Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:00 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default Taxes...

Someone posted about abolishing income tax and just using a sales tax...

I imagine, we'd still have property tax and things like that but do you think that could work? It seems like there could be a whole underbelly of people paying each other for "services" to avoid this... oh like we do now... What do you guys think? I imagine it would make stuff really expensive but how much more so?

Advertisements
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:06 PM   #2 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 136
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
Someone posted about abolishing income tax and just using a sales tax...

I imagine, we'd still have property tax and things like that but do you think that could work? It seems like there could be a whole underbelly of people paying each other for "services" to avoid this... oh like we do now... What do you guys think? I imagine it would make stuff really expensive but how much more so?
Well, individual income taxes make up $915B (43%) of federal receipts. So the sales tax would have to be set at a level to generate that much money. I imagine that would be a pretty substantial sales tax. 30%? 40%? 50%? I don't know exactly.

Also, services are subject to sales tax.
zauper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:07 PM   #3 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NNK of Virginia
Posts: 204
 
Device(s): INCREDIBLE! - since 4/22/10
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 226
Thanked 99 Times in 39 Posts
Default

I like the idea, but have no studies/research to show how well it would work. I think that if we have less income tax, we would have more expendable income...I'm sure there would be cheats/ tax avaders out there who would take advantage of the system, but no more than we have today. I dont think it will work to completely drop income tax altogether, although I would love it personally....sales tax would have to be increase so much it would greatly affect prices. I think if we set a certain income tax on individuals, instead of this odd tiered setup, the sales tax could be increased to make of for it based on people making more money would theoretically buy more things. And if they dont, hey, good job for saving wisely.
foreWard is offline  
Last edited by foreWard; May 27th, 2010 at 02:08 PM. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:33 PM   #4 (permalink)
Destroying Balls Everyday
 
Vihzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Manhattan, NY
Posts: 5,369
 
Device(s): Galaxy Nexus
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 190
Thanked 1,061 Times in 673 Posts
Default

Geez... I would be afraid of what abolishing the income tax would do to the sales tax.
Vihzel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:46 PM   #5 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 136
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vihzel View Post
Geez... I would be afraid of what abolishing the income tax would do to the sales tax.
Well, for one thing, in the U.S. there is currently no national sales tax. Your current sales tax is either a) imposed by your state, or b) an excise tax imposed by the federal government on specific products (cigarettes, alcohol, gas). So the sales tax would be on top of all the other taxes you currently pay on what you buy -- not an addition to it (i.e. you currently pay 10 and it would go to 30), but a separate tax altogether.
zauper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:46 PM   #6 (permalink)
Member
 
2003vstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: coldwater,mi
Posts: 471
 
Device(s): Galaxy Nexus
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 35
Thanked 102 Times in 70 Posts
Default

you have to remember that us hard working people that have jobs, have to support all the welfare people, I can never see a flat tax ever used, our worthless government wants to get deeper into our pockets. I heard a while back the government was think about installing a federal tax on purchased goods on top of all of the taxes we pay now.
2003vstrom is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:50 PM   #7 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 169
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 12
Thanked 21 Times in 17 Posts
Default

It's the VAT, Value Added Tax.
Just because someone has provided a good or service that people use more often than the competitor does not mean they should be taxed more. Higher tax rates for higher incomes is not fair.
TheBeardedMann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2010, 02:51 PM   #8 (permalink)
Member
 
Zenze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 210
 
Device(s): HTC Inc
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Yes I defiantly this is an interesting idea that has a lot of potential. From an idealogical perspective I'm in favor of such a system. However I would like to see some research or studies into how much money this this would pull in or what the rates would have to be in order to match what we do now. I don't know if any has been done.

Even if you are going to go with a income tax that gets larger the more money you make, having a bracket system makes no sense on any level. Its small(ish) but this is something that could be done today. Why not use a continuous function so that your rate would scale with your income continuously, instead of doing it in discrete steps?

