Tax rates, the Rich, and Reality - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 12-21-2005, 02:42 PM

Many people on the left think that increasing taxes on the rich will allow the government to do more. I have assumed that most knew how easy it is for the rich to actually choose how much they pay in taxes. I was wrong. For those who don't understand this is for you.

Let's pretend we are Bill Gates, richest man in the world. They pass a new tax law; every $1 you make over $100,000 in payroll is taxed at 100%. What do you do?

You tell Microsoft to reduce your salary to $0. Now you pay no tax on your employment income at all. You say I will get my income from capital gains, taxed at 15%. He says give me stock options, defer my income, buy a life insurance policy and make my wife the benefactor, etc, etc.

Then they pass another law, capital gain taxes are raised to 75%.

You stop selling stock. Good thing you have a nice portfolio of real estate. You don't sell the real estate, you take a loans on the property when needed. No income tax on a loan, no capital gains tax. Rents pay for the loan.

Let's say you get bored and you want a tax free trip to Iceland. Good thing you have a foundation. The foundation buy you first class tickets, hotel, etc, because you are going to give the country a donation and you have to go and present the check. Also, if your aunt Sally needs a job, you make her the President of the foundation.

Let's say they close the real estate loan loop hole. Not a problem. You buy tax free municipal bonds. No federal tax on the interest.

Let's say the government says if you don't pay now we will get you with the death tax, and they raise the death tax to 99%. Luckly you read Joe Kenndy's book on how to avoid death taxes, and you hire a team of lawyers, accountants, etc, and set up all kinds of trusts so that when you die, you actually die with $0, but your family for generations will remain billionaires.

Then of course as the founder, director, officer of the largest company in the world, you never pay for gas, cars, airplanes, boats, computers, cell phones, postage, paper clips or paper plates, because you can get all that stuff from the company. And, you can make sure the company has board meetings at your favorite travel locations around the world. You could live in 5 star hotels every day of the year, and it could all be business related, of course no money out of your pocket.

Needless to say it is nice being rich.

No matter what you do with tax rates the rich pay what they are comfortable with. The people who get screwed are the middle managers, programers, and hourly people who work hard to make a living but are not rich. When you raise taxes they have no choice but to pay them.

Please, Please, Please stop saying all we need to do is tax the rich to pay for this or that. The rich ain't going to pay for it. Middle class people pay.

Ever wonder why the old money democrats never support tax simplification. You think its to protect the poor. The reality is the more complicated, the easier it is for them to keep their wealth and to pass it on to their children. Do you really thin Kenndy or Kerry would support a tax plan that would cause their children to actually work? If you believe that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, well below market value-of course.

When Reagan and Bush lowered tax rates, tax revenues went up partly because rich people actually started paying more taxes. What would you do if 100% of your income was taxed, you would trade your services or skills for goods and services and minimize your income. The rich do the same. I don't suggest tax rates godd to 0%, there is an equilibrium at lower marginal rates than what we have today. The rich will pay taxes, but they will pay what they think is reasonable, not a penny more.

flstf · 12-21-2005, 07:30 PM

That's an interesting read, aceventura3. It looks like taxing the wealthy is like trying to catch a greased pig.

I think it may even be more difficult than you describe when you consider that the wealthy have access to inside information from their (our) polititians and not only know where to make more money but also how to influence the law makers to protect it.

I have often thought that if the polititians who claim they want to level the playing field by increasing income taxes were really serious they would advocate taxing wealth instead. But then I imagine they would just write rules to allow themselves to escape it.

I also think that the poor and middle class pay a lot higher percentage of their income in taxes than most people realize, higher even than most wealthy do, simply because of the hidden taxes in most goods and services of which they must spend a larger portion on their income on. I don't think the sources included everything and the hidden taxes are even higher than those shown below.

Quote:

This chart shows the percent of an average worker's income taken by direct taxes. These taxes include Federal, state and local income taxes, worker paid Social Security taxes, and sales taxes. (See the Tax Foundation.)

In various surveys of taxpayers, most people indicated that a total tax rate of 25% would be acceptable. This included all levels of government taxation including Social Security, sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes. The chart shows the rate of increase for total direct taxes is fairly steady. In 1998 direct taxes took 35.4% of the average family's income.

With 35.4% of your earnings going to taxes, you must earn $1.55 to spend $1.00.

Hidden Taxes Consumers Pay
But, there are other taxes that are not so obviously removed from your pay. These taxes are not intended to be readily observable. Some of these taxes are paid by your company and add to the price of products or services you and your company charge for the products you produce. Your company, for example, pays an equal amount of Social Security taxes for you. Your company also pays a variety of other taxes such as unemployment taxes, workers compensation taxes, property taxes, corporate income taxes, energy taxes, pollution taxes, just to name a few. These taxes are added to the prices of goods and services your company provides to consumers.

As a consumer, you pay not only your taxes, but the taxes of all the manufacturing companies that had a hand in producing the final products you are purchasing. These taxes are rolled into the price of the product and are passed on to you. Americans for Tax Reform calculated that these hidden taxes increase the cost of goods and services by 26% to 75%. (See Americans for Tax Reform.) For example, taxes take:

Hidden Costs of Taxes
26% of the cost of electricity
28% of the cost of a restaurant meal
31% of the cost of bread
38% of the cost of a pizza
40% of the cost of an airline ticket
46% of the cost of a firearm
54% of the cost of gasoline

Families pay both obvious taxes (35.4%) and hidden taxes (at least 26% of purchases). If 80% of "after tax" disposable income is spent, hidden taxes add about 20% to the family's tax burden, bring the total tax burden to over 55%.

http://home.flash.net/~bob001/taxes.htm

shakran · 12-21-2005, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Many people on the left think that increasing taxes on the rich will allow the government to do more. I have assumed that most knew how easy it is for the rich to actually choose how much they pay in taxes. I was wrong. For those who don't understand this is for you.

Good writeup, and you're correct - there are all sorts of ways to get out of paying taxes if you have enough financial power.

However, and this is a big however, it is rather silly to say "the rich are gonna get out of paying taxes anyway so why not just lower them?"
Bush said that, and I thought it was stupid then. The answer is to close the tax loopholes. Make it an even X% of ALL income. So if you get a salary, you get X% taxed. If you get land, or stock, or anything else, you're taxed X% on its value.

Hell, I have a take-home news car so that I can go shoot that midnight house fire if I have to. I have to pay a tax penalty because the news car is considered a benefit (benefit my foot, it's for the company's good, not mine). If I have to do that, then the rich should certainly ante up every april as well.

Elphaba · 12-21-2005, 09:25 PM

Perhaps this should be merged with Ustwo's "I Trust The Rich" thread?

