences of many states that have raised state cigarette taxes).

And the added tax on most cigars would not be any more signficant than the tax on cigarettes...but anyone willing to pay $9 for a cigar can afford another couple bucks.

Fact sheet on CHIPS (pdf)

Paq 07-25-2007 01:34 AM

as much as i'm against smoking and tobacco in general...

this is just ...weird and i think it has no chance in hell of passing.

just my .05..they increased taxes on pennies, apparently.

CheapBastid 07-25-2007 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
I think it is a reasonable bi-partisan bill to continue to provide (and expand) basic heath care to children of working poor and uninsured but not eligible for medicaid. It would potentially expand the number of covered children from 6+million to 9+ million.

I'm not arguing against CHIPS, as I don't have enough information regarding the program. On the surface it seems like a nice idea. What I'm having difficulty with is the rate of tax increase (20,000%) on a small struggling industry. Yes, I understand that tobacco is not a health product. Yes, I know that anyone who uses it in any way, shape, or form is a blind idiot. But the values of this country have been (in my mind) to allow the pursuit of happiness without undue taxation. This country was founded on a fight against unfair taxation and for freedom.

This move by the government under the new age call of "it's for the CHILDREN" rubs me the wrong way. The position that it puts anyone who questions is to be a baby slaughterer. This is the umbrella that prevents me (here in Southern California) from smoking a cigar after dinner when I'm out, and now this same umbrella of "it's for the CHILDREN" is going to further damage the industry populated by the same individualist spirit that founded this country.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

pan6467 07-25-2007 07:56 AM

All I know is if you want to tax cigarettes fine, but you better start gi9ving us smokers more respect and stop with the no-smoking laws. Or I, for one, will be more than happy to buy black market ciggies.

Fuck you hypocrits who complain about the smoke and want to control when and where I can but want to enjoy my tax dollars.

dc_dux 07-25-2007 08:01 AM

Cheap.....if the tax increase was 20,000% on all cigars, I agree it would have a serious adverse affect on the industry. But that is not the case.

Here are the old and new proposed tax rates:

Old (current) rates:
* cigarettes not weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 ("small cigarettes") are taxed at a rate of $19.50/1000 ($.39/pack)
* cigarettes weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (large cigarettes)are taxed at a rate of $49.50/1000
* cigars not weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (small cigars) are taxed at a rate of $1.828/thousand
* cigars weighing more than 3 lbs/1000 (large cigars) at the rate equal to 20.719 percent of manufacturers or importers sale prices, but not more than $48.75/1000

Proposed new rates:
* small cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $50/1000 ($1/pack)
* large cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $104.99/1000
* small cigars are taxed at the rate of $50/1000 (same as small cigarettes) or 5 cents/cigar
* large cigars are taxed at the rate of 53.3 percent of manufacturers or importers sales price, but not more than $10 per cigar.

http://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitep...1307%20JCT.pdf
I dont know much about the cigar industry either. How many are small cigars (to be taxed at 5 cents/per cigar) vs large cigars; but I assume most sales are not of $20 cigars (or the maximum $10 tax per cigar).

pan.....If i was a smoker, I would buy my cigarettes off of tribal indian websites and pay no tax.

pan6467 07-25-2007 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheapBastid
I'm not arguing against CHIPS, as I don't have enough information regarding the program. On the surface it seems like a nice idea. What I'm having difficulty with is the rate of tax increase (20,000%) on a small struggling industry. Yes, I understand that tobacco is not a health product. Yes, I know that anyone who uses it in any way, shape, or form is a blind idiot. But the values of this country have been (in my mind) to allow the pursuit of happiness without undue taxation. This country was founded on a fight against unfair taxation and for freedom.

This move by the government under the new age call of "it's for the CHILDREN" rubs me the wrong way. The position that it puts anyone who questions is to be a baby slaughterer. This is the umbrella that prevents me (here in Southern California) from smoking a cigar after dinner when I'm out, and now this same umbrella of "it's for the CHILDREN" is going to further damage the industry populated by the same individualist spirit that founded this country.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

I agree whole heartedly with this and would think the Conservatives and Libertarians would be screaming also.

THE BRITISH AND TEA.................... that's all I have to say.

I lied.

We'll just tax tobacco into a black market and lose those dollars. Then we'll do it to alcohol, then sugar, caffeine, etc, etc.

If we build a need on a tax base from certain products and the use then dissipates.... how do we maintain the program that tax was used for?????

There are ways to ban substances without so much as officially banning them.

dc_dux 07-25-2007 08:13 AM

Pan....there is no evidence to support your conclusion.

The evidence from the last federal cigarette tax increase (10 years ago) and the many state cigarette tax increases in the intervening 10 years, may have resulted in a small decrease in the number of user (or those who went to the black market), it resulted in more revenue in every case.

CheapBastid 07-25-2007 08:16 AM

dc_dux - The top priced cigars will be going from approximately a $0.05 per cigar rate to the $10.00 per cigar rate cap, that is an increase of 20,000%. It is true that that 20,000% does not apply to all cigars, but the average cigar is considered a 'large cigar' by the new rules and is taxes exorbitantly.

For a real world example, a typical handmade cigar that is imported for $9.00 currently pays a federal tax of $0.04875. If this tax increase is imposed, the new federal tax on this same premium cigar will be $4.6017 -- this is an increase of 9,337%.

Furthermore, the Senate proposal includes a Floor Tax, in which specialty cigar retailers would be required to pay the increased tax on their existing inventory next spring. Requiring specialty cigar retailers to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes could force thousands of specialty cigar retailer stores to close nationwide.

dc_dux 07-25-2007 08:23 AM

Cheap...I agree that it should not be grandfathered to include existing inventory and I would also agree that a lower tax for large cigars would make sense....something between the old 20% and the new 53%. IMO, large cigars were grossly under taxed (max of $48.50/1000 or less than 5 cents/cigar)

But I still support the general concept of the proposed bill to expand a successful health care program with revenue from a source (ie smokers) that disproportionately contributes to the higher cost of heath care for all of us.

And it is still far more equitable than requiring me to pay federal income tax when I have no voting representation in Congress (now that is taxation without representation)

......getting off my soapbox now. :)

CheapBastid 07-25-2007 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
Cheap...I agree that it should not be grandfathered to include existing inventory and I would also agree that a lower tax for large cigars would make sense....something between the old 20% and the new 53%.

But I still support the general concept of the proposed bill to expand a successful health care program with revenue from a source (ie smokers) that disproportionately contributes to the higher cost of heath care for all of us.]

You're going to make me Godwin you, aren't you by forcing me to ask if the ends justify the means?

Again, I think the CHIPS program sounds great, but saddling a totally unrelated struggling industry with a tax of over 50% for it is ludicrous.

I know, I know - it's for the CHILDREN you see...

aceventura3 07-25-2007 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
Pan....there is no evidence to support your conclusion.

The evidence from the last federal cigarette tax increase (10 years ago) and the many state cigarette tax increases in the intervening 10 years, may have resulted in a small decrease in the number of user (or those who went to the black market), it resulted in more revenue in every case.

There is some evidence.

Quote:

As smoking rates in the country have gone down, cigarette excise taxes have gone up.