It makes no sense that if you make $8025 you get taxed 10% leaving you with $7222. However if you make $8026 you get taxed 15% leaving you with $6822. WTF is that!?!?! Using a continuous function would fix this.... or even a piecewise function... so many better ways...
Zenze is offline  
Last edited by Zenze; May 27th, 2010 at 03:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2010, 07:41 PM   #9 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Zenze
What you describe is a piecewise function!

Somehow reality has to hit the people in this country in the face. I may be a liberal, but one thing I know is the federal government cannot continue the rate of spending that we see now. Our politicians need to be locked behind closed doors and not allowed out until they decide how to cut the entitlements that have been written into law. That will require cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare and cuts in Defense spending.

The baby boomers are retiring and the number of people that will be working to support the number retired is decreasing every year. Social Security and Medicare cost increases are directly proportional to the number of retirees. (Did I hear pull the plug anyone?)

Our medical system is set up to extend the life of anyone who nears death with heroic means costing an extreme amount for terminal cases, people which are going to die from the disease anyway and whose life will be extended only a little.

Wars which we fight may not all be necessary. I would argue that the war in Iraq was not but that is neither here nor there. We must be much more selective about the wars we find ourselves in.

Why are we still in Europe? Is it not about time those people start taking care of themselves. They, for too long now, are able to spend money on other things that they would be spending on defense. If they want our troops there, let them start paying their salaries.

This tretise is not off topic for how can we ever get our house in order without addressing these issues.
 
Reply With Quote
Old June 4th, 2010, 11:39 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

I would rather continue paying welfare benefits than to keep flying these congressmen and their families (not just their husband and children, but almost having a family reunion in Austrailia) all over the world. It was funny, the media was all set to pounce on Nancy Pelosi about it and guess what? She is perfectly within her rights to fly people all over the world even though she can afford her own airline. It totally took the wind out of the sails of all those corruption articles they were going to run.

Maybe the sales tax wouldn't work on her, she never pays for anything and makes us buy her stuff.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 5th, 2010, 12:11 AM   #11 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

I have an idea. The government could stop spending trillions of dollars and not have a need for collecting so many taxes. But, now that things have spiraled out of control and the entire world economy is at the tipping point (actually past it now), they are just going to keep creating/increasing more taxes out of thin air to try to make up for it, when in reality that will drive the depression even deeper.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2010, 02:20 AM   #12 (permalink)
Member
 
hood420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 371
 
Device(s): Sprint Hero
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Most people who propose to drop the income tax also support severely cutting the size of the Federal government. I think it could be a good idea, but a great deal of restructuring would have to take place. See the Libertarian Party's platform: Platform | Libertarian Party and their views on taxes: http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

Also see the history of US Income taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_income_tax_(legal_history)

Federal income taxes didn't become the norm in this country until the 16th amendment was passed in 1913, previous federal income taxes were temporary and generally affected few people. So we've definitely made it without them in the past.
hood420 is offline  
Last edited by hood420; June 7th, 2010 at 02:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2010, 09:23 AM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Let's abolish the federal government and do away with all federal programs. That way. we can put the entire burden on the states. And then, when the states raise their taxes to cover the costs, why, we can do away with the states. And then the cities, towns and villages, too!
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2010, 03:11 PM   #14 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Let's abolish the federal government and do away with all federal programs. That way. we can put the entire burden on the states. And then, when the states raise their taxes to cover the costs, why, we can do away with the states. And then the cities, towns and villages, too!
lol! loL! no.

Following the Constitution is the way out of the abyss. There's a reason the founding fathers setup a limited government.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2010, 04:12 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiretap View Post
lol! loL! no.

Following the Constitution is the way out of the abyss. There's a reason the founding fathers setup a limited government.