Marvelous Marv · 12-21-2005, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I have often thought that if the polititians who claim they want to level the playing field by increasing income taxes were really serious they would advocate taxing wealth instead. But then I imagine they would just write rules to allow themselves to escape it.

Yeah, why should the rich be allowed to keep what they've earned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I also think that the poor and middle class pay a lot higher percentage of their income in taxes than most people realize, higher even than most wealthy do, simply because of the hidden taxes in most goods and services of which they must spend a larger portion on their income on. I don't think the sources included everything and the hidden taxes are even higher than those shown below.

Here's someone who disagrees:

Link

Quote:

A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. They show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent.

Not only are these data interesting on their own, but looking at them over time shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply. A growing body of international data shows the same trend.

On the first point, we see that in 1980, when the top statutory income tax rate went up to 70 percent, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers was just 19.3 percent. After Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1981, which reduced the top rate to 50 percent -- a massive give-away to the wealthy according to those on the left -- the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose steadily.

By 1986, the top 1 percent's share of all federal income taxes rose to 25.7 percent. That year, the top statutory tax rate was further cut to 28 percent -- another huge-give-away, we were told. Yet the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent continued to rise. By 1992, it was up to 27.5 percent.

Of course, it would be a mistake to conclude that tax increases will not raise the wealthy's tax share or that tax rate cuts always will. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers almost doubled during a time when the top income tax rate fell by half.

A common liberal retort to these data is that they exclude payroll taxes, which are assumed to be largely paid by the poor. However, it turns out that when one includes payroll taxes in the calculations, it has far less impact on the distribution of the tax burden than most people would assume, because the wealthy also pay a lot of those taxes, too.

In a 2004 paper presented to the American Statistical Association, IRS economists Michael Strudler and Tom Petska calculated percentiles data that included both income taxes and Social Security taxes. In 1999, the top 1 percent paid 23.3 percent of combined payroll and income taxes, the top 10 percent paid 52.2 percent, and the top 20 percent paid 68.2 percent.

In recent years, a number of foreign countries have also started publishing tax shares data. They show the same trend of higher and higher burdens on the wealthy even when tax rates are cut sharply.

For example, according to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers was 11 percent in the United Kingdom in 1979, when the top income tax rate was 83 percent. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher cut that rate to 60 percent, and by 1987 the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent had risen to 14 percent. The top rate was cut again to 40 percent, where it still stands, and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent continued rising to a current level of 21 percent.

Statistics Canada recently released a study looking at tax shares in that country. It shows that the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of taxpayers reached 52.6 percent in 2002 -- almost exactly the same as is paid by the top 10 percent in the United Kingdom. However, the top income tax rate in Canada is just 29 percent. (Provincial tax rates in Canada are very substantially higher than among U.S. states.)

Finally, we now have data for Australia from the Australian Taxation Office. In 2003, they show the top 5 percent of taxpayers paying 30.2 percent of all income taxes, the top 10 percent paying 41.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paying 63.8 percent. But the top income tax rate in Australia is 47 percent. Thus we see that the country with the highest top rate also brings in the least amount of total income tax revenue from its richest citizens in percentage terms.

At some point, those on the left must decide what really matters to them -- the appearance of soaking the rich by imposing high statutory tax rates that may cause actual tax payments by the wealthy to fall, or lower rates that may bring in more revenue that can pay for government programs to aid the poor? Sadly, the left nearly always votes for appearances over reality, favoring high rates that bring in little revenue even when lower rates would bring in more.

Copyright © 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

flstf · 12-22-2005, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Yeah, why should the rich be allowed to keep what they've earned?

I wasn't advocating this, just pointing out that some of those who are already wealthy have no problem raising our income taxes which makes it more difficult for those of us who aren't wealthy to ever get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Here's someone who disagrees:

Link

I don't disagree with this article. It doesn't say that the poor and middle class don't pay more of their income in taxes than the wealthy. It just says that they pay less in direct income taxes.

If you make $10,000 per year and spend it all on living expenses and those goods and services prices are 50% higher because of hidden taxes in the distribution chain then you essentually are paying 50% of your income in taxes.

shakran · 12-22-2005, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Yeah, why should the rich be allowed to keep what they've earned?

Why shouldn't the poor and middle class be able to do the same thing. I have difficulty mustering sympathy for a billionaire that pays 100,000 in taxes when a guy that makes 20,000 to start with has several thousand taken by the government. Percentagewise, the poor guy's paying a lot more, and that's on an income where he can ill afford to even pay an equivalent percentage. A billionaire isn't gonna miss a hundred grand. A thousandaire IS going to miss a couple grand.

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Good writeup, and you're correct - there are all sorts of ways to get out of paying taxes if you have enough financial power.

However, and this is a big however, it is rather silly to say "the rich are gonna get out of paying taxes anyway so why not just lower them?"
Bush said that, and I thought it was stupid then. The answer is to close the tax loopholes. Make it an even X% of ALL income. So if you get a salary, you get X% taxed. If you get land, or stock, or anything else, you're taxed X% on its value.

Hell, I have a take-home news car so that I can go shoot that midnight house fire if I have to. I have to pay a tax penalty because the news car is considered a benefit (benefit my foot, it's for the company's good, not mine). If I have to do that, then the rich should certainly ante up every april as well.

If I recall corectly France did something like this and the richest people are moving across the border to Belgium, taking all their money and as many assets as they can with them.

Rekna · 12-22-2005, 08:17 AM

Just close the loopholes and tax the luxiories that the rich use. For example federal property tax of property that has a value over $X. The same type of tax could be applied to cars, yats, ect. actually even easier just tax a % of assets over a certain amount each year. If the rich want to move because they are taxed to much give them an export tax also

.

While some of those ideas may be valid and others are probably horibly bad ideas i'm all for simplifying the tax code signifgantly. Close the loopholes and raise the punishment for tax evasion.

One more thing while saying that top 1% pay 30% of the taxes you are hiding a more important stat which is what percent of their income (minus basic cost of living) do they pay in taxes each year. That is where you will see who pays the most taxes. It reminds me of the parable in the bible about the poor widow who had hardly anything and gave it all to God and the disciples said why did she even bother she gave nothing but Jesus said to the discipiles she gave more than any one else because she had nothing but gave it all.

aceventura3 · 12-22-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

However, and this is a big however, it is rather silly to say "the rich are gonna get out of paying taxes anyway so why not just lower them?"
Bush said that, and I thought it was stupid then. The answer is to close the tax loopholes. Make it an even X% of ALL income. So if you get a salary, you get X% taxed. If you get land, or stock, or anything else, you're taxed X% on its value.

I would rather tax consumption. That's the fair way to tax everyone including the under-ground economy. I don't think work and savings should be penalized through taxes.

aceventura3 · 12-22-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I also think that the poor and middle class pay a lot higher percentage of their income in taxes than most people realize, higher even than most wealthy do, simply because of the hidden taxes in most goods and services of which they must spend a larger portion on their income on. I don't think the sources included everything and the hidden taxes are even higher than those shown below.

Most don't realize how much they are being taxed. Some actually think they are doing good when they get a "refund" after filing.

I remember my first bitter taste with taxes. I worked a summer construction job as a teenager. I worked two weeks straight 12 hour days. I thought my check was going to be a monster. About half of all the extra time went to taxes. I was saving for the next school year at college. What the government was really telling me was to hang-out, and then apply for aid and student loan, and that I was an idiot for trying to work and save.

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I would rather tax consumption. That's the fair way to tax everyone including the under-ground economy. I don't think work and savings should be penalized through taxes.

by that statement then those that consume most would be taxed more, which means that a family of 4 will consume goods more than me and my wife, yet I probably pay more in taxes than the median family of 4.

if you'd like it to be that way I'm for it since I'd get more money in my pocket.

aceventura3 · 12-22-2005, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

by that statement then those that consume most would be taxed more, which means that a family of 4 will consume goods more than me and my wife, yet I probably pay more in taxes than the median family of 4.

if you'd like it to be that way I'm for it since I'd get more money in my pocket.

Right.

A family of 4 who lives within their means should pay less than a family of four who lives in luxury. People who choose not to have a family should not subsidize those who do. Everyone should pay thier fair share. Why should a single guy pay high taxes and a guy who has a family with 6 kids pay no taxes and they work the same job.

If we tax the under-ground economy, can you imagine how low the tax rates would be. I would bet most people know someone making money and not claiming it on their taxes, people who live really well and you wonder how. They travel, buy expensive cars, jewlery, get plastic surgery, eat at expensive restaurants, buy expensive cloths, have plasma TV's, etc, etc, and they don't seem to work 9 to 5.

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Right.

A family of 4 who lives within their means should pay less than a family of four who lives in luxury. People who choose not to have a family should not subsidize those who do. Everyone should pay thier fair share. Why should a single guy pay high taxes and a guy who has a family with 6 kids pay no taxes and they work the same job.

If we tax the under-ground economy, can you imagine how low the tax rates would be. I would bet most people know someone making money and not claiming it on their taxes, people who live really well and you wonder how. They travel, buy expensive cars, jewlery, get plastic surgery, eat at expensive restaurants, buy expensive cloths, have plasma TV's, etc, etc, and they don't seem to work 9 to 5.

I'm sorry but it's short sighted. I NEED to subsidize some people in my life. Why? because an EDUCATED person is a better contributor to society than someone on Welfare.

I don't have any kids, but my taxes go to fund public schools. I went to private school at a great expense to my parents, and they also paid taxes which went to public schools.

I don't use as much toilet paper, food, clothes, etc. Those things are consumed. A family would be paying more than me because of that, thus they have a higher percentage of money going to taxes than I would could afford it but don't want to pay it.

And if I get my way, I will be one of those people who don't work 9-5 and you'll wonder where I get my money from because you won't know that I invested in stocks, bonds, real estate and I just go to the mailbox in my fuzzy slippers to collect my money. It doesn't mean that it's illegal.

aceventura3 · 12-22-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I'm sorry but it's short sighted. I NEED to subsidize some people in my life. Why? because an EDUCATED person is a better contributor to society than someone on Welfare.

I don't have any kids, but my taxes go to fund public schools. I went to private school at a great expense to my parents, and they also paid taxes which went to public schools.

If you paid a consumption rather than an income tax, your tax dollars would still support the schools. Actually, most school funding comes from property taxes.
Or, if you keep more of your money and you want to help kids, who's going to stop you. You could adopt a family, you could fund a music program at a school, you could set up a scholarship program. If you had extra money you could do what Bill Gates does with his foundation, just on a smaller scale. Wouldn't it be nice to have the power to make your own choice on how you would help others.

Quote:

I don't use as much toilet paper, food, clothes, etc. Those things are consumed. A family would be paying more than me because of that, thus they have a higher percentage of money going to taxes than I would could afford it but don't want to pay it.

If you want complication. We could not tax toilet paper.
Understand that the guy who buys a $80,000 car every other year will get big tax bills everyother year. If you spend $100 on toliet paper per year, the tax might be $5. And remember under the current system the guy buying the $80,000 car, most likely uses it for "business" and has a tax write-off for it. The family of four buying the toilet paper has no creative ways to lower taxes.

Quote:

And if I get my way, I will be one of those people who don't work 9-5 and you'll wonder where I get my money from because you won't know that I invested in stocks, bonds, real estate and I just go to the mailbox in my fuzzy slippers to collect my money. It doesn't mean that it's illegal.

That is my goal too.
I say let people work, save and then when they can live off their investments let them. If I work my but off for 20 years and save every penny, and then one moring I wake-up with a few million saved isn't that better than - working my but off for 20 years and having the government take everything I would have saved, wake-up one morning and have nothing but a promise of social security but then only if I work another 20.

kutulu · 12-22-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Right.

A family of 4 who lives within their means should pay less than a family of four who lives in luxury. People who choose not to have a family should not subsidize those who do. Everyone should pay thier fair share. Why should a single guy pay high taxes and a guy who has a family with 6 kids pay no taxes and they work the same job.

Single people are not making an investment into the future of the county. Families are.

"Living within their means" and "Living in luxury" are completely relative statements and have no real meaning. It's fully possible to live within your means and live in luxury. It just depends on what you make.

Last, consumption taxes are BS built around a fantasy that puts a naive amount of trust into big business. If a business has a sudden drop in their costs, are you really naive enough to think they will pass every cent of that to the consumer? That just isn't how things work. Since your employer isn't paying SS taxes anymore, do you honestly think they will give you every penny of that?

Let's oversimplify how the govt gets its money. We have taxes paid by individuals (A) and the hidden taxes (B). Total govt revenue is C:
A+B = C

No matter what, the govt needs to collect C (unless the president is a moran). Who are the major players behind consumption taxes? Rich Republicans. Yes, the type that flap their heads for hours on end about how the poor people don't pay their fair share and the mistreated rich are exploited. I can't believe that people are dumb enough to believe that those people think that they will re-write things in a way that makes it so that the common poor person doesn't have a tax increase.

One last thing: Could someone post some substantial proof on the breakdown of these hidden taxes? Perpaps a real item with acutal costs. I've asked numerous people on many message boards and it's always ignored. Back that shit up.