In 1970, the highest tax levied by a state was 18 cents a pack (88 cents after adjusting for inflation) versus today's high of $2.46 a pack. Since then, the number of smokers in the United States has declined from 37.4 percent to 22.5 percent.

When it comes to raising a state's cigarette tax, "you have to think there's some ceiling as to how high you can go," said Harley Duncan, executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators.

The assumption has been that when cigarette prices go up 10 percent, sales decline by 4 percent. And that held true as late as 2003, after several states raised their cigarette tax in response to declining state tax revenue, Duncan said.

But given the rise in Internet sales and cigarette smuggling, he thinks the equation needs to be revisited.

In addition, Duncan said, "Our job as tax enforcers is to see if there are actions that could be taken to reduce evasion, to prevent bootlegging."
Quote:

Economist Richard E. Wagner of George Mason University contends that when a state's cigarette tax is significantly higher than a readily available alternative source, it is counterproductive in more ways than one.

It should be noted that in the early 1990s, Wagner received a grant from the Tobacco Institute to coauthor the book "The Economics of Smoking" and the Institute had asked him while he was a professor at Florida State University to testify before Congress.

However, Wagner said he did not receive any funding for the paper on which this article is based.

In "State Excise Taxation: Horse-and-Buggy Taxes in an Electronic Age," Wagner argues that a high cigarette tax:

Pushes smokers to cross state lines to purchase cigarettes or to break the law by buying them underground.

In recent years, the illegal trade of cigarettes has been growing via smuggling and Internet sales. Investigations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have found that millions of dollars each year from such sales are funneled to organized criminals.

What's more, a General Accounting Office report notes that according to officials at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, states with high cigarette taxes are typically those that lose cigarette tax revenue to smuggling.

"As a result, data on taxed sales no longer track actual consumption in any useful way, and revenue estimates of future tax rate changes will be even less reliable than they already are," Wagner writes.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/12/pf/t...cise/index.htm

One of the problems with "black market" activity is that it is very difficult to measure.

According to the Heritage Foundation study (the methodology use is here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hea...48-methods.cfm)
your information is correct with higher taxes more tax revenue will be collected in the short term, but there is price elasticity, as shown by the differing slopes under the proposed and current tax rates as shown in the chart below. Also it is clear that the tax with have to be replaced, increased or new smokers are needed.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1548.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hea...548_chart3.gif

dc_dux 07-25-2007 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
According to the Heritage Foundation study (the methodology use is here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hea...48-methods.cfm)
your information is correct with higher taxes more tax revenue will be collected in the short term, but there is price elasticity, as shown by the differing slopes under the proposed and current tax rates as shown in the chart below. Also it is clear that the tax with have to be replaced, increased or new smokers are needed.

I agree it should not be the basis of a permanent funding source. But the CBO estimates that it will generate enough revenue to expand the program for the 5 years proposed in the bill. It is a temporary (and successful, based on the existing program) solution to dealing with a critical heath crisis among the working poor.

Hopefully, by then, we might have meaningful, affordable and comprehensive health care, particularly for the uninsured.

CheapBastid 07-25-2007 09:04 AM

You've now been officially Godwin'd
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...ys/ominous.gif

dc_dux 07-25-2007 09:06 AM

Thanks...thats very helpful to the discussion.

CheapBastid 07-25-2007 09:09 AM

I live to serve.

joshbaumgartner 07-25-2007 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
I agree it should not be the basis of a permanent funding source. But the CBO estimates that it will generate enough revenue to expand the program for the 5 years proposed in the bill. It is a temporary (and successful, based on the existing program) solution to dealing with a critical heath crisis among the working poor.

Hopefully, by then, we might have meaningful, affordable and comprehensive health care, particularly for the uninsured.

The HF charts seem to be very suspect. Chart 3 below appears to be simply based on one linear line (the red), from which the blue is extrapolated simply by percentage. I don't believe the decline is that purely linear, so therefore the only true data points on the graph are the two points of the Current Tax line, and that much is giving the credit that may not be due.

But even if we assume the red line to be accurate, the blue line doesn't really show how the increased tax rate accelerates decline. The red line declines from $6.5 billion to $3.0 billion (decline of 58% with 12 year total receipts of $57 billion) while the blue is from $7.5 billion to $3.5 billion (decline of 53% with 12 year total receipts of $66 billion). This seems in fact to go against their findings that decline is accelerated, in that the blue line declines about the same (the 4% probably is due to my own inaccuracies in reading the graph), if not less than the red line, and in any case total revenue is indeed higher by more than 15% over the 12 year illustrated period.

So while the graph below is supposedly indicating how increasing taxes will actually undermine future tax revenue, it actually demonstrates quite the opposite if you look at it more closely than to simple see three downward lines and assume that the graph title is therefore true.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hea...548_chart3.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheapBastid
What I'm having difficulty with is the rate of tax increase (20,000%) on a small struggling industry. Yes, I understand that tobacco is not a health product. Yes, I know that anyone who uses it in any way, shape, or form is a blind idiot. But the values of this country have been (in my mind) to allow the pursuit of happiness without undue taxation. This country was founded on a fight against unfair taxation and for freedom.

This move by the government under the new age call of "it's for the CHILDREN" rubs me the wrong way.

I have to say I agree. Now personally, I'm totally against smoking and stamping it out is a fine and wonderful thing. However, social engineering through taxation is NOT the way to do it. I'm not an 'ends justify the means' sort of guy, and while social engineering can do many good things, even if taxation is the method, I think in the end we end up with this insane taxation scheme that have in which we tax things we don't like at the moment, such as cigarettes, and we give tax breaks to what we want to encourage, such as investors. In the end nearly everyone has tax breaks somewhere and tax hits somewhere, and its whoever has better tax knowledge/attorneys that gets to pay the lowest taxes.

What we need is FAIR and HONEST taxation methods. Then we can have a proper debate over how much we pay and what for.

flstf 07-25-2007 11:01 AM

Since our government is so concerned with the healthcare costs from smoking perhaps the taxes paid by tobacco users should be used to offset their healthcare costs. Also any revenue received from states settling lawsuits with the tobacco companies.

In some places I bet the state and federal tobacco taxes paid by individuals would buy a very good policy. The more you smoke, the more money the government refunds to you to buy better health insurance.

I suspect our polititians are more interested in using the tobacco taxes to fund things that further their careers (like child health programs) and are not so concerned with the healthcare costs of smoking. I wonder if all the taxes collected from smokers aren't already more than enough to pay for the additional healthcare costs.

dc_dux 07-25-2007 12:41 PM

I dont dispute the philosophical differences here.

But I havent seen one other successful heath related program coming out either Repub or Dem Congress in the last 10 years or one supported by both Clinton and Bush.

That is until Bush announced he would veto if...after his 2004 campaign pledge:
Quote:

“America’s children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government’s health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.”

http://thehill.com/letters/leavitt-u...007-06-08.html

aceventura3 07-25-2007 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner
The HF charts seem to be very suspect. Chart 3 below appears to be simply based on one linear line (the red), from which the blue is extrapolated simply by percentage.

There is a link to the methodology used. It is fair to question the assumptions used. But, I think the way the chart looks is generally going to be the way it looks regardless of any reasonable assumptions plug into their methodology.

