Steve Jobs great innovator - Page 4 - Jets Insider.com Forums

Axil · 05-03-2012, 12:39 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4458620]I prefer a universal income tax to a consumption tax. In my perfect (real) world, there are only three taxes: Federal Income (Flat Tax), State Income (Whatever State Wants) and State Sales Tax (also whatever State chooses). Every person in the U.S. pays the Federal Flat Tax (poor excluded), and can choose their State based on their income/sales tax as they wish (States Rights).

I do not support Fines or Fees being part of taxation. Fines and Fees are inherantly either a penalty for wrongdoing (fine) or a charge for some service (fee). Both needlessly complicate the taxation system. Fines should be outside taxation (i.e. a criminal/civil proceeding/judgement) and fees should be outright abandoned. Taxe Revenue should make Federal/State fees unneeded in an equal sociaty under a flat tax system.

Any money or monetary equivalent you receive from anyone for any reason that was not your property to begin with.

Change the Law (as needed) so there is no "muddling". The Business is the business, the Individual is teh Individual. At whatever point the individual takes monetary value from the business, it is then taxed. The IRS would continue to exist for purposes such as this, to ensure proper accounting.

We're getting into regulatroy specificity here, where there is much room to compromise (even under a flat tax system), but I would say that if the vehicle does more than 50% of it's milage for the business, then it's the business's, if not, it's personal and income and would be taxed as income.

Irrelvant as I see it when it comes to taxation. You/the Business pay the tax on it in full at the time of purchase (sales tax).

If (as above) the business you own buys it for you (an individual) for personal use, you pay the full income tax value for it for the year of purchase.[/QUOTE]

I don't support fines being part of taxation either. Unfortunately if those fines are being received by a government body, i don't see how you can call them anything but taxation. I suppose if fines can only be levied by a court of law, you minimize corruption, but that sounds like a expensive way to handle things like EPA or SEC violations.

I prefer a flat consumption (sales) tax for the following reason.

people inheriting their families land, houses or farms should not be forced to sell these assets in order to pay the taxes due on them. This just seems inherently unfair, and counter-intuitive. Farmers especially get annihilated by taxing inheritance.

Secondly your contractor and his truck are more complicated than you think. If you separate it by mileage, he's going to be damn sure he drives that truck enough for work to make it a "business expense" He's also likely to be on business every time he fills up his gas tank. The IRS is an expensive and inefficient behemoth. Flat income tax does little to change this, and you're going to spend more money trying to catch Bob the shady contractor than you're going to receive in back taxes. You're also going to end up hitting people who were legitimately confused about changes to your still complicated tax code.

Lastly, a consumption tax incentives saving for retirement, and investing money. This may slow down our consumption based economy somewhat in the short term, but it makes it more stable and robust long term. It also reduces at least by some degree bankruptcy, and impoverished elderly who drain the system.

Don't get me wrong, i think a low percentage flat income tax is significantly better than our current system. I just think a consumption tax has many advantages over it.

parafly · 05-03-2012, 12:42 PM

[QUOTE=Trades;4458630]Another thing. Is it based on % of total corporate workforce or % of salary paid? If the former then you just bring as many minimum wage jobs to the states if the latter then you just have your executives and engineers here which would do nothing for the poor. Either way someone loses in America. Also the consumer will end up paying the price at the register for any increases in cost of doing business.[/QUOTE]

Percent of total corporate workforce.

Bringing jobs to the states is exactly the goal. That's a bad thing?

Where are the increases in cost of doing business? Theoretically you are reducing the tax rate by 35% which will offset most of the cost increases. You'll also have more people working here in the US, more consumers, more demand, more gross revenues.

Warfish · 05-03-2012, 12:47 PM

[QUOTE=Axil;4458640]I don't support fines being part of taxation either. Unfortunately if those fines are being received by a government body, i don't see how you can call them anything but taxation.[/quote]

Rather easily. Taxation is a revenue generator, a fine is a penalty for some criminal or civil law breaking.