Poppinjay · 12-22-2005, 10:38 AM

The problem with the consumption tax, is that industry is fearful that people will not consume. What they seem to forget, is that we have less money either way. It’s so much easier to quash an idea than adjust for the good of the economy.

I’m all for the consumption tax if it were to truly be meted in a fair manner. It’ll never happen, but I’m for it. I would also be for realistic corporate taxes and policies that reward them for keeping people employed. I worked for a couple of years as part time/temp employee in a professional industry that required professional training and a great deal of talent. The people I worked for employed me as a part time/temp, because the more people they had in that classification the less tax burden they had to pay. That just shouldn’t be. During my time there, we had great success, a good deal of which I had a piece of the responsibility. But as a result of their desire to defer tax, I used up all my hours two months before the end of the year. So I sat idle as the employer “enjoyed” an end of the year slump with depleted workstaff who couldn’t get the shows on the air. The thing that really rankled me was that they got a tax break for having so many PT/temp employees. It was the republican version of helping us out – by under-employing us.

But like consumption tax, asking corporations to get real with their policies will never happen.

Charlatan · 12-22-2005, 10:41 AM

Consumption taxes are actually a progressive tax. Those who can afford to buy more expensive items (i.e. the wealthy) actually end up paying more than the poor who either buy less or buy cheaper.

Most economists actually like them more than income taxes because they distribute the tax burden in a much more fair way.

The key is a balance between consumption and income taxes.

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If you paid a consumption rather than an income tax, your tax dollars would still support the schools. Actually, most school funding comes from property taxes.
Or, if you keep more of your money and you want to help kids, who's going to stop you. You could adopt a family, you could fund a music program at a school, you could set up a scholarship program. If you had extra money you could do what Bill Gates does with his foundation, just on a smaller scale. Wouldn't it be nice to have the power to make your own choice on how you would help others.

If you want complication. We could not tax toilet paper.
Understand that the guy who buys a $80,000 car every other year will get big tax bills everyother year. If you spend $100 on toliet paper per year, the tax might be $5. And remember under the current system the guy buying the $80,000 car, most likely uses it for "business" and has a tax write-off for it. The family of four buying the toilet paper has no creative ways to lower taxes.

That is my goal too.
I say let people work, save and then when they can live off their investments let them. If I work my but off for 20 years and save every penny, and then one moring I wake-up with a few million saved isn't that better than - working my but off for 20 years and having the government take everything I would have saved, wake-up one morning and have nothing but a promise of social security but then only if I work another 20.

See I work for 20 years and I've saved what I could from what I didn't pay in taxes, I don't want someone to take that too! Which is why once I've converted to stocks, bonds, property, then I will fight to not pay to much taxes on those things as I currenlty do.

I did not buy property in one part of NY because the taxes are far outstripping the services rendered from the local government. No thank you.

Sure luxury tax, I have no issue with them. I didn't buy a luxury car because I don't see the value in it. Depreciating asset with money just evaporating while it sits in the garage 25 days out of the month.

kutulu · 12-22-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

The family of four buying the toilet paper has no creative ways to lower taxes.

That is what is inherently wrong with consumption taxes. They favor the wealthy 100%. The wealthy are the only ones who have true 'disposable income'. As a result, they would be the only ones who can 'choose' to pay less taxes.

Just be honest about consumption taxes and admit that they would only serve the wealthy.

aceventura3 · 12-22-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Consumption taxes are actually a progressive tax.

The main point is getting lost. Our current system allows some people to avoid paying taxes. People who spend a lot of money under a consumption tax program will pay a lot in taxes. Currently, you can make a lot and pay nothing in taxes.

aceventura3 · 12-22-2005, 01:07 PM

I promise this will be my last attempt.

Let's say you and I both have families of 4, we both do the same work and make $80,000/yr., I own a $500,000 house with a $400,000 mortagage, you rent.

Tax time, for sake of argument all other things being equal, let's say our average tax rate is 20%. I have $20,000 in mortgage interest to deduct and you don't. My tax bill is $12,000, yours is $16,000.

There is more.

My house appreciates 5% per year for 10 years. Now my house is worth $814,447. Bamm a $314,447 return on the $100,000 down payment. So, along the way I started buying rental property. And I have, lets say $2 million in rentals, and I get gross rental income of $150,000 per year. I have quit my job.

Let's also say you have worked hard and got raises during that time and now make $125,000. Let's also say the democrates raised taxes on the rich, so now your average tax rate is 35%. Your tax bill is $43,750. You still rent.

On my rental income I get to depreciate (an appreciating asset) the properties, and I have interest expenses, insurance, maintenance, advertising costs so that the net taxable amount is let's say $25,000. At that level of income let'say my average tax rate is 10%. My tax bill is $2,500.

I own my home and have $2 million in realestate, you have high income and a lease. The tax code and democrats call you rich, and I am in poverty making only $25,000 with a family of four.

You know... after thinking about this... I' going to become a democrat...they are really the party looking out for the real rich. Please everyone forget everything I have ever said negatively about my new party...Oh, and please keeping renting. Thank you

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 01:19 PM

from what I read from your post and what I believe, is the incentive is that renters don't build communities, home owners do.

aceventura3 · 12-22-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

from what I read from your post and what I believe, is the incentive is that renters don't build communities, home owners do.

Are they suggesting that people who can not afford to buy a home don't live in communities?

Its about a special intrest group tax break.

My dad was almost 40 before he bought his first home. I have never met a more honest, hard working man than he was, regardless of his name being the deed or not. The tax code actually made it harder for him to become a homeowner.

Opps I broke my promise. This is really the last time. Go Hilary in '08!

tecoyah · 12-22-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The main point is getting lost. Our current system allows some people to avoid paying taxes. People who spend a lot of money under a consumption tax program will pay a lot in taxes. Currently, you can make a lot and pay nothing in taxes.

This is an accurate statement....but the issue is not a partisan one. Both parties had a hand in the current tax codes, which were made over many decades and have more holes than loops. There is no sense in playing the politics game in this issue...as everyone is to blame. Perhaps working towards repair would be a better expense of energy than blaming everyone else.

kutulu · 12-22-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The main point is getting lost. Our current system allows some people to avoid paying taxes. People who spend a lot of money under a consumption tax program will pay a lot in taxes. Currently, you can make a lot and pay nothing in taxes.

And you still can avoid taxes in a consumption based system.

All your little example shows is loopholes in the system. These can be closed.

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Are they suggesting that people who can not afford to buy a home don't live in communities?

Its about a special intrest group tax break.

My dad was almost 40 before he bought his first home. I have never met a more honest, hard working man than he was, regardless of his name being the deed or not. The tax code actually made it harder for him to become a homeowner.