Quote:

I don't believe the decline is that purely linear, so therefore the only true data points on the graph are the two points of the Current Tax line, and that much is giving the credit that may not be due.
In one respect I agree with you because price elasticity is almost never static over time, given the number of real world variables economists can not set up controls for they often use a constant for price elasticity. Assuming the price elasticity of cigarette purchases is greater than zero the demand at higher prices will be lower by definition and for every unit increase in the tax there will be less than a unit in taxes collected. Also assuming a declining population of smokers you will have a downward slope in taxes collected, and then if you assume different price elasticities given the two price levels, the red line will have a different slope than the blue line.

Quote:

But even if we assume the red line to be accurate, the blue line doesn't really show how the increased tax rate accelerates decline. The red line declines from $6.5 billion to $3.0 billion (decline of 58% with 12 year total receipts of $57 billion) while the blue is from $7.5 billion to $3.5 billion (decline of 53% with 12 year total receipts of $66 billion). This seems in fact to go against their findings that decline is accelerated, in that the blue line declines about the same (the 4% probably is due to my own inaccuracies in reading the graph), if not less than the red line, and in any case total revenue is indeed higher by more than 15% over the 12 year illustrated period.
The tax revenue is higher at each point in the chart assuming a higher tax rate and price elasticity less than one.

Using simple numbers:

A) 100 smokers at $1 per pack of cigarettes buy 100 packs.
B) 50 smokers at $1 per pack buys 50 packs.

Assuming price elasticity of 0.25 ( for every incremental increase in price the change in demand changes by .25 of the change in price)

C) 100 smokers at $1.50 per pack buy 75 packs.
D) 50 smokers at $1.50 per pack buy 37.5 packs.

If the tax collected is $.50 per pack in scenario A the tax collected is $50. In scenario B the tax collected is $25.

Then if we increase the tax to $1.00 per pack in scenario C the tax collected is $75.00. In scenario D the tax collected is $37.50.

If we graphed the data we would have two separate lines with the same slope because we used a constant for elasticity. But the gap between the two gets progressively smaller. The HF did not use a constant for elasticity . They correctly used different price elasticity ratios to try and more accurately reflect the demographics of smokers. For example a 50 year old millionaire won't change his smoking behavior because of price the way a 21 year old student would.

Quote:

So while the graph below is supposedly indicating how increasing taxes will actually undermine future tax revenue, it actually demonstrates quite the opposite if you look at it more closely than to simple see three downward lines and assume that the graph title is therefore true.
I think the graph illustrates two issues, one is price elasticity and the other is an assumption of fewer smokers over time. If the only variable was a change in the tax or the price all we would have seen two horizontal lines in the chart.

pan6467 07-25-2007 03:06 PM

If the Democratic party supports this and still fights against smoking rights, I will no longer support the Democratic party. This will be the straw that broke my back and I will not hesitate to go to the Republican party or the Libertarians or whomever else.

But I am tired of the Dems making promises to focus on the true issues then take freedoms away (taxing to the point of non affordance is taking away the right). I'm done with them.

This country is going to Hell and we worry about smokers???? We worry about gay marriages, Euthanasia, Abortion, etc.etc. These are all PERSONAL MORAL decisions, not governmental rights to be taken away or worse yet, taxed into non affordance.

Take the BILLIONS the states got from their tobbaco lawsuits and look where the money went. Ask yourself if that money went to healthcare and smoking cessation help and so forth, as promised then why is healthcare and smoking cessation help still floundering and in need of money?

Our government is out of control and freaks, powertripping asswipes and sheep who follow the majority lap it up. The problem is, they'll come after alcohol next, then sugar, then caffeine, and they are already starting with fats in food. WHERE DOES IT FUCKING END?????

People who support taxing into oblivion, truly need to look deep down and ask themselves why they support this. Is it because you don't like smoke? Well, I don't like a lot of choices people make but I don't cry for the government to do something about it. Is it because you buy the bullshit that the money will only go where they promise it will go? Look at fucking Social Security, if that money truly went where it was supposed to, it would be very healthy, but it doesn't. Once government gets the money they put it where THEY fucking want to and don't even think about it.

The gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater, this generation will never exceed the previous one, the government is trying to merge with Mexico so we can adapt their standards of living, our education is falling apart, we are allowing this government to fall apart before our very eyes and we worry over bullshit?

Wow.....

joshbaumgartner 07-25-2007 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think the graph illustrates two issues, one is price elasticity and the other is an assumption of fewer smokers over time. If the only variable was a change in the tax or the price all we would have seen two horizontal lines in the chart.

Regardless, the end result was that their chart showed that adding the tax did not increase or decrease the rate of decline in revenue over the time period, as the decline over the illustrated period was about 55% (give or take a couple points for roughly interpreting the exact numbers the chart tries to illustrate) both with or without the new tax.

Thus the chart shows the following four points conclusively:

1) Tax revenue for tobacco will steadily decline over the next 12 years.
2) The rate of decline in tax revenue over the period will not be exaggerated by the introduction of a new tax.
3) Total tax revenue collected over the period will be greater by approximately 15% with implementation of the new tax.
4) The percentage of revenue represented by the new tax will remain constant at about 15% over the duration.

Now all of this is just from the chart itself. If the goal was to illustrate elasticity, it doesn't accomplish this, because that element is not illustrated, even though it is supposedly part of the behind-the-scenes calculations. If the goal was to show that the new tax will cause a greater decline of tax revenue, it doesn't accomplish this, because it actually shows that the new tax has no impact.

As for variables shown, the only three are time (X-axis), revenue (Y-axis), and which tax law is applied (red vs. blue lines). All other variables are hidden, and thus the chart is meaningless in demonstrating their effects.

I don't believe that all four of the above points are true, therefore I doubt the validity of the chart itself. As far as I can tell, a spreadsheet of data points was not there to see, so more precise calculations can not be made.

Personally, I'm not a fan of cigarette taxes (or any of these focused taxes that are ramped up because they target politically vulnerable sectors), but this chart really does a disservice to those arguing against such taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
But I am tired of the Dems making promises to focus on the true issues then take freedoms away (taxing to the point of non affordance is taking away the right). I'm done with them.

This country is going to Hell and we worry about smokers???? We worry about gay marriages, Euthanasia, Abortion, etc.etc. These are all PERSONAL MORAL decisions, not governmental rights to be taken away or worse yet, taxed into non affordance.

I agree that the government should not be in the business of legislating morality, and you are right that doing so by taxing something excessively is as bad as making it illegal...and in fact worse in my opinion, because tax schemes are like saying it is illegal for the poor, but not those who can afford it. If something needs to be illegal than just do it and we'll debate whether or not that is right to do. Don't use the back door way to enforce your will on people in a way you know would never pass the democratic process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Take the BILLIONS the states got from their tobbaco lawsuits and look where the money went. Ask yourself if that money went to healthcare and smoking cessation help and so forth, as promised then why is healthcare and smoking cessation help still floundering and in need of money?