If you mean a "fine", like the Healthcare Law where you are "fined" for not doing some Govt. directed activity, I strongly oppose any such laws on principle. As such, I'm not going to support their use in my taxation system.

[QUOTE]I suppose if fines can only be levied by a court of law, you minimize corruption, but that sounds like a expensive way to handle things like EPA or SEC violations[/QUOTE]

It may req. a revision or addition to the civil court system (a cost, admittedly), but a worthwhile one if it improved the effectiveness and fairness of Govt. Regulatory activity.

As for teh rest, we could debate specific individual case-regulation endlessly, get bogged down, and retain teh status quo. I prefer the risks of a change in the taxation system to a flat-income tax + State taxation, and will happily work the details as needed. In (almost) every case, I'm guessing there is a fair answer or a proper regulation or requirement differentiating personal from business to suit the system.

Trades · 05-03-2012, 12:53 PM

[QUOTE=parafly;4458648]Percent of total corporate workforce.

Bringing jobs to the states is exactly the goal. That's a bad thing?

Where are the increases in cost of doing business? Theoretically you are reducing the tax rate by 35% which will offset most of the cost increases. You'll also have more people working here in the US, more consumers, more demand, more gross revenues.[/QUOTE]

If it is total % of workforce then I can meet that number cheapest by hiring the lowest paid workers in America while keeping my high paid people over seas. That hurts the educated white collar people at the expense of the working class. Is that a good thing? I don't think we should be looking for ways to reduce the number of jobs in America for people who took the time and expense to get educated, do you?

There will be a break even point no matter how you do it that will incentivize companies moving off shore.

Another big problem would come in the form of outsourcing and splitting up companies to meet the %. Do on-shore and off-shore consultants count toward the percentages? Do the people working for companies you outsource to count against you, them or both?

Lets say a company like Apple now has to meet a certain % of workforce in America. Today all of their manufacturing gets done in China. I would assume that is a high volume at a low cost while many developers, managers, marketers, sales, etc are here. Are the workers in China even Apple employees? I think they are actually Foxcon employees at best. Apple might actually have 50% of their employees here but when you look at a lot of the work that Apple generates I would bet that the majority of that is in China when considered on a % of workforce. You solution wouldn't help in this situation and most businesses would alter their hiring, consulting and outsourcing models to meet the US mandate, get the benefits of the 0% tax rate while continuing to get the cheap off shore workforce.

Axil · 05-03-2012, 01:05 PM

[QUOTE=Trades;4458660] most businesses would alter their hiring, consulting and outsourcing models to meet the US mandate, get the benefits of the 0% tax rate while continuing to get the cheap off shore workforce.[/QUOTE]

And because of the convoluted legal gymnastics employed to meet the new regulations, the company would become less efficient.

So for example the company no makes 5% less product and thus produces less wealth and jobs, however they now pay no corporate tax so it's better for thier bottom line.

Now you've made my ipad more expensive, fired some poor Chinese factory worker [b]and[/b] collected less tax revenue.

Axil · 05-03-2012, 01:12 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4458656]Rather easily. Taxation is a revenue generator, a fine is a penalty for some criminal or civil law breaking.

If you mean a "fine", like the Healthcare Law where you are "fined" for not doing some Govt. directed activity, I strongly oppose any such laws on principle. As such, I'm not going to support their use in my taxation system.
[/quote]

That's the issue though, it's easy for you to draw a philosophical line between taxation and fining, but they both produce revenue. Politicians are exceedingly good at skewing definitions to suit their purposes.

[quote]
It may req. a revision or addition to the civil court system (a cost, admittedly), but a worthwhile one if it improved the effectiveness and fairness of Govt. Regulatory activity.
[/quote]
That would help. It might not be enough though, i'd also want mechanisms to carefully isolate funds obtained in such a way to make it exceedingly difficult to for those who wish to use them as revenue producing tools.