Opps I broke my promise. This is really the last time. Go Hilary in '08!

No, renters don't care about communities in the same manner that homeowners do. They don't normally care about even the place that they live within. Renters are TRANSIENT by the nature of the fact that they do not have a vested interest in the local community any more than someone coming to visit.

A homeowner cares normally cares more about the community because the price of their property depends on it. If they neglect the community and others do as well then the prices of homes will dip within that area.

There are plenty of first time buyer programs to help people buy their first property. Maybe your father should have looked into that when he was in his 30s.

FannieMae and other government programs want homeowners because they care more about their community than renters.

pan6467 · 12-22-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

No, renters don't care about communities in the same manner that homeowners do. They don't normally care about even the place that they live within. Renters are TRANSIENT by the nature of the fact that they do not have a vested interest in the local community any more than someone coming to visit.

A homeowner cares normally cares more about the community because the price of their property depends on it. If they neglect the community and others do as well then the prices of homes will dip within that area.

There are plenty of first time buyer programs to help people buy their first property. Maybe your father should have looked into that when he was in his 30s.

FannieMae and other government programs want homeowners because they care more about their community than renters.

I hope this is you being facetious and sarcastic because that is bullshit.

Back in the day, when I had money, I could very easily have bought a house, bought chose not to. I didn't want to take care of a yard, worry about repairs and so on. That is why I rented then and one reason I rent now. Other reasons are I don't need the space, I would rather rent in a nice neighborhood, than to own a house in a community that has more crime. I still am very civic minded and every apartment complex I have lived in has been kept very clean and has had neighbors far stricter on the appearances on the buildings and grounds than most of my home owning friends and family have.

Even though in April I'll own my own house, I'll be truning it into a recovery house and use the one bedroom side of the duplex as an office and manager's apt. while I stay where I'm at.

It doesn't mean I care any less about my community, nor do any other renters I have ever met. (Of course I haven't lived in NYC slums.... but I'm sure the majority there have some caring about their community.)

Transient???? Lol.... I live in an apartment community right now where the average tenant has lived for 5 years.

No, vested interest???? lol, I'll tell that to the guy who owns the Gionnino's Pizza franchise that lives above me, or the people that own the bar down the street that live in the complex.

Talk about freaking prejudice.......I find it truly pathetic people, snobbishly prejudicial and self righteous anyone would think that way.

I'm sure you have facts to back that thinking.

Transients that don't care about the community???? Guess that's why they build apartments only in slum areas.

(Sorry but as a "renter" I take offense to what you said.)

flstf · 12-22-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

One last thing: Could someone post some substantial proof on the breakdown of these hidden taxes? Perpaps a real item with acutal costs. I've asked numerous people on many message boards and it's always ignored. Back that shit up.

I have searched myself and cannot find a definitive answer to your question. I had hoped that someone with an economics backround could answer this question for us. The following website tries to estimate the hidden taxes on 14 items but they do not go far enough since they do not include all the taxes paid at every step of the distribution channel that eventually get passed on to the consumer.Tax Bites
As an example let's evaluate the taxes included in a loaf of bread:

-The store where you buy it.
-Trucking from warehouse to store.
-The warehouse.
-Trucking from bakery to warehouse.
-The bakery.
-Trucking from farmer and ingredient suppliers.
-Ingredient manufacturer.
-Farmer.
-Trucking from seed supplier to farmer.
-Seed supplier

I probably missed a few. Each one of these entities has dozens of taxes that they must include in their prices as they move up the distribution channel until we finally buy the loaf at the store and pay for all of the taxes which are now included in the price. Then we are hit with a sales tax on top of that.

Each entity must be evaluated separately but an example of what each one pays may include:
federal income taxes, state income taxes, state and local property taxes, federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, unemployment compensation taxes, workmen’s compensation taxes, retailers’ excise taxes, business license taxes and fees, utility taxes, gasoline/diesel taxes and state wheat farmer checkoff taxes. I'm sure there are more that I missed.

I am roughly estimating that the hidden taxes on most goods and services may be 50% but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a lot more when you consider that each entity also marks up the goods and services which include their taxes before passing the cost up the distribution channel. Also we should probably include packagers and advertisers and their taxes as well.

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 02:41 PM

It's something that I firmly believe. I have seen communities become better that when from renters to owners.

I'm all for housing projects in low income areas to give people the vested interest in being more civic minded and care more about their community.

You care about your community to a level. If your home value rose or fell depending upon how well the rest of the community does is why I feel this way.

I don't want to deal with a lawn either. I don't care to deal with repairing grounds. I live in a 1 bedroom apartment that I own. Another property that I own is a 1 bedroom condo for the same.

In the area that I live in of 30,000 housing units over 50% (18,000) of them are low income housing. We have more community outreach projects here than anywhere else in NYC. We have one of the lowest crime rates as well. Who operates these? Local people who rent. Where does the money come from? Government programs, corporate funding, and philanthropists.

You are the rare person who rents and cares about their community. It isn't that common.

In the past decade that I rented I did what I could in whatever community would have me. I didn't work in my own community that I rented within because they didn't have any outreach programs in Englewood or Hoboken, NJ. I'd have to go to Jersey City or even NYC. Did that help my local community where I lived? Not really.... The only way I'd be able to work on that if I was to work for a church and I had no interest in that at all.

pan6467 · 12-22-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

It's something that I firmly believe. I have seen communities become better that when from renters to owners.

I'm all for housing projects in low income areas to give people the vested interest in being more civic minded and care more about their community.

You care about your community to a level. If your home value rose or fell depending upon how well the rest of the community does is why I feel this way.

I don't want to deal with a lawn either. I don't care to deal with repairing grounds. I live in a 1 bedroom apartment that I own. Another property that I own is a 1 bedroom condo for the same.

In the area that I live in of 30,000 housing units over 50% (18,000) of them are low income housing. We have more community outreach projects here than anywhere else in NYC. We have one of the lowest crime rates as well. Who operates these? Local people who rent. Where does the money come from? Government programs, corporate funding, and philanthropists.

You are the rare person who rents and cares about their community. It isn't that common.

In the past decade that I rented I did what I could in whatever community would have me. I didn't work in my own community that I rented within because they didn't have any outreach programs in Englewood or Hoboken, NJ. I'd have to go to Jersey City or even NYC. Did that help my local community where I lived? Not really.... The only way I'd be able to work on that if I was to work for a church and I had no interest in that at all.

I respect your work, but I feel you unjustly are stereotyping the renters. I think you would have a hard time telling renters in the complexes I have lived in that they had no vested interest or were less concerned about the community.

I have known many people that preferred renting over home owning because they chose to spend the mortgage money in other ways, or rented because they liked the area but couldn't afford the house, etc.