The founding fathers never thought the constitution was written in concrete or that it was "a perfect document." They provided ways to amend it and they knew that the far more complex society of the future would require an expanded government.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2010, 04:52 PM   #16 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 169
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 12
Thanked 21 Times in 17 Posts
Default

That's why they gave powers to the states.
TheBeardedMann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2010, 06:12 PM   #17 (permalink)
Member
 
v8dreaming's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 126
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

If we went to a national sales tax, that would mean EVERYBODY pays. I like this idea. Those that are here illegally would have to pay... less burden on the people that are here legally. Those that visit from other countries would also have to pay. Again, less burden on the rest of us. I don't think that it would have to be an ungodly amount. That way, the only ones having to pay an income tax would be the companies that collect them from us. The IRS would be cut back as there wouldn't be as many people needed. That's kind of a downside in a way though... more unemployed people. But it would save some on government spending... theoretically.

Off topic: Our politicians should not be allowed to give themselves pay raises and there should be term limits to get rid of career politicians. We need to stop giving them a free ride.
v8dreaming is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2010, 08:23 PM   #18 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 131
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenze View Post

It makes no sense that if you make $8025 you get taxed 10% leaving you with $7222. However if you make $8026 you get taxed 15% leaving you with $6822. WTF is that!?!?! Using a continuous function would fix this.... or even a piecewise function... so many better ways...
People should not be allowed to debate on tax systems until they can prove they understand the current system.

( you don't get tax 15% on $8026... you get taxed 10% on $8025 and 15% on $1 )
AndyLL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2010, 05:36 AM   #19 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
The founding fathers never thought the constitution was written in concrete or that it was "a perfect document." They provided ways to amend it and they knew that the far more complex society of the future would require an expanded government.
"Expanded government?" LOL, seriously, have you read the Constitution? Doubt it. Have you read the Federalist papers? Doubt it. Have you read the founding father's personal writings? Doubt it.

The Constitution lays out a LIMITED government and intends to keep it that way. The amendment process is for expanding FREEDOMS, not expanding tyrannical government.

If I were you, I'd go back to school and do a little learning.. because you literally have no idea what you're talking about. ahahaha, pathetic.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2010, 07:24 AM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiretap View Post
"Expanded government?" LOL, seriously, have you read the Constitution? Doubt it. Have you read the Federalist papers? Doubt it. Have you read the founding father's personal writings? Doubt it.

The Constitution lays out a LIMITED government and intends to keep it that way. The amendment process is for expanding FREEDOMS, not expanding tyrannical government.

If I were you, I'd go back to school and do a little learning.. because you literally have no idea what you're talking about. ahahaha, pathetic.
The amendments cover quite a bit more than expanding freedoms. As I stated, the founding fathers anticipated (as best they could) a nation whose needs would change in the future, and they provided a document that had the flexibility to be interpreted and to change.

I suggest you cool it with the personal insults.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 8th, 2010, 03:21 PM   #21 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
The amendments cover quite a bit more than expanding freedoms. As I stated, the founding fathers anticipated (as best they could) a nation whose needs would change in the future, and they provided a document that had the flexibility to be interpreted and to change.

I suggest you cool it with the personal insults.
The document is resolute.. not a living/breathing document open to interpretation. The only one allowed to "interpret" is the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, but they don't interpret the Constitution in any way they see fit.. they interpret law which is based on the Constitution. Throughout history however, we've seen this breached with "legislating from the bench" cases. In order to even think about changing anything, it has to go through the 2/3 process by both houses of congress and >2/3 of the states. The purpose of the document is to limit the size of federal government.. literally that is the entire purpose of it. It goes step by step, department by department, laying out the powers granted to the federal government. Everything else is determined by the state and local governments. This is so people can get away from a state or local government that does something that limits them in a way they do not see fit. I am not throwing out personal insults, I merely recommended you educate yourself on the issue since you're trying to make an invalid point which opposes the reason the Constitution was drafted.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2010, 05:33 AM   #22 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 403
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 8
Thanked 65 Times in 46 Posts
Default

I've scanned all the replies and I'm gonna jump in here. Sorry if I am repeating something. First, a couple fun facts. The Federal Income tax only goes to paying interest on the national debt. Not one dime goes to future services, but simply pays the minimum, interest only payments on "services" rendered. Also, around 50% of Americans pay 100% of the federal income tax... meaning the other half have a free ride. Also there is an argument that the Federal Income Tax was never properly ratified into the Constitution, meaning we do not legally have to pay it.