Well, it didn't of course! I mean sure, some of it did, and in some states more than others. But of course, tax starved state legislatures who are filled with politicians who don't have the nuts to raise honest taxes, nor cut into cherished programs, licked their lips at the incoming cash and by and large treated it as general revenue. Even where the money was earmarked correctly, it often just freed up other money to be spent as they pleased.

To some extent this is our own fault...really to a great extent. We constantly put the sword to any politician that we catch raising taxes on us, but yet we demand that they do all these expensive things. The money has to come from somewhere, so they find low hanging fruit like tobacco and alcohol to tax, they obfuscate other taxes behind a bunch of different schemes, they raise 'user fees' and in some cases enforce the law almost entirely for the revenue gained by fines (speeding being the classic example).

We should have one source for taxes and that is income. Both individuals and corporations. I know a lot of people will scream, but think about it, sales, property, tariffs, fees, fines, all of that is ultimately paid by us the people. So just take it out up front in a way that it can't be hid. Every American will know EXACTLY how much they have to pay and then we'll have grounds to debate whether it is too much, too little, whatever. We can't have that debate right now because no one knows how much they pay in taxes exactly. Debates over individual taxes (sales or cigarette or user fees or whatever) are hard to come to any meaningful result because it is lost in the swamp of all this complex tax scheming.

One tax, up front and clear.

pan6467 07-26-2007 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner
Regardless, the end result was that their chart showed that adding the tax did not increase or decrease the rate of decline in revenue over the time period, as the decline over the illustrated period was about 55% (give or take a couple points for roughly interpreting the exact numbers the chart tries to illustrate) both with or without the new tax.

Thus the chart shows the following four points conclusively:

1) Tax revenue for tobacco will steadily decline over the next 12 years.
2) The rate of decline in tax revenue over the period will not be exaggerated by the introduction of a new tax.
3) Total tax revenue collected over the period will be greater by approximately 15% with implementation of the new tax.
4) The percentage of revenue represented by the new tax will remain constant at about 15% over the duration.

Now all of this is just from the chart itself. If the goal was to illustrate elasticity, it doesn't accomplish this, because that element is not illustrated, even though it is supposedly part of the behind-the-scenes calculations. If the goal was to show that the new tax will cause a greater decline of tax revenue, it doesn't accomplish this, because it actually shows that the new tax has no impact.

As for variables shown, the only three are time (X-axis), revenue (Y-axis), and which tax law is applied (red vs. blue lines). All other variables are hidden, and thus the chart is meaningless in demonstrating their effects.

I don't believe that all four of the above points are true, therefore I doubt the validity of the chart itself. As far as I can tell, a spreadsheet of data points was not there to see, so more precise calculations can not be made.

Personally, I'm not a fan of cigarette taxes (or any of these focused taxes that are ramped up because they target politically vulnerable sectors), but this chart really does a disservice to those arguing against such taxes.



I agree that the government should not be in the business of legislating morality, and you are right that doing so by taxing something excessively is as bad as making it illegal...and in fact worse in my opinion, because tax schemes are like saying it is illegal for the poor, but not those who can afford it. If something needs to be illegal than just do it and we'll debate whether or not that is right to do. Don't use the back door way to enforce your will on people in a way you know would never pass the democratic process.



Well, it didn't of course! I mean sure, some of it did, and in some states more than others. But of course, tax starved state legislatures who are filled with politicians who don't have the nuts to raise honest taxes, nor cut into cherished programs, licked their lips at the incoming cash and by and large treated it as general revenue. Even where the money was earmarked correctly, it often just freed up other money to be spent as they pleased.

To some extent this is our own fault...really to a great extent. We constantly put the sword to any politician that we catch raising taxes on us, but yet we demand that they do all these expensive things. The money has to come from somewhere, so they find low hanging fruit like tobacco and alcohol to tax, they obfuscate other taxes behind a bunch of different schemes, they raise 'user fees' and in some cases enforce the law almost entirely for the revenue gained by fines (speeding being the classic example).

We should have one source for taxes and that is income. Both individuals and corporations. I know a lot of people will scream, but think about it, sales, property, tariffs, fees, fines, all of that is ultimately paid by us the people. So just take it out up front in a way that it can't be hid. Every American will know EXACTLY how much they have to pay and then we'll have grounds to debate whether it is too much, too little, whatever. We can't have that debate right now because no one knows how much they pay in taxes exactly. Debates over individual taxes (sales or cigarette or user fees or whatever) are hard to come to any meaningful result because it is lost in the swamp of all this complex tax scheming.

One tax, up front and clear.

We're taxed on income, we're taxed on the product, we then have sales tax when we buy the product, and there maybe taxes after that.

The truth is if we ever woke up and saw how we are taxed and double taxed and triple taxed with hidden taxes the people would truly be pissed.

Let's say you buy a car, first you were taxed on your income, then you are taxed with sales tax, now how much of the price of that car was from interstate commerce taxes, taxes the corporation had to pay, taxes the car dealership had to pay, taxes the trucker had to pay for the fuel to deliver the car????? And again, YOU ARE PAYING ALL THOSE TAXES WITH MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.

There is so much taxation and we are oblivious to it.... but the true question that we need to ask is where is all the money?

Paq 07-26-2007 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
We're taxed on income, we're taxed on the product, we then have sales tax when we buy the product, and there maybe taxes after that.

The truth is if we ever woke up and saw how we are taxed and double taxed and triple taxed with hidden taxes the people would truly be pissed.

Let's say you buy a car, first you were taxed on your income, then you are taxed with sales tax, now how much of the price of that car was from interstate commerce taxes, taxes the corporation had to pay, taxes the car dealership had to pay, taxes the trucker had to pay for the fuel to deliver the car????? And again, YOU ARE PAYING ALL THOSE TAXES WITH MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.

There is so much taxation and we are oblivious to it.... but the true question that we need to ask is where is all the money?

hey pan, you forgot about the yearly property taxes some of us pay for owning a car.

dksuddeth 07-26-2007 09:40 PM

nickeled and dimed

good book, you all should read it.

tecoyah 07-27-2007 03:55 AM

Hatred is too strong a word....distrust seems fitting.

dc_dux 07-27-2007 05:43 AM

The House is currently marking up their version of the S-CHIP reauthorization bill with a cigarette tax increase of half the senate version.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/CHAMP/CHAMP_index.shtml

I dont think any in the Senate expected their bill to be the final word. But I think it is very likely the program will be reauthorized this year with some increase in funding.

Why? Because the basic program currently funded by tobacco taxes has bi-partisan support and overwhelming support of the public.

flstf 07-27-2007 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
I dont think any in the Senate expected their bill to be the final word. But I think it is very likely the program will be reauthorized this year with some increase in funding.

Why? Because the basic program currently funded by tobacco taxes has bi-partisan support and overwhelming support of the public.

It is not surprising that those who do not pay tobacco taxes would support raising taxes of those who do.

Child health programs seem to be important as long as someone else pays for it. I wonder if the program would have bi-partisan and overwhelming support of the public if we raised everyone's taxes to pay for it?

aceventura3 07-27-2007 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner
Regardless, the end result was that their chart showed that adding the tax did not increase or decrease the rate of decline in revenue over the time period, as the decline over the illustrated period was about 55% (give or take a couple points for roughly interpreting the exact numbers the chart tries to illustrate) both with or without the new tax.

I think the red and blue lines have different slopes. The absolute dollar difference gets smaller over time.

I also think the chart's purpose is to give casual viewers a rough visual to illustrate their conclusions. I don't think the chart was meant for a PhD level evaluation of their methodology.


Quote:

I don't believe that all four of the above points are true, therefore I doubt the validity of the chart itself.
The point is not the chart, the point is in their projections. On one hand it is clear that over time the tax will not support the program for which the tax was intended. Two factors lead to that conclusion, one being the decline in the number of smokers. The second is price elasticity. If you take the position that increasing the price of cigarettes has no impact on demand, at some price increases and demographics this is true, however it is false in many other circumstances. The methodology used tried to take that into account.

Quote:

As far as I can tell, a spreadsheet of data points was not there to see, so more precise calculations can not be made.
You have to look at their footnotes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
It is not surprising that those who do not pay tobacco taxes would support raising taxes of those who do.

Child health programs seem to be important as long as someone else pays for it. I wonder if the program would have bi-partisan and overwhelming support of the public if we raised everyone's taxes to pay for it?

That's a good question. Why not have everyone with a Washington DC zip code pay for the program? Remember it is for the children.:rolleyes:

pan6467 07-27-2007 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf
It is not surprising that those who do not pay tobacco taxes would support raising taxes of those who do.

Child health programs seem to be important as long as someone else pays for it. I wonder if the program would have bi-partisan and overwhelming support of the public if we raised everyone's taxes to pay for it?

Exactly, and when they have taxed all they can out of cigarettes and gotten the last dollar out of that product, they'll go after alcohol, sugar, caffeine, and keep going until it does it affect enough people that they stand up and say enough.

dc_dux 07-27-2007 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
... Why not have everyone with a Washington DC zip code pay for the program? Remember it is for the children.:rolleyes:

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.

aceventura3 07-27-2007 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

joshbaumgartner 07-30-2007 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.

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 07-31-2007 08:53 AM

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.

joshbaumgartner 07-31-2007 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 07-31-2007 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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 07-31-2007 10:26 AM

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.

Willravel 07-31-2007 10:38 AM

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 07-31-2007 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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?
Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040009
.....A January 10 (2005) New York Times editorial explained:

In suggesting that 2018 is doomsyear, the president is reinforcing a false impression that the trust fund is a worthless pile of I.O.U.'s -- as detractors of Social Security so often claim. The facts are different: since 1983, payroll taxes have exceeded benefits, with the excess tax revenue invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. (An alternative would be to, say, put the money in a mattress.) That accumulating interest and the securities themselves make up the Social Security trust fund. If the trust fund's Treasury securities are worthless, someone better tell investors throughout the world, who currently hold $4.3 trillion in Treasury debt that carries the exact same government obligation to pay as the trust fund securities. The president is irresponsible to even imply that the United States might not honor its debt obligations.

Similarly, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman explained on December 7, 2004, that claiming that the General Fund does not truly owe its apparent debt to the Social Security trust fund amounts to arguing for a large income transfer from working-class Americans to the wealthy:

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase -- recommended by none other than [Federal Reserve chairman] Alan Greenspan -- two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

[...]

If the trust fund is meaningless, by the way, that Greenspan-sponsored tax increase in the 1980's was nothing but an exercise in class warfare: taxes on working-class Americans went up, taxes on the affluent went down, and the workers have nothing to show for their sacrifice.


aceventura3 07-31-2007 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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.

Quote:

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.
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?

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

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"?
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

dksuddeth 07-31-2007 11:01 AM

Quote:

the power to tax involves the power to destroy
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.

host 07-31-2007 11:10 AM

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 07-31-2007 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
Am I understanding correctly - You think the problem with social security is Bush's fault?

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 07-31-2007 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Willravel 07-31-2007 11:25 AM

Quote:

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

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

aceventura3 07-31-2007 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Quote:

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


Quote:

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?
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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

dksuddeth 07-31-2007 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Willravel 07-31-2007 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.

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 07-31-2007 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Willravel 07-31-2007 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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 07-31-2007 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Congress authorized spending for the war.

host 07-31-2007 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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>:
Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/we...rssnyt&emc=rss
Those Wild Budget Swings
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 16, 2006

....At first blush, the recent jump in tax revenue would seem to validate Mr. Bush and those who believe that tax cuts ultimately generate higher tax revenues because they prompt people to work harder, invest more and take more entrepreneurial risk.

The White House, in a news release last week, boasted that tax revenues have climbed 34 percent since Congress passed Mr. Bush’s second big tax cut — which included a major reduction in taxes on stock dividends and capital gains.

But revenues are only up in comparison with how low they had plunged in recent years. Individual income taxes, the biggest component of federal revenue, are barely back to the level that was reached in 2000, $1 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, income tax revenue is still lower than six years ago.

“The idea that tax cuts have led to higher revenues is pernicious,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan research group that lobbies for fiscal discipline. “Tax revenues may be higher, but they are not higher than they would have been if the tax cuts hadn’t occurred.”

But beyond the perennial debate about whether “fiscal discipline” means raising taxes or cutting spending, there is also an issue about the increasingly erratic pattern of the tax revenue itself.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers — those who earn more than $300,000 a year — provide about 30 percent of the federal government’s individual income tax revenues. <h3>The top 10 percent of taxpayers — those with incomes above $100,000 — provide about two-thirds of income tax revenue.</h3>

The lopsided burden is partly a result of progressive taxation, and partly a result of widening income disparities between people at the top and bottom of the economic ladder.

It’s hard to imagine what the federal government could do to reduce instability. Because about 40 million people do not owe any federal income taxes, almost any attempt to broaden the tax base would shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to middle-income households. Yet the more the rich bear the burden, the more they will seek to escape it.

The unpredictable tax revenues first surfaced almost 10 years ago, as booming economic growth and the dot-com frenzy propelled the stock market to spectacular highs. The result was a tidal wave of tax revenue that far eclipsed projections by both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office. As if by magic, budget deficits disappeared and turned into surpluses.

For the most part, the Congressional forecasts missed the mark by less than 4 percent from 1982 until 1995. But starting in 1996, when the dot-com frenzy erupted in earnest, the agency began undershooting by as much as 9.5 percent. In 1996, tax revenues came in $93 billion higher than expected; in 1997, they were $163 billion higher; in 1999, they were $152 billion higher.

When the dot-com bubble popped in 2001, and the economy slid into a brief recession, tax revenues plunged $308 billion below what the Congressional Budget Office had predicted and remained depressed for the next three years.

NOW the pendulum is swinging once again. Corporate tax payments, which plunged more than $70 billion from 2000 to 2003, could hit a new record of $332 billion this year. Capital gains taxes could climb back from a low of $50 billion in 2003 to $75 billion this year.

Few budget analysts would say the jump in revenues is bad news. But if the last decade is any indication, it would be foolish to count on more of the same.

The Bush administration has quietly acknowledged the point. Its latest estimate anticipates that tax revenues will be almost flat in 2007 and that the deficit will widen to $339 billion.

But only if things turn out as expected.
From my post on 10-09-2006.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...08&postcount=1
Year GDP Revenue Spending Surplus/Deficit
1993 ______1,154.5 1,409.5 -300.4

2000 9,817 2,025.5 1,789.2 86.4
2001 10,128 1,991.4 1,863.2 -32.4
2002 10,470 1,853.4 2,011.2 -317.4
2003 10,971 1,782.5 2,160.1 -538.4
2004 11,734 1,880.3 2,293.0 -568.0
2005 12,487 2,153.9 2,472.2 -493.6

Deficits in right column, above, do not include "off budget" appropriatins.....
GDP growth 2000-2005, 27% total, 4.9%/year.
Revenue growth 2000-2005, 6.3% total, 1.2%/year.
Spending growth 2000-2005, 38% total, 6.7%/year....


<h3>1993 :</h3>

Quote:


By Lucinda Harper
Publication title:
Wall Street Journal
More options ↓


Higher Taxes Unlikely to Hurt Recovery --- Economists See Minor Impact on Consumer Spending
New York, N.Y.: Dec 22, 1993
Abstract (Summary)

Although the tax rise will take some zest out of consumer spending, mainstream economists say it poses no serious threat to the recovery. They say that unlike former President Bush's tax increases, which hit a slowing economy, President Clinton's tax rise comes during an expansion. The added taxes on the wealthy, they say, will damp things, but at a time when the economy can absorb the setback.

The tax rise didn't pass Congress until August, but the income-tax increases are retroactive to Jan. 1, 1993; the increases apply to couples with taxable income over $140,000, after deductions, and individuals with income over $115,000. Taking account of all the income and other tax increases, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that families making more than $200,000 annually will be socked with an average of 17.4% more in taxes, or $24,000. The fear is that when wealthy people sit down to do their taxes next year, they will be shocked to find out how much they owe and suddenly stop spending -- hurting a recovery that's finally gaining momentum.

Besides, the wealthy tend to dip into savings to help pay for a higher tax bill, unlike the less affluent who immediately cut spending and slow the economy. Donald Ratajczak, head of economic forecasting at Georgia State University, estimates that well-off people will tap their savings to pay for half of the added taxes, paying for the rest by cutting purchases.

Just how much will the Clinton tax increase on the most well-off Americans hurt the economic recovery?

Although the tax rise will take some zest out of consumer spending, mainstream economists say it poses no serious threat to the recovery. They say that unlike former President Bush's tax increases, which hit a slowing economy, President Clinton's tax rise comes during an expansion. The added taxes on the wealthy, they say, will damp things, but at a time when the economy can absorb the setback.

A dissenting view comes from supply-side economists, who argue the tax on the rich will lead to lower investment and productivity, trends that, over time, would make the U.S. less competitive.

The tax rise didn't pass Congress until August, but the income-tax increases are retroactive to Jan. 1, 1993; the increases apply to couples with taxable income over $140,000, after deductions, and individuals with income over $115,000. Taking account of all the income and other tax increases, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that families making more than $200,000 annually will be socked with an average of 17.4% more in taxes, or $24,000. The fear is that when wealthy people sit down to do their taxes next year, they will be shocked to find out how much they owe and suddenly stop spending -- hurting a recovery that's finally gaining momentum.

"The April tax payment date may have a shock effect," warns Kurt Karl, chief economist for WEFA Group in suburban Philadelphia. Manhattan and Beverly Hills are two areas where a large group of taxpayers will be hit.

But economists don't think the economy will be set back far. For one thing, the number of people hit by the tax increase is quite small. Only 1.4 million taxpayers -- that's about 1.2% -- are affected by the increase on the wealthy. So, while those writing the checks may feel a burden, the nation as a whole will be relatively unscathed.

Furthermore, the tax rise, expected to raise about $20 billion annually to help lower the budget deficit, is equal to only 0.4% of all personal income. Meanwhile, the expected drop in the deficit has helped lower interest rates, a change that leaves many people -- including the wealthy -- with more money to spend or invest.

Besides, the wealthy tend to dip into savings to help pay for a higher tax bill, unlike the less affluent who immediately cut spending and slow the economy. Donald Ratajczak, head of economic forecasting at Georgia State University, estimates that well-off people will tap their savings to pay for half of the added taxes, paying for the rest by cutting purchases.

"You couldn't pick a better group to put this tax on," Mr. Ratajczak says. "They probably didn't vote for Clinton and there are not enough of them to severely crimp the expansion." And President Clinton, in an effort to limit the negative effects of the tax, has given Americans three years to pay for the increase, interest-free.

Mr. Ratajczak's forecast for growth in the first-quarter is a 3.2% annual rate and for the second-quarter, a 2.1% rate. He estimates that if there were no new tax on the wealthy, growth would be at a 3.5% rate in the first-quarter and 3.0% in the second. For the year, he predicts that the added taxes will bring growth to 2.8%, down from 3.2%, assuming all other factors -- including the lower interest rates -- were unchanged.

Most economists estimate that the tax will do the most damage in the first half of next year as wealthy consumers cut spending to help cushion the blow of a higher tax bill. "The economy will only be affected in a noticeable way in the first half of the year," says Mr. Karl, who estimates that the economy will grow at an annual rate of 2.7% for the first-quarter, rather than 3.0%, if there were no tax increase.

But supply-siders see things differently. "This is going to have a corrosive, corrosive effect" on the economy, says Lawrence Kudlow, chief economist at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York.

Rich people have a high propensity for savings and investment, and Mr. Kudlow says that will be crimped by the new tax.

The result, he argues, will be lower productivity. Mr. Kudlow estimates that the potential long-term growth rate of the economy will be lowered to 2.25% annually, from 2.7%.

"The tax increase is also coming as Asia and Latin America are lowering their tax rates and so will be becoming more competitive with America," Mr. Kudlow says.

There have been some obvious benefits from the tax boost. Lower interest rates have prompted thousands of people to refinance their homes, cut mortgage payments and use the extra money to buy cars, furniture and appliances. In that sense, the tax increase is "a wash for the nation as a whole," says Roger Brinner, director of U.S. forecasting for Data Resources Inc. in Lexington, Mass.
Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AB0994DB494D81
SALES IN NOVEMBER OF EXISTING HOMES HIT A RECORD PACE
Jr.,, ROBERT D. HERSHEY.

Dec 30, 1993

Special to The New York Times

Spurred by growing confidence in the economy and a fear that low interest rates may not last, Americans snapped up single-family homes in November at the fastest pace ever recorded, the National Association of Realtors announced today.

Sales of existing homes in November ran at an annual rate of 4.21 million homes. That rate, which is statistically adjusted for seasonal variations, was 2.9 percent higher than in October and 9.1 percent ahead of the November 1992 pace.

The previous record, set in November 1978, was an annualized rate of 4.15 million home sales.

This higher-than-expected activity reinforced optimism that the economy would continue to expand at a brisk pace in the new year, a prospect also reflected in a separate set of figures issued today showing a five-tenths of 1 percent rise in the Government's main forecasting index. 'Interesting Numbers'

The composite index of leading indicators has now climbed four straight months after managing only one gain in the first seven months of the year. Composed of items that tend to move ahead of the economy at large, like orders for manufactured goods, the Commerce Department index is designed to peer six months or more into the future.

"These are interesting numbers, especially the home sales," Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist for the PNC Bank in Pittsburgh, said. Forget about a possible early 1994 slump from tax increases, weak exports and military cutbacks, he advised, adding, "All's clear on the recession watch."

The strength of the broad, current economy was confirmed by the Commerce Department's index of coincident indicators, which also posted a gain of five-tenths of 1 percent last month -- its fourth consecutive advance.

But since most of the index's components had been previously published, the bulk of the attention today went to the housing report. While sales of existing homes do not have the economic impact of building new ones, they do mean strong sales of items like drapes, paint and appliances, as well as business for lenders, lawyers, real estate agents, appraisers, moving companies and various kinds of insurers. The Government will issue its report Thursday on November sales of new homes.

November marked the seventh sales advance in the latest eight months and the highest since the real estate group began keeping records in 1968.

All regions of the country except the West contributed to the new sales record, which was a result not only of 20-year lows in interest rates but of an improved job market, rising consumer confidence, gains in income and relative stability in the price of houses.

"Month by month, I think the public has gotten more confident," said P. Wesley Foster Jr., president and owner of Long & Foster Realtors, which is based in Fairfax, Va., and is the nation's third-largest real estate concern. "When interest rates bottomed out and started kicking up, people really got busy," Mr. Foster said.

The national average commitment rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages was 7.16 percent in November, down from 8.31 percent a year earlier but somewhat above late-summer lows.

Mr. Foster said that after the first quarter, when his company's sales were 10 to 12 percent below those a year earlier, the company had posted quarterly gains of 18 to 25 percent for the rest of the year. He said he expected strong sales to continue. Median Price of Homes

The median price of homes sold last month was $106,800, up $200 from the October level but below the $109,300 in June that was the highest so far this year.

Month to month fluctuations, however, are heavily affected by what kinds of buyers are active and do not necessarily indicate the overall direction of prices. Still, the recent price data tend to confirm a belief that the sales surge is concentrated among first-time buyers moving from apartments.

For his company, Mr. Foster said, first-time home buyers accounted for about 48 percent of recent sales compared with the traditional proportion of about one-third.

By region, the Midwest posted a November sales gain of 7.3 percent, to an annual rate of 1.17 million. It was followed by the Northeast, up 4.9 percent to 640,000, and the South, up 4.1 percent to 1.53 million. The decline in the West was 4.3 percent, to a rate of 880,000, the report showed.

These numbers include a factor for typical seasonal variations, such as higher sales volume during the summer that reflect favorable weather and a desire by many families to minimize their children's school disruption. But analysts caution that these adjustments can sometimes distort results, particularly those that are then annualized by assuming that a monthly pace continues for a full year.

Nevertheless, the association's criterion that it takes several months to establish a trend has now clearly been met.

Actual sales last month, with no adjustment, were 140,000 in the South, 75,000 in the Midwest, 65,000 in the West and 43,000 in the Northeast.

The Commerce Department's forecasting index was impressive not only in its string of four straight increases but in its sustained breadth. Eight of the 11 components contributed to the November advance, paced by lower first-time claims for unemployment benefits, higher orders for new plants and equipment and a rise in the price of materials especially sensitive to the business cycle. Other Gains

Other elements helping to push up the index were a rise in building permits, higher backlogs for manufactured durable goods, an expanded work week, a higher money supply and manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials.

Negative forces were lower consumer expectations, which were reversed in December; faster deliveries to companies by their suppliers, and stock prices as gauged by the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

The department's companion index of lagging indicators that move only after a turn in the economy eased two-tenths of 1 percent last month, the fourth consecutive month without a rise.
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 08-01-2007 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

aceventura3 08-01-2007 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?
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".

dc_dux 08-01-2007 05:47 AM

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.
Quote:

Grassley, one of the leading Republican sponsors of the bill, said he thinks supporters have the 60 votes needed to stop procedural moves and even hinted at the possibility of a veto-proof margin. “We think we’ve counted around 64, or 65 . . . and maybe with some help on a little problem with the cigarette tax, we can pick up a couple more.” Grassley didn’t elaborate on what the problem was. The legislation provides for a 61-cents-a-pack increase in the federal tax on cigarettes, and also provides for tax increases on other tobacco products, including cigars.

“We’re talking about 64 on cloture,” he said. “I think we’re going to get more on final passage.”

Grassley added that if GOP leaders don’t try to hold the level of support below the 67 votes needed to override a veto, the measure could get as many as 70 votes. The White House has taken a strong stance against congressional passage of the legislation, however, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is pushing for adoption of a much more scaled down SCHIP reauthorization bill than the measure approved by the Senate Finance Committee.
http://public.cq.com/docs/hb/hbnews1...002563294.html
A truly bi-partisan bill. The debate should be interesting in that the Democrats have allowed other unrelated tax amendments to be considered.

host 08-01-2007 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

......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".

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:


Quote:

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspi...e_fairtax.html

Unspinning the FairTax
May 31, 2007
We look at the numbers behind the numbers.

<center><img src="http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/Fair%20Tax%20Revised%20Slide.JPG"></center>


Americans for Fair Taxation rejects the Treasury Department analysis, objecting that Treasury considers only the income tax. By leaving out payroll taxes (which are actually regressive) Treasury’s chart makes the FairTax look worse by comparison. We found that including all the taxes that the FairTax would replace (income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes), those earning less than $24,156 per year would benefit. AFT’s Burton agreed that those earning more than $200,000 would see their share of the overall tax burden decrease, admitting that “probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000” would see their percentage of the tax burden rise.....
Quote:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=us
The Political Uses of Public Opinion: Lessons from the Estate Tax Repeal

Page 6

......Many analysts, and even strong advocates of repeal, reported being surprised by how wide-
ranging were the contours of opinion that became apparent. <h3>After all, considering that only the
wealthiest two percent of Americans pay the estate tax and that the estate tax is the most progressive
part of the tax code, the vast majority of the public could only lose from estate tax repeal.</h3> Yet,
many polls show that most people support repeal when it is presented as a standalone issue—even
those least likely to pay the tax and most likely to be beneficiaries of the roughly $30 to $40 billion it
raises each year. This amount of revenue boosts the federal budget by one to two percent, nearly
enough to fund, say, the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Education. <h3>Is the
explanation that people do not understand their self-interest? There is indeed clear evidence that, in
light of misunderstanding and misinformation, many do not.......</h3>

