|
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:
:no: |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
I don't smoke. |
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?
|
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. |
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:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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) |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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: 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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. :) |
Quote:
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... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
Hopefully, by then, we might have meaningful, affordable and comprehensive health care, particularly for the uninsured. |
You've now been officially Godwin'd
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...ys/ominous.gif |
Thanks...thats very helpful to the discussion.
|
I live to serve.
|
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. 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:
What we need is FAIR and HONEST taxation methods. Then we can have a proper debate over how much we pay and what for. |
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. |
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
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..... |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
nickeled and dimed
good book, you all should read it. |
Hatred is too strong a word....distrust seems fitting.
|
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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. |
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 ? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Holy crap. I just read the OP and realized this the thread about taxing cigars. I didn't even realize. /threadjack |
Quote:
|
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. 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:
Quote:
<h3>1993 :</h3> Quote:
Quote:
...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 ? |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Because some of "us" believe in fairness. Quote:
Read the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad". |
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:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Here is a portion of the Fair Tax rebuttal from their website: Quote:
Here is more stuff: Quote:
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:
No matter what side you are on regarding the Fair Tax, reasonable people recognize the problems with our current tax code. Quote:
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 07:30 AM. |
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