I'm a Constitutionalists I suppose... but if I had to pick a party it would probably be a Libertarian. I do believe we need federal taxation, but the federal government should ONLY be in charge with powers specifically granted by the Constitution. Everything else should be left up to the states. Then the citizens of the states could vote on services they want, and taxes to support them. California (where I live) would probably have pretty high taxes, while Texas would not.

For federal taxes, I am for MASSIVE spending cuts. I actually think the feds should implement a hiring freeze for at least five years, applied to all areas of the government except the military in war time. If a certain agency needs more employees, they have to cross train from another related agency that has too many.

I'm also in fave of the flat tax, and only a flat tax. There is no reason all Americans shouldn't pay the same percentage. In fact, poorer Americans benefit much more from civil services than richer Americans. I think the number needed now to replace the federal income tax completely is 17%, but with less funding it could be lower.
whiskeyguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 01:36 AM   #23 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
Someone posted about abolishing income tax and just using a sales tax...

I imagine, we'd still have property tax and things like that but do you think that could work? It seems like there could be a whole underbelly of people paying each other for "services" to avoid this... oh like we do now... What do you guys think? I imagine it would make stuff really expensive but how much more so?
I do think property tax is B.S.

And income tax only really comes from the middle class, so eff that too. I say make shit more expensive.
__________________
Useful links: The Rules | The Team | FAQ | Unanswered Threads |
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 01:59 AM   #24 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 131
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiretap View Post
The document is resolute.. not a living/breathing document open to interpretation.
People that say that have obviously not read the constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiretap View Post
The only one allowed to "interpret" is the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, but they don't interpret the Constitution in any way they see fit.. they interpret law which is based on the Constitution.
You prove my point.

Can you point out where in the constitution the Supremem Court "interprets" the constitution?
AndyLL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 05:31 AM   #25 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLL View Post
People that say that have obviously not read the constitution.



You prove my point.

Can you point out where in the constitution the Supremem Court "interprets" the constitution?
Read the Federalist Papers and the founding father's journals.

"You prove my point."
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2010, 11:36 AM   #26 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 131
 
Device(s): Droid Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiretap View Post
Read the Federalist Papers and the founding father's journals.

"You prove my point."
Neither one of those are the constitution.

It's funny that a strict constitutionalist immediately wants to use items outside of the constitution to interpret the constitution.

The Federalist papers and journals were of course opinion statements and since the founding father's were as diverse as we are today you can not use their writings to assume a consensus on a policy position.

The consensuses the founding fathers reached ended up in the constitution or the bill of rights.
AndyLL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2010, 02:19 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
I do think property tax is B.S.
And your well-thought-out alternative is...
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2010, 03:14 PM   #28 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLL View Post
Neither one of those are the constitution.

It's funny that a strict constitutionalist immediately wants to use items outside of the constitution to interpret the constitution.

The Federalist papers and journals were of course opinion statements and since the founding father's were as diverse as we are today you can not use their writings to assume a consensus on a policy position.

The consensuses the founding fathers reached ended up in the constitution or the bill of rights.
The founding fathers explain the positions and why they chose them and came to the same conclusion for the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not explain why the positions and laws on government were precisely chosen. And since the document is resolute, because something is not in it, that doesn't mean it is automatically a power of government.
wiretap is offline  
Last edited by wiretap; June 16th, 2010 at 03:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2010, 06:28 PM   #29 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default Re: Taxes...

People are forgetting to key things here, rich people, who buy a lot of stuff, expensive stuff, would finally have to pay full taxes. No tax breaks. Second, think of all the illegals & legals who don't pay income tax, they would have to pay a national sales tax. I'm all for it.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2010, 07:01 PM   #30 (permalink)
Member
 
Zenze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 210
 
Device(s): HTC Inc
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
People are forgetting to key things here, rich people, who buy a lot of stuff, expensive stuff, would finally have to pay full taxes. No tax breaks. Second, think of all the illegals & legals who don't pay income tax, they would have to pay a national sales tax. I'm all for it.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
Good point.