Page 7

Perceived and Misperceived Self-Interest
If we were to impute preferences based on accurately-perceived expectations of economic
self-interest, those who never expect to pay the estate tax should favor keeping it, given the
likelihood that repeal would entail either a relative shift of the tax burden to them, or a reduction in
services that might benefit them. It would be reasonable to anticipate no more than a modest
showing in support of repeal: those several percentage of persons who might realistically risk paying
the tax upon death, plus their likely heirs. Yet, many polls since the late 1990s have shown
widespread public support for estate tax repeal, in the realm of 60 or 70 or 80 percent. Moreover,
supporters appear to be spread more or less equally across income groups, contrary to what self-
interest would predict.
3
More sophisticated economic models may impute preferences based on potentially
inaccurate perceptions of economic self-interest; and misperceptions certainly do help to explain a
good portion of the public support for estate tax repeal. People know very little about estate tax
levels and rates and rules, as evidenced by a January 2000 Gallup poll, in which most people (53
percent) admitted they simply didn’t “know enough to say” whether the “federal inheritance tax”
was too high, too low, or about right. Obtaining accurate information can be difficult, especially
when others have an incentive to mislead you. With little background knowledge, many people
seem to guess that nearly everyone is taxed at death—a misperception sometimes encouraged by
question wording. For example, in a 2003 National Public Radio / Kaiser Foundation / Harvard
Kennedy School (henceforth NKK) survey, two-thirds of respondents either thought “most people
have to pay” the estate tax (49 percent) or said they didn’t know (18 percent); and 62 percent of
those opposing the estate tax said one reason was because “it affects too many people.” Controlling
for socio-economic and demographic factors, and general attitudes towards the tax code, Joel


Page 8

Slemrod (2003) uses results from this survey to estimate that the misconception that most families
pay the estate tax “increases the likelihood of favoring abolition by 10.6 percent.”
4
In keeping with this, surveys consistently show that the number of people in favor of repeal
drops when respondents are given information on exemption levels or how many people pay. For
instance, in the NKK poll, 60 percent of respondents say they want to eliminate the estate tax when
the exemption level is not specified. Yet the percentage who favor repeal drops to 48 percent when
respondents are asked to consider an estate tax with an exemption of at least $1 million—which is
what the actual exemption was slated to be even before the repeal law passed. When asked to
consider an estate tax with an exemption of at least $5 million—which was one of the proposed
reforms rejected in the Senate—even fewer, 35 percent, still favor repeal.
Precisely how misperceptions about the estate tax change people’s views is difficult to say,
but it may be through affecting a person’s perception of self-interest in repeal or through affecting
her unselfish evaluation of the social fairness of the tax. In practice, these reasons are entangled
because, even provided with correct information, people may misunderstand their own self-interest
and their perceptions of social justice may correspond to their misperceived self-interest. For
instance, once given more information about who pays the estate tax, and hearing arguments both
for and against repealing it, the percentage of people believing that they or someone in their
household would have to pay the tax fell from 37 to 30 percent in a 2002 Greenberg Research Poll,
while support for repeal correspondingly dropped from 60 percent to 47 percent. Some of the
change in views might thus be attributed to a change in respondents’ perceptions of self-interest.
Yet, more remarkable than the difference made by the presence of correct information is the
difference that is not made. After all, a full 30 percent of informed people still believed someone in
their household would have to pay the estate tax. This result is even more extreme than another
often-cited July 2000 Gallup poll showing that 17 percent of informed respondents believe they will


Page 9

personally benefit from estate tax repeal, even after being told that only estates valued at over $1
million would be subject to estate tax. In the 2003 NKK poll, 69 percent of those supporting repeal
said a reason was because “it might affect [me] someday.” <h3>Like stereotypical lottery ticket holders,
Americans’ judgments about their likely future wealth seem wildly optimistic.</h3>
5
Principles of Fairness
Despite the important role of evaluations based on self-interest—and confused self-
interest—they do not seem to account for the majority of public support for estate tax repeal. A
surprisingly high percentage of people—26 percent in the NKK poll—still want repeal even with an
exemption of $25 million or more.
6
People’s particular judgments about tax fairness are a central to
accounting for the high support for repeal, and repeal proponents learned to “message” their goal in
terms of principles of fairness.....
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:
Quote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richricher/9775
Only the Rich Survive

by Robert Kiyosaki

Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006

....The Chickens Come Home to Roost

In Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, which I highly recommend, a poor man reports that he voted Republican because he wanted to get back at Wall Street.

Can you imagine that? I always suspected that a lot of people aren't very bright. To paraphrase a popular statement, a poor person voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders......

.....In the next five years, the United States and the world will go through some of the most financially disturbing times in the history of the world. Once again, the rich will become very, very, rich, and the unsuspecting will be left like the passengers on the S.S. Titanic, heading straight for an economic iceberg.......

joshbaumgartner 08-01-2007 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

...

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"?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
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....

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 08-01-2007 01:56 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

It is easy to look at charts like the one above and dismiss the FairTax as simply another way to help the rich get richer. But there is an economic argument for a less progressive tax system, though that argument is extremely technical. Kotlikoff has asserted that the FairTax will lower the marginal tax rate for all earners. (The marginal rate is the tax rate paid on the last dollar earned.) Because marginal rates are lower, each extra dollar of income will result in greater purchasing power. The decrease in marginal rates is progressive – that is, marginal rate reductions are greater for the working- and middle-classes than for the wealthy.

Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent. Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden. Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden. The size of any such gains is disputed, however; Americans for Fair Taxation consistently chooses from among the most optimistic growth projections.
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:

Quote:

As the FairTax gains more national attention, questions have again arisen about whether the FairTax rate is 23 percent or 30 percent. In the toxic environment that often accompanies public policy debates, FairTax.org has even been accused by some of misleading the public, even though full descriptions of "tax-inclusive" and "tax-exclusive" calculations abound on our Web site. We hope the following explanation puts all such questions to rest -- at last.

Let’s use an example to illustrate the difference between tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive tax rates.

Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.

If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.

If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.

Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ..._053107_tomato

Here is more stuff:

Quote:

The FairTax preserves the overall progressivity of the federal tax burden. The FairTax not only lowers remaining average lifetime net tax rates, it also maintains and, indeed, enhances overall progressivity in the tax system. Consider middle-aged married households. The FairTax average lifetime tax rate is very low – only 1.5 percent – for the couple with $20,000 in annual earnings, and much higher – 20.5 percent – for the couple with $500,000 in annual earnings. The reduction in the tax rate is proportionately much greater at the lower end of the earnings distribution than at the high end. In switching to the FairTax, the $20,000- earning couple experiences an 86 percent cut in their average tax rate, whereas the $500,000- earning couple experiences a 42 percent cut. The FairTax: A very progressive long-run outcome
To get another meaningful picture of how persons in various income groups fare under the FairTax in the aggregate, Dr. Kotlikoff models the dynamic macroeconomic and microeconomic effects of replacing the income tax system with the FairTax. His model considers three income classes within each generation. It compares what the economy is like under the FairTax versus what it would be like if the current system were to remain in place. This approach gives a realistic view of the impact of America’s aging population, coupled with high and growing health and pension benefits that necessitate much higher payroll taxes, with potentially damaging effects on the U.S. economy. The FairTax offers a solution to this dismal economic future.
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.

Quote:

FairTax proponents are correct in their assessment of the Internal Revenue Code:

The current U.S. income tax code is widely regarded by just about everyone as unfair, complex, wasteful, confusing, and costly. Businesses and other organizations spend more than six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs conservatively top $225 billion annually—costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid by consumers.

The Internal Revenue Code cannot simply be "fixed," which is amply demonstrated by more than 35 years of attempted tax code reform, each round resulting in yet more complexity and unrelenting, page-after-page, mind-numbing verbiage (now exceeding 54,000 pages containing more than 2.8 million words).
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.

Quote:

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:
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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360