[quote]
As for teh rest, we could debate specific individual case-regulation endlessly, get bogged down, and retain teh status quo. I prefer the risks of a change in the taxation system to a flat-income tax + State taxation, and will happily work the details as needed. In (almost) every case, I'm guessing there is a fair answer or a proper regulation or requirement differentiating personal from business to suit the system.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I like the consumption tax, you like the flat income tax, i agree they are both better than what we have currently. I highly doubt we'll see large-scale reform to the tax code though. Not unless (until) things get much much worse than they currently are.

Trades · 05-03-2012, 01:18 PM

[QUOTE=Axil;4458678]
Fair enough. I like the consumption tax, you like the flat income tax, i agree they are both better than what we have currently. I highly doubt we'll see large-scale reform to the tax code though. Not unless (until) things get much much worse than they currently are.[/QUOTE]

I think this is the key. I would prefer a Flat tax, I can see the value of the consumption tax though. I have read that it would increase black market sales but I am not sure I believe it would be that bad since conversely you could say income tax would/does increase people working under the table and the barter system. I don't know that either is necessarily better than the other.

Either way I think that reducing the tax code from a library to a booklet would be valuable no matter how you look at it. Then step 2 needs to be to look at spending and size of government and see what can be done there.

southparkcpa · 05-03-2012, 01:40 PM

[QUOTE=Trades;4458687]I think this is the key. I would prefer a Flat tax, I can see the value of the consumption tax though. I have read that it would increase black market sales but I am not sure I believe it would be that bad since conversely you could say income tax would/does increase people working under the table and the barter system. I don't know that either is necessarily better than the other.

Either way I think that reducing the tax code from a library to a booklet would be valuable no matter how you look at it. Then step 2 needs to be to look at spending and size of government and see what can be done there.[/QUOTE]

Neuther will be acceptable to the left as the y disproportionatly tax the poor.
We are more likely, as we begin to look like socialist europe, have a VAT(consumption tax) in ADDITION to the income tax.

That will create an underground economy. Ask any eurpoean, they will tell stories of unreported income that will make you blush.

Warfish · 05-03-2012, 01:57 PM

[QUOTE=Axil;4458678]That's the issue though, it's easy for you to draw a philosophical line between taxation and fining, but they both produce revenue. Politicians are exceedingly good at skewing definitions to suit their purposes.[/quote]

And we the people have become increasing lazy about calling them on it.

Tax = Revenue for State Services/Operation
Fine = Penalty for Criminal or Civil Wrongdoing, and should never ever be considered as a source of revenue, even though it techniclly IS revenue.

[QUOTE]That would help. It might not be enough though, i'd also want mechanisms to carefully isolate funds obtained in such a way to make it exceedingly difficult to for those who wish to use them as revenue producing tools[/QUOTE].

I agree with the sentiment. But again, the people must hold their leaders accountable if they try and do so. We, generally and in the majority, no longer do so. A flaw in the idea of representative governance perhaps, that over 50% don't really care and far more than that are improperly informed?

[quote]Fair enough. I like the consumption tax, you like the flat income tax, i agree they are both better than what we have currently. I highly doubt we'll see large-scale reform to the tax code though. Not unless (until) things get much much worse than they currently are.[/QUOTE]

Agreed and agreed. I'm not saying a consumption tax would be worse by any stretch, and I agree, we're not likely to ever see any real meaningful change to our current system. I am exceptionaly cynical as to our system as it is today ever improving in most aspects of it's current operation and practices tbqh. If anything, I fully expect it to get worse, repeatedly. Less true fairness in taxation, more taxes disguised as other things, and more Govt. authority over formerly individual decision making and freedoms, backed by penalties for not doing what we're told by the State to meet their decisions on whats good for all of us, like it or not.

Trades · 05-03-2012, 02:12 PM

[QUOTE=southparkcpa;4458730]Neuther will be acceptable to the left as the y disproportionatly tax the poor.
We are more likely, as we begin to look like socialist europe, have a VAT(consumption tax) in ADDITION to the income tax.

That will create an underground economy. Ask any eurpoean, they will tell stories of unreported income that will make you blush.[/QUOTE]

I think that a consumption tax like the fair tax accounts for the poor by making basic sustenance items such as food and clothes tax free.

<Edit for link and quