Flat Tax and Tithing

[MoreFeasts]

Please continue.

ah okay, I had an oversight, I did use the word file, but I also used the words report and pay.
The point still stands, regarding your false accusation.
They would only lose a loophole if they are not poor, contrary to your assertion.

 

[Stoked]

They don't.



This is a myth. You are much freer to take chances when you have security.



We can go through many failed/bankrupted states, some of which had liberal ideals and some of which did not, and I don't think you'll find a single case where liberal ideals were the primary cause of bankruptcy or failure.

I'd be interested in any stats you have to back that up.

Also what about that human nature you always go on and on about?

 

[Stoked]

ah okay, I had an oversight,
but the point still stands, regarding your false accusation.

What false accusation? I claimed you said that they should file taxes on that assistance and you did.

 

[One Brow]

I've often wondered aloud, why doesn't the city of Philadelphia go to companies like Nike, or Apple, or any other large corporation and say, "We will let you operate for 10, 20, etc years TAX FREE, providing you do a, b, c (like hire at least xxxx employees, average wage at $***, provide xxxx benefits). It would cost the city NOTHING to do. It would take an area of over 200,000 people where over 70% live below poverty and give them jobs.

Every major city offers tax incentive programs. Philadelphia is no exception.

https://business.phila.gov/pages/ta...stitem=tax credits, grants & other incentives

However, companies generally prefer building on land where there have not been prior industrial activity (fewer pollutants). Wages will be much lower in third-world countries than even the US minimum wage. This makes is difficult for any city to attract factories from major corporations.

 

[One Brow]

It boggles my mind the percentage of people that have been brainwashed into believing there really isn't that much government waste in spending.

There is waste in any major bureaucracy, whether for-profit, non-profit, or public. Why would government be an exception?

 

[Stoked]

There is waste in any major bureaucracy, whether for-profit, non-profit, or public. Why would government be an exception?

I see your point but do not like it. The arguement that because it exists elsewhere it is allowable here is a bad arguement.

 

[One Brow]

... but I think it would be a fun thread for us to compile ways the government is wasting money (specifically) and start a list.

Should we also make lists for private corporations? How Exxon wastes money, or Anthem, or Burlington Northern?

 

[MoreFeasts]

What false accusation?

That I want to take away loopholes from poor people.

 

[The Thriller]

I find it interesting that "liberal" ideas have been described as "bankrupting" this country (and many others).

So using this logic, "conservative" ideas of military spending, 2 wars, tax cuts, and deregulation of the financial sector are the "saviors" to our country? Suddenly, the debt accumulated from this past decade is the result of food stamps, welfare programs, and pell grants NOT defense spending, 2 wars, tax cuts, and the deregulation of the private sector?

So in order to fix the USA, we should actually cut taxes even more, spend even more in defense, and maybe even invade another country or two?

Is there an economist (not employed by foxnews) that believes that this is the answer?

 

[One Brow]

Absolutely. The thing that drives me crazy is when government does their budget, they have the whole "use it or lose it" mentality. For example, if an agency is $100,000 under budget, instead of sending the money back, they will outfit the whole agency with new computers (replacing the ones they bought 2 years ago), hire another secretary and waste that $100,000. It's crazy.

Unfortunately when the government spends that $100K on computers, it does nothing to create jobs in computer manufacturing, design, etc. It's just gone from the economy. It woulde be much better for private enterprises to spend $100K on computers. That would help create jobs.

 

[One Brow]

This has all been about flat tax vs our current system. Why hasn't anyone mentioned a sales tax, and nothing more? This seems like the easiest thing to do. No income tax at all. Every red cent you earn is yours. You can bury it in the backyard if you want. If you make $10/hr and work 10 hrs, you get $100. Simple. ... Problem solved. Everyone can eat, everyone pays taxes, the big spenders pay more taxes than the little spenders.

When the sales tax rate is 20-25%, that affects your purchasing power. Sales taxes transfer even more of the tax burden to the poor than a flat tax does, unless coupled with a very healthy investment tax (so that you get taxed on the purchase of a stock, bond, CD, etc. just as if it were a bottle of shampoo) and a solid capital gains tax.

 

[MoreFeasts]

A financial transactions tax might be the best alternative.

 

[One Brow]

I'd be interested in any stats you have to back that up.

Also what about that human nature you always go on and on about?

You know, I don't have stats right now, just anecdotes. So, if you think I'm wrong, I'm OK with that. However, it's human nature to risk more when you have less to lose. I used to play poker with a group that had nickel antes, and the largest pot I ever saw was about $10. There was no point to bluffing in that game, because everyone called (there just wan't much to lose, except pride at being bluffed). No one was afraid of calling if they had a decent hand. People were much less likely to call bluffs in $1 ante games I had access to.

If you don't have a gambling addiction, it's the easiest thing in the world to take $200 of leisure money and bet it in a casino. I've never been tempted to bet rent money.

When hitchhiking, it seemed much more common ot be picked up by one person than by a family.

Why do you think having security would not make you more willing to take risk?

 

[One Brow]

I see your point but do not like it. The arguement that because it exists elsewhere it is allowable here is a bad arguement.

I agree it is not "allowable", in the sense it should be prevented as opposed to ignored, and diminished when possible. However, it is inevitable.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Should we also make lists for private corporations? How Exxon wastes money, or Anthem, or Burlington Northern?

Only as it's relevant to our tax dollars. If Exxon wants to waste its own dollars that's entirely up to them and their shareholdrs. This is about government taxation/spending.

 

[Stoked]

That I want to take away loopholes from poor people.

If they are exploiting a loophole by not claiming that assitance on their taxes and you want them to, how is that not wanting to deny them that loophole?

 

[Stoked]

I agree it is not "allowable", in the sense it should be prevented as opposed to ignored, and diminished when possible. However, it is inevitable.

Yes there will always be error and waste. Unavoidable. But the waste of the federal government, both in straight up waste and in bad management/choices, has reached insane levels.

 

[colton]

Stokes was incorrectly stating that I wanted poor people to no longer be able to abuse the system through receiving income from churches and not reporting it as income. I am saying that if you got your wishes, than poor people would have to pay taxes on all income even though their income is so small that all of it is needed for things like rent and health care.

Oh, OK. Just to be clear, I'd have a very small tax rate for the lowest earners. Although I'm by no means sure about that plan--in another post in the thread I talked about having people pay no taxes at all on their first $something amount of income. So there isn't really a "if colton got his way" defined scenario because I myself am conflicted about what the best plan would be.

 

[colton]

This has all been about flat tax vs our current system. Why hasn't anyone mentioned a sales tax, and nothing more? This seems like the easiest thing to do. No income tax at all. Every red cent you earn is yours. You can bury it in the backyard if you want. If you make $10/hr and work 10 hrs, you get $100. Simple.

Then, just have a sales tax on food be lower (say, around 10%), and another sales tax on EVERYTHING else (around 30%). THEN, to assure that you aren't screwing over poorer people, every April they can send a copy of their W-2 forms and all the sales tax they paid on food to the IRS and get refunds based on income (for example, if you made less than $40,000 you get 100% back, if you made less than $60,000 you get 50% back and if you made less than $100,000 you get 25% back).

Problem solved. Everyone can eat, everyone pays taxes, the big spenders pay more taxes than the little spenders.

I looked into this once because it seems like it's a good idea. I can't remember the specifics of where I read about it, but it turns out that when the sales taxes gets above a certain level, people make under-the-table deals like crazy and otherwise do things to avoid paying it. So although good in theory, in practice the idea likely wouldn't work.

 

[Gameface]

A financial transactions tax might be the best alternative.

This is an idea I like. I'm not expert enough to say it's a good, workable idea, but I like the notion none the less.

I see the justification being that each financial transaction represents a contract of sorts (or may be accompanied by an actual contract) and the tax on that transaction is the price paid to have that contract enforced by law and everything that entails.