The area my complex is in is considered one of the richest townships in Stark County, the complex my wife and I lived in was very nice also. Both were surrounded by upper middle class houses, in fact the one my wife and I lived in was in the middle of a very nice neighborhood.

It depends on the complex owners...... if they do serious background, credit checks and have stringent rules then you'll have very good renters that care about the community. If the owners are slum lords then chances are they rent to the lowest common denominator.

I think the renters have the same overall investment and desire to keep the community as decent as possible, as the homeowners in the area do.

I just think there are far more renters like me than there are that don't care about the community, etc.

Guess we have to agree to disagree on this particular issue.

BTW, perhaps in big cities like NYC, Vegas, Miami, and so on that maybe true. I do know the complex I lived in, in Vegas was the exception.... there were some problems in that complex. But the tenants still kept the complex clean and the community safe.

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 03:05 PM

while this comes from a lender, its something that I've believed since I was a youth. Again, I don't belittle those that do get involved in their communities who are renters but I see them as few and far between compared to homeowners.

Quote:

Benefits of Homeownership

Home owners provide stability. Owners typically stay in their home 12 years whereas renters stay no more than three years. U.S. Census American Housing Surveys.

Home ownership builds confidence. Owners possess significantly higher levels of self-confidence than renters. Rossi and Weber National Survey of Families.

Home owners create positive environments for families. Children of home owners are 59% more likely to become homeowners. Their children are also 25% more likely to graduate from high school and 116% more likely to graduate from college. Boehm & Schlottmann, University of Tennessee.

Home ownership improves neighborhoods. Owners are 28% more likely to improve their home and 10% more likely to participate in solving local problems. George Galster, “Land Economics” and DiPasquale & Glaeser, Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Home owners are more involved in civic affairs: including voting in the last election and knowing their elected officials. DiPasquale & Glaeser, Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Home ownership builds wealth. The median net worth of most modest-income owners is almost $60,000 compared to less than $10,000 for renters in the same income group. The Federal Reserve Board – Survey of Consumer Finance.

Home ownership provides tax benefits. The typical home owner that pays a $1,000 house payment will realize tax savings of about $120 each month.

http://www.homesightwa.org/benefits%...0ownership.htm

Marvelous Marv · 12-22-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The main point is getting lost. Our current system allows some people to avoid paying taxes. People who spend a lot of money under a consumption tax program will pay a lot in taxes. Currently, you can make a lot and pay nothing in taxes.

You might want to study the Alternative Minimum Tax before clinging too closely to that last sentence. It was an attempt to make the "rich" pay their "fair share." It now ensnares millions who aren't rich, and is projected to get much worse (see graph).

CBO Link

This thread sure looks like another in which people recommend that everyone ELSE should pay more taxes.

shakran · 12-22-2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

If I recall corectly France did something like this and the richest people are moving across the border to Belgium, taking all their money and as many assets as they can with them.

Fortunately for us, we do not have so many borders to move across

And as long as they're getting out of paying their fair share of taxes anyway, let 'em leave!

Cynthetiq · 12-22-2005, 07:38 PM

pan, I've been thinking about this trying to disregard the propaganda that I posted earlier on how I truly see that more homeowners contribute more to the community than renters.

The only thing I could come up with on my own is that property owners pay property tax which is what pays for most of the local public education and is reflected in the rise of the cost of housing in better school districts.

Even though I don't live in the community of Las Vegas the other property that I own and rent out to someone else. I contribute to the community even if I don't care to.

I do know many homeowners that are not as conscientious as you or I, or plenty of members of TFP when it comes to someone else in the world. They just go home, lock themselves in their homes, and just sit and watch TV every evening, every week. They don't even donate money to causes. Nevertheless I did not wish to offend you in my original statement and hope that I am explaining myself better than digging a deeper whole.

flstf · 12-22-2005, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The only thing I could come up with on my own is that property owners pay property tax which is what pays for most of the local public education and is reflected in the rise of the cost of housing in better school districts.

I am guessing that most renters pay the property tax indirectly since most owners probably include these costs when calculating the rent to charge.

flstf · 12-22-2005, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

One last thing: Could someone post some substantial proof on the breakdown of these hidden taxes? Perpaps a real item with acutal costs. I've asked numerous people on many message boards and it's always ignored. Back that shit up.

kutulu, in addition to my previous post I found the following article where the claim is made that 95% of the cost of most goods is because of taxes. I am still searching for a better more reliable breakdown.

Quote:

A LOAF OF BREAD

Don Stott

It seems as if every president proposes a "tax relief plan," which plan is used to gain election, or at least make a wonderful campaign promise. Taxes are levied on virtually everything besides income. There are taxes on every morsel you eat, and every drop you drink, although few ever think about it, and no candidate mentions it when he stumps for votes. There are multiple taxes on every phone call you make, every kilowatt of electricity you use, every gallon of gasoline you purchase, every BTU of gas you burn in your furnace, and everything you purchase at any and all retail and wholesale outlets, shops, stores, warehouses, or discount clubs. One cannot stay at a motel of hotel without paying huge taxes, often as much as 15-20%. Every item you use has multiple taxes added.

Not only that, but every manufactured, shipped, wholesaled, retailed, ordered, rebuilt, engineered, installed, guaranteed, repaired, grown, delivered, or imported, to name all I can think of now, are taxed by close to 50% in addition to the taxes added, which are visible. How? Simple. Every employed man, woman, or child in America must have a Social Security Number, which means that the person writing the paycheck must deduct, or contribute an equal amount, bringing the total to, 18.2% of all salaries, whether income tax is paid or not. This is just for Social Security and Medicare, and no one is exempt. In addition, there are state income taxes and federal income taxes, which are paid by workers. All workers. Assume then, that 18.2% for obligatory, and another 30% for other taxes on wages are paid to various governments, and this is not including sales and real estate, gasoline, and other taxes. This does not include property taxes paid on all buildings, including railroads, China marts, wholesale warehouses, factories, retail stores, and even the homes everyone lives in, regardless of their occupation. Apartment buildings have their property taxes added to the rents, as are the taxes on fuel, water, etc.

Taxes on property, wages, etc. are added to each item bought, regardless of the level. This means that when you go into a store and buy something, the entire labor chain's taxes are added to the cost of that item. Taxes on the labor and property of the manufacturer of the trucks that delivered the merchandise, as well as the labor and property of the plants that manufactured the parts of the truck even! The driver of the truck that did the delivery, has his close to 50% of his labor taxes added to the cost of all merchandise. There are places, especially in the east, where property taxes for a rather small, ordinary home, are over $300 per month. I can only imagine what the property taxes are for a department store or movie theatre. In Cripple Creek, Colorado, which legalized gambling a few years ago, the property taxes on a run down, ancient, poor condition store front, are over $20,000 a year, since it is in the "gambling district."

A LOAF OF BREAD

Imagine the taxes on the natural gas burned in a large, wholesale bakery, which bakes bread for grocery store sales. Imagine the property taxes on that bakery, the license plate taxes for the trucks that deliver the bread, and taxes on fuel that the trucks burn. Imagine the taxes on the salaries of the bakers, delivery men, janitorial personnel, bookkeepers, executives, and order takers, which are close to 50%. These taxes are added to the cost of that loaf of bread. The repairmen for the factory and its equipment, and the taxes on the phone lines, all go into that loaf of bread. The market employee taxes, property taxes, and taxes on the utilities the market uses, plus its phone lines, are added to the loaf of bread. The taxes paid to the employees of the manufacturer of the computers used in the chain, ovens, light bulbs, fixtures, building materials, telephone home office and switchgear, miles of copper wire, phone poles, power generating plants and their employees, and even the blacktop on the parking lot, are added to that loaf of bread. The farmer paid property taxes on his farm, taxes on his trucks, combine, thresher, barn, and everything that goes into wheat production are taxed. The beginning of the chain isn't at the farm. The property and labor taxes on the steel mill that made the steel that went into all of the various pieces of equipment from the tractors to the ovens, buildings, etc. There were taxes on the steel workers' pay and the mine that the iron ore came from. There are taxes on the John Deere factory and all its workers. Taxes on fertilizer plants and transportation of everything that goes up to make a loaf of bread, bushel of wheat, and the irrigating items to water the fields. Taxes, taxes, taxes, on everything and all labor. The chain is endless, and every single item in the chain of everything from the various factories, to the retail outlets are all added to the cost of everything.

Are the taxes on a loaf of bread 95%? Are the taxes on everything we consume, 95%? Think of the huge taxes on the oil refineries, pipe lines, and even taxes levied for removing the oil from the ground. Think of the wages taxed on the oil chain from well to pump. Think of the chain on electricity from the coal mine, which is taxed, to the railroads that carried the coal, the manufacturer of generators, distribution equipment, high tension lines, transformers, breakers, etc. All labor and property taxes go into the cost of electricity. Is electricity taxed by 95%? Is gasoline taxed by 95%? Probably, because at the pump there are usually close to fifty cents direct taxes, not counting the property taxes and wage taxes paid to the entire chain.
A LOAF OF BREAD

alpha phi · 12-22-2005, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

kutulu, in addition to my previous post I found the following article where the claim is made that 95% of the cost of most goods is because of taxes. I am still searching for a better more reliable breakdown.

On top of all that
the company I worked for in Michigan
made the silicon hoses for John deer
In Michigan there is the use tax
Any buisness with 1,000,000 in sales
pays an additional 6% use tax
on the value of everything they own:
inventory
Machinery
property (on top of property tax)
computers
desks
everything
every year
And people wonder why GM is closing plants
and moving to more friendly states/countrys

At first reading I thought 95% was high
After thinking about it for a few minutes
it's really not that unbelievable

Cynthetiq · 12-23-2005, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I am guessing that most renters pay the property tax indirectly since most owners probably include these costs when calculating the rent to charge.

Agreed, some landlords do. But ask any renter if they pay any property taxes and they'll more than likely say no.

I did not rent my Las Vegas property for the first 2 years I owned it. Not everyone rents out property, especially those that use it as a second home.

kutulu · 12-23-2005, 08:51 AM

I can buy into the fact that ~30% of the price you pay are taxes but 95% is such a crock of shit that you should be ashamed for posting that.

Just use a little common sense. How much money did the govt (fed, states, counties, cities) collect last year? How much of that was paid came directly out of paychecks? What is the balance (that is the total value of the hidden taxes)? Then, add up the cost of all goods purchased by consumers (could we use the gdp?) Divide 'hidden taxes' by the gdp and that's the answer (at least a ballpark estimate).

12-21-2005, 02:42 PM	#1 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Tax rates, the Rich, and Reality Many people on the left think that increasing taxes on the rich will allow the government to do more. I have assumed that most knew how easy it is for the rich to actually choose how much they pay in taxes. I was wrong. For those who don't understand this is for you. Let's pretend we are Bill Gates, richest man in the world. They pass a new tax law; every $1 you make over $100,000 in payroll is taxed at 100%. What do you do? You tell Microsoft to reduce your salary to $0. Now you pay no tax on your employment income at all. You say I will get my income from capital gains, taxed at 15%. He says give me stock options, defer my income, buy a life insurance policy and make my wife the benefactor, etc, etc. Then they pass another law, capital gain taxes are raised to 75%. You stop selling stock. Good thing you have a nice portfolio of real estate. You don't sell the real estate, you take a loans on the property when needed. No income tax on a loan, no capital gains tax. Rents pay for the loan. Let's say you get bored and you want a tax free trip to Iceland. Good thing you have a foundation. The foundation buy you first class tickets, hotel, etc, because you are going to give the country a donation and you have to go and present the check. Also, if your aunt Sally needs a job, you make her the President of the foundation. Let's say they close the real estate loan loop hole. Not a problem. You buy tax free municipal bonds. No federal tax on the interest. Let's say the government says if you don't pay now we will get you with the death tax, and they raise the death tax to 99%. Luckly you read Joe Kenndy's book on how to avoid death taxes, and you hire a team of lawyers, accountants, etc, and set up all kinds of trusts so that when you die, you actually die with $0, but your family for generations will remain billionaires. Then of course as the founder, director, officer of the largest company in the world, you never pay for gas, cars, airplanes, boats, computers, cell phones, postage, paper clips or paper plates, because you can get all that stuff from the company. And, you can make sure the company has board meetings at your favorite travel locations around the world. You could live in 5 star hotels every day of the year, and it could all be business related, of course no money out of your pocket. Needless to say it is nice being rich. No matter what you do with tax rates the rich pay what they are comfortable with. The people who get screwed are the middle managers, programers, and hourly people who work hard to make a living but are not rich. When you raise taxes they have no choice but to pay them. Please, Please, Please stop saying all we need to do is tax the rich to pay for this or that. The rich ain't going to pay for it. Middle class people pay. Ever wonder why the old money democrats never support tax simplification. You think its to protect the poor. The reality is the more complicated, the easier it is for them to keep their wealth and to pass it on to their children. Do you really thin Kenndy or Kerry would support a tax plan that would cause their children to actually work? If you believe that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, well below market value-of course. When Reagan and Bush lowered tax rates, tax revenues went up partly because rich people actually started paying more taxes. What would you do if 100% of your income was taxed, you would trade your services or skills for goods and services and minimize your income. The rich do the same. I don't suggest tax rates godd to 0%, there is an equilibrium at lower marginal rates than what we have today. The rich will pay taxes, but they will pay what they think is reasonable, not a penny more.