Yea the more I think about it the more I like it. I would really like to see some politicians seriously talk about this.
Zenze is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 23rd, 2010, 01:10 PM   #31 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NNK of Virginia
Posts: 204
 
Device(s): INCREDIBLE! - since 4/22/10
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 226
Thanked 99 Times in 39 Posts
Default

is it me, or are there people from both sides "of the aisle" agreeing on things......history in the making! lol
foreWard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 01:34 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

We don't have voters to appease or lobbyists to pay back, so it is easier for nobodies like us to come to terms.

I think that most of us here are just trying to get on with our lives, we don't want to control anyone else's and we're just trying to make out little corners of the world better. It's when our corners border someone else's that the struggle comes from.

I think that everyone in here truly wants to make things better. We have differing ideas about how to do that, but if we were the types to try to line our pockets we certainly wouldn't be exchanging ideas for free.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 3devious For This Useful Post:
Zenze (June 23rd, 2010)
Old June 23rd, 2010, 03:56 PM   #33 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
We don't have voters to appease or lobbyists to pay back, so it is easier for nobodies like us to come to terms.

I think that most of us here are just trying to get on with our lives, we don't want to control anyone else's and we're just trying to make out little corners of the world better. It's when our corners border someone else's that the struggle comes from.

I think that everyone in here truly wants to make things better. We have differing ideas about how to do that, but if we were the types to try to line our pockets we certainly wouldn't be exchanging ideas for free.
That'll be $10 for using my IP
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 04:08 PM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
That'll be $10 for using my IP
Damn you! Damn yooooooooooooooooouuu!

Wait, I downloaded your stuff off of Pirate Bay, just try and catch me!
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 05:01 AM   #35 (permalink)
mpw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: the past
Posts: 1,143
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 52
Thanked 132 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
People are forgetting to key things here, rich people, who buy a lot of stuff, expensive stuff, would finally have to pay full taxes. No tax breaks. Second, think of all the illegals & legals who don't pay income tax, they would have to pay a national sales tax. I'm all for it...
Your 2nd point is valid, the evasion of such a tax would be more difficult than the evasion of Income Tax, in many instances.

Your 1st point however is a little more shaky.

Bearing in mind that I'm not 100% familiar with the US tax system, but viewing this from a more general perspective.

It's true what you say that 'rich' people who buy a lot of expensive stuff would pay more in Sales Tax if ST were increased, than they would if ST was not increased, but that does not mean that they would pay more in ST than they do currently in IT necessarily.

If a person earns $1m pa and pays 50% in IT they pay $500k; if the minimum cost of living is $20k, then that leaves him with $480k each year. Suppose he lives a life of luxury and spends $250k a year on 'luxuries', saving the remaining $250k.

Now lets take the same person a year later, after IT is done away with to be replaced with ST.

Income is still $1m, and his lifestyle doesn't change; to achieve the same tax revenue the ST would need to be 186%, leaving him with $330k to save. He's better off by $80k pa.

Now take a lower income, say $40k pa, IT @ 50% leaves them with $0 savings and no luxuries. ST @ 186% leaves them short by $17k pa

The only way the argument to abolish IT in favour of ST is to have variable rates of ST, but for every exemption, there has to be an increase at the top end, meaning the ST on luxury item would likely exceed 200%; as soon as a luxury item like a $500 smartphone starts to cost $1,500, a black market of buying via ebay.ca will mean you have even more people evading taxes than at present.

I think the best solution is a package of taxes, all kept a low as possible, on income, purchases and fees for registration and licenses where appropriate.

Whatever system, it needs to be simple, fair and practical.
mpw is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 05:21 AM   #36 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default Re: Taxes...

Quote:
Quote:
People are forgetting to key things here, rich people, who buy a lot of stuff, expensive stuff, would finally have to pay full taxes. No tax breaks. S
Your 2nd point is valid, the evasion of such a tax would be more difficult than the evasion of Income Tax, in many instances.

Your 1st point however is a little more shaky.

Bearing in mind that I'm not 100% familiar with the US tax system, but viewing this from a more general perspective.

It's true what you say that 'rich' people who buy a lot of expensive stuff would pay more in Sales Tax if ST were increased, than they would if ST was not increased, but that does not mean that they would pay more in ST than they do currently in IT necessarily.

If a person earns $1m pa and pays 50% in IT they pay $500k; if the minimum cost of living is $20k, then that leaves him with $480k each year. Suppose he lives a life of luxury and spends $250k a year on 'luxuries', saving the remaining $250k.

Now lets take the same person a year later, after IT is done away with to be replaced with ST.

Income is still $1m, and his lifestyle doesn't change; to achieve the same tax revenue the ST would need to be 186%, leaving him with $330k to save. He's better off by $80k pa.

Now take a lower income, say $40k pa, IT @ 50% leaves them with $0 savings and no luxuries. ST @ 186% leaves them short by $17k pa

The only way the argument to abolish IT in favour of ST is to have variable rates of ST, but for every exemption, there has to be an increase at the top end, meaning the ST on luxury item would likely exceed 200%; as soon as a luxury item like a $500 smartphone starts to cost $1,500, a black market of buying via ebay.ca will mean you have even more people evading taxes than at present.

I think the best solution is a package of taxes, all kept a low as possible, on income, purchases and fees for registration and licenses where appropriate.

Whatever system, it needs to be simple, fair and practical.
Yeah our IT system is massively flawed. Here's where I think my idea would work though. It is commonly known the wealthy are rich enough to hire tax lawyers, who then tie up their money in investments, and do what I call "magic on paper", so the amount they are taxed on is significantly less. To get a more fair accurate i'd need a team of people running numbers for months if not years. Another flaw in our IT system, and this goes back to immigrants, all immigrants, is if they open a business, they don't have to pay taxes on that business for ten years. This is nowhere near fair IMO, and should be abolished immediately. The biggest problem with this, is you have abdul from pakistan who opens up a quickie mart, runs it for ten years, then passes ownership to his brother or cousin mohammed, who in turn doesn't pay taxes for another ten years. And this cycle goes on and on until they run out of family members.(which is never, basically)


Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 05:37 AM   #37 (permalink)
mpw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: the past
Posts: 1,143
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 52
Thanked 132 Times in 97 Posts
Default

The idea of not taxing a new business, for 10years, is just bizarre! I was not aware of this practice.

Obviously that in itself is clearly an area that is in desperate need of addressing, and if they can simply close, and have friends or family re-open to benefit for another decade that's even more incompetent of your tax authority and legislature to allow.

I can understand the motivation that probably prompted such a law, trying to help new businesses, but it sounds like such a strange implementation; I've experienced a similar system where a new businesses losses in it's first year of trading, can be claimed back against taxes on the profits in years 2&3; this encourages paper losses in year 1, but I don't think that's as harmful as 10years free trading!

I do think that rather than do away with IT to stop such circumvention, it makes more sense to simply close(or reduce) such loopholes; imagine what the IT would be on those businesses.

As for the wealthy avoiding taxation through legal investments and 'magic', again, rather than throw away the system, just tighten it up with better regulation.
mpw is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 06:16 AM   #38 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default Re: Taxes...

Quote:
The idea of not taxing a new business, for 10years, is just bizarre! I was not aware of this practice.

Obviously that in itself is clearly an area that is in desperate need of addressing, and if they can simply close, and have friends or family re-open to benefit for another decade that's even more incompetent of your tax authority and legislature to allow.

I can understand the motivation that probably prompted such a law, trying to help new businesses, but it sounds like such a strange implementation; I've experienced a similar system where a new businesses losses in it's first year of trading, can be claimed back against taxes on the profits in years 2&3; this encourages paper losses in year 1, but I don't think that's as harmful as 10years free trading!

I do think that rather than do away with IT to stop such circumvention, it makes more sense to simply close(or reduce) such loopholes; imagine what the IT would be on those businesses.

As for the wealthy avoiding taxation through legal investments and 'magic', again, rather than throw away the system, just tighten it up with better regulation.
As a side note, the 10yr new business thing, only applies to legal immigrants. Why they would have more opportunity than a us citizen to open a business is beyond me.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 06:17 PM   #39 (permalink)
brab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

The idea of doing away with income tax and having a national sales tax does have merit. You set a flat rate and apply it to everything you buy, everything, that means, cars, houses, food, cigarettes, etc.

It would be a fairer tax. If you were a very rich person you would pay more tax by virtue of the fact that you spent more. Very poor people could get tax subsidies. Similarly, students as well. Would have to be a prohibition on buying something in another country and bringing it hear. Probably would have to pay higher customs charges on such importations.

Probably not a bad idea though. Could be worked out. Would be able to abolish the IRS, yeah everyone says.
 
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 08:26 PM   #40 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default Re: Taxes...

Quote:
The idea of doing away with income tax and having a national sales tax does have merit. You set a flat rate and apply it to everything you buy, everything, that means, cars, houses, food, cigarettes, etc.

It would be a fairer tax. If you were a very rich person you would pay more tax by virtue of the fact that you spent more. Very poor people could get tax subsidies. Similarly, students as well. Would have to be a prohibition on buying something in another country and bringing it hear. Probably would have to pay higher customs charges on such importations.

Probably not a bad idea though. Could be worked out. Would be able to abolish the IRS, yeah everyone says.
Yeah imagine the amount of money saved if the IRS was done away with or downsized considerably. Hundreds of millions per year I bet. But I think taxes should be naturally higher on cigs/alchohol, as they are not needed for survival.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 30th, 2010, 09:00 PM   #41 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
But I think taxes should be naturally higher on cigs/alchohol, as they are not needed for survival.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
Same for cell phones and cars and stuff. Tax that at like 80% and teach those bastards a lesson for having luxuries. Oh wait.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 09:15 PM   #42 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default Re: Taxes...

Quote:
Quote:
But I think taxes should be naturally higher on cigs/alchohol, as they are not needed for survival.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
Same for cell phones and cars and stuff. Tax that at like 80% and teach those bastards a lesson for having luxuries. Oh wait.
Bitter much? don't want to pay extra for your daily 40 or box o' cheap wine I guess huh?
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 04:21 AM   #43 (permalink)
mpw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: the past
Posts: 1,143
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 52
Thanked 132 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brab View Post
The idea of doing away with income tax and having a national sales tax does have merit. You set a flat rate and apply it to everything...
...It would be a fairer tax. If you were a very rich person you would pay more tax by virtue of the fact that you spent more. Very poor people could get tax subsidies...
The trouble with a flat rate tax is that you have to set the tax rate very high (as proven above) to collect the same amount of tax, and you rely on the rich spending on luxuries; I know a man who earns approx. $1m pa, but his outgoings are probably less than $40k, to collect the same in Sales Tax from him as you would in Income Tax, the Sales Tax would need to be around 400%: Does 400% tax sound like a good idea?

Yes you could do away with IRS, and employ all those people to administer a Sales Tax, and tax refund/credit system.

The benefit then is nobody's income is being pawed over by the State, only their outgoings... except the poor who want to claim the refunds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiretap View Post
Same for cell phones and cars and stuff. Tax that at like 80% and teach those bastards a lesson for having luxuries. Oh wait.
80%? see above.
mpw is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 05:24 AM   #44 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 304
 
Device(s): HTC Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 38 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
Bitter much? don't want to pay extra for your daily 40 or box o' cheap wine I guess huh?
Just a bit of sarcasm for you tyrannical government loving types.
wiretap is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2010, 07:43 AM   #45 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpw View Post
The trouble with a flat rate tax is that you have to set the tax rate very high (as proven above) to collect the same amount of tax, and you rely on the rich spending on luxuries; I know a man who earns approx. $1m pa, but his outgoings are probably less than $40k, to collect the same in Sales Tax from him as you would in Income Tax, the Sales Tax would need to be around 400%: Does 400% tax sound like a good idea?

Yes you could do away with IRS, and employ all those people to administer a Sales Tax, and tax refund/credit system.

The benefit then is nobody's income is being pawed over by the State, only their outgoings... except the poor who want to claim the refunds.


80%? see above.
Yeah... Some of the richest people are some of the cheapest bastards out there, like that senator we have that has more money than god but won't pay a single dime for her personal travel. She makes the goverment fly her and her family around and pay their in-flight entertainment tabs.

It's no secret that these people take up more resources than the normal person. They should pay into the system to balance that, but their taxes do go towards services that they will never use. There should be a good way to balance these things, too. We haven't found it yet. We probably need economists instead of politicians working on it, though.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2010, 10:43 AM   #46 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
Yeah... Some of the richest people are some of the cheapest bastards out there, like that senator we have that has more money than god but won't pay a single dime for her personal travel. She makes the goverment fly her and her family around and pay their in-flight entertainment tabs.

It's no secret that these people take up more resources than the normal person. They should pay into the system to balance that, but their taxes do go towards services that they will never use. There should be a good way to balance these things, too. We haven't found it yet. We probably need economists instead of politicians working on it, though.
That's why you completely cut "perks" like that out.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2010, 10:50 AM   #47 (permalink)
mpw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: the past
Posts: 1,143
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 52
Thanked 132 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
Yeah... Some of the richest people are some of the cheapest bastards out there...
I think you're making a very different argument here than I was.

The person I was talking about isn't a 'cheap bastard' in the same way you describe the Senator, he simply has very low outgoings by virtue of his prudent lifestyle.

The argument you seem to making with regards to the Senator, is one of how taxes already collected are being mismanaged, not how to best collect them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3devious View Post
...We probably need economists instead of politicians working on it, though.
Do you mean you want an economist to make the call on how much to spend on treating sick old people? What IS the economic value of an elderly person who has no income other than state benefits? I'm guessing there's a saving to be had there... mentally disabled person; economic benefit to society?
mpw is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2010, 10:55 AM   #48 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Do you mean you want an economist to make the call on how much to spend on treating sick old people? What IS the economic value of an elderly person who has no income other than state benefits? I'm guessing there's a saving to be had there... mentally disabled person; economic benefit to society?
Or maybe not let the government decide how much to treat anyone?
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2010, 11:31 AM   #49 (permalink)
mpw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: the past
Posts: 1,143
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 52
Thanked 132 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
Or maybe not let the government decide how much to treat anyone?
What do you mean, completely remove government from healthcare?

Admittedly that would save a lot in taxes, but how many people just wouldn't be able to afford any treatment? Say you can't afford health insurance, and you hit by an uninsured driver; who pays for the treatment you received? or would you not receive treatment until payment had been made/assured by somebody?

A free at the point of use, State funded healthcare safety-net, is, I think, fundamental to a civilized society.
mpw is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2010, 12:19 PM   #50 (permalink)
Member
 
Zenze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 210
 
Device(s): HTC Inc
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpw View Post
What do you mean, completely remove government from healthcare?

Admittedly that would save a lot in taxes, but how many people just wouldn't be able to afford any treatment? Say you can't afford health insurance, and you hit by an uninsured driver; who pays for the treatment you received? or would you not receive treatment until payment had been made/assured by somebody?

A free at the point of use, State funded healthcare safety-net, is, I think, fundamental to a civilized society.
Agreed, but with the addition that what you save in taxes you will more than pay for to insurance companies.

Insurance companies make huge profits and don't really provide anything useful. If we just got rid of the health insurance companies and had this taken care of with an organization that was not out for profit it seems there would be a lot of savings.
Zenze is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.