12-22-2005, 10:38 AM	#17 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	The problem with the consumption tax, is that industry is fearful that people will not consume. What they seem to forget, is that we have less money either way. It’s so much easier to quash an idea than adjust for the good of the economy. I’m all for the consumption tax if it were to truly be meted in a fair manner. It’ll never happen, but I’m for it. I would also be for realistic corporate taxes and policies that reward them for keeping people employed. I worked for a couple of years as part time/temp employee in a professional industry that required professional training and a great deal of talent. The people I worked for employed me as a part time/temp, because the more people they had in that classification the less tax burden they had to pay. That just shouldn’t be. During my time there, we had great success, a good deal of which I had a piece of the responsibility. But as a result of their desire to defer tax, I used up all my hours two months before the end of the year. So I sat idle as the employer “enjoyed” an end of the year slump with depleted workstaff who couldn’t get the shows on the air. The thing that really rankled me was that they got a tax break for having so many PT/temp employees. It was the republican version of helping us out – by under-employing us. But like consumption tax, asking corporations to get real with their policies will never happen. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

12-22-2005, 10:41 AM	#18 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Consumption taxes are actually a progressive tax. Those who can afford to buy more expensive items (i.e. the wealthy) actually end up paying more than the poor who either buy less or buy cheaper. Most economists actually like them more than income taxes because they distribute the tax burden in a much more fair way. The key is a balance between consumption and income taxes. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 12-22-2005 at 10:44 AM..

12-22-2005, 01:19 PM	#23 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	from what I read from your post and what I believe, is the incentive is that renters don't build communities, home owners do. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-22-2005, 02:41 PM	#30 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	It's something that I firmly believe. I have seen communities become better that when from renters to owners. I'm all for housing projects in low income areas to give people the vested interest in being more civic minded and care more about their community. You care about your community to a level. If your home value rose or fell depending upon how well the rest of the community does is why I feel this way. I don't want to deal with a lawn either. I don't care to deal with repairing grounds. I live in a 1 bedroom apartment that I own. Another property that I own is a 1 bedroom condo for the same. In the area that I live in of 30,000 housing units over 50% (18,000) of them are low income housing. We have more community outreach projects here than anywhere else in NYC. We have one of the lowest crime rates as well. Who operates these? Local people who rent. Where does the money come from? Government programs, corporate funding, and philanthropists. You are the rare person who rents and cares about their community. It isn't that common. In the past decade that I rented I did what I could in whatever community would have me. I didn't work in my own community that I rented within because they didn't have any outreach programs in Englewood or Hoboken, NJ. I'd have to go to Jersey City or even NYC. Did that help my local community where I lived? Not really.... The only way I'd be able to work on that if I was to work for a church and I had no interest in that at all. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-21-2005, 09:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Perhaps this should be merged with Ustwo's "I Trust The Rich" thread?

12-22-2005, 08:17 AM	#9 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Just close the loopholes and tax the luxiories that the rich use. For example federal property tax of property that has a value over $X. The same type of tax could be applied to cars, yats, ect. actually even easier just tax a % of assets over a certain amount each year. If the rich want to move because they are taxed to much give them an export tax also . While some of those ideas may be valid and others are probably horibly bad ideas i'm all for simplifying the tax code signifgantly. Close the loopholes and raise the punishment for tax evasion. One more thing while saying that top 1% pay 30% of the taxes you are hiding a more important stat which is what percent of their income (minus basic cost of living) do they pay in taxes each year. That is where you will see who pays the most taxes. It reminds me of the parable in the bible about the poor widow who had hardly anything and gave it all to God and the disciples said why did she even bother she gave nothing but Jesus said to the discipiles she gave more than any one else because she had nothing but gave it all.

12-22-2005, 01:07 PM	#22 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I promise this will be my last attempt. Let's say you and I both have families of 4, we both do the same work and make $80,000/yr., I own a $500,000 house with a $400,000 mortagage, you rent. Tax time, for sake of argument all other things being equal, let's say our average tax rate is 20%. I have $20,000 in mortgage interest to deduct and you don't. My tax bill is $12,000, yours is $16,000. There is more. My house appreciates 5% per year for 10 years. Now my house is worth $814,447. Bamm a $314,447 return on the $100,000 down payment. So, along the way I started buying rental property. And I have, lets say $2 million in rentals, and I get gross rental income of $150,000 per year. I have quit my job. Let's also say you have worked hard and got raises during that time and now make $125,000. Let's also say the democrates raised taxes on the rich, so now your average tax rate is 35%. Your tax bill is $43,750. You still rent. On my rental income I get to depreciate (an appreciating asset) the properties, and I have interest expenses, insurance, maintenance, advertising costs so that the net taxable amount is let's say $25,000. At that level of income let'say my average tax rate is 10%. My tax bill is $2,500. I own my home and have $2 million in realestate, you have high income and a lease. The tax code and democrats call you rich, and I am in poverty making only $25,000 with a family of four. You know... after thinking about this... I' going to become a democrat...they are really the party looking out for the real rich. Please everyone forget everything I have ever said negatively about my new party...Oh, and please keeping renting. Thank you

12-22-2005, 07:38 PM	#35 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	pan, I've been thinking about this trying to disregard the propaganda that I posted earlier on how I truly see that more homeowners contribute more to the community than renters. The only thing I could come up with on my own is that property owners pay property tax which is what pays for most of the local public education and is reflected in the rise of the cost of housing in better school districts. Even though I don't live in the community of Las Vegas the other property that I own and rent out to someone else. I contribute to the community even if I don't care to. I do know many homeowners that are not as conscientious as you or I, or plenty of members of TFP when it comes to someone else in the world. They just go home, lock themselves in their homes, and just sit and watch TV every evening, every week. They don't even donate money to causes. Nevertheless I did not wish to offend you in my original statement and hope that I am explaining myself better than digging a deeper whole. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-23-2005, 08:51 AM	#40 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I can buy into the fact that ~30% of the price you pay are taxes but 95% is such a crock of shit that you should be ashamed for posting that. Just use a little common sense. How much money did the govt (fed, states, counties, cities) collect last year? How much of that was paid came directly out of paychecks? What is the balance (that is the total value of the hidden taxes)? Then, add up the cost of all goods purchased by consumers (could we use the gdp?) Divide 'hidden taxes' by the gdp and that's the answer (at least a ballpark estimate). Last edited by kutulu; 12-23-2005 at 08:56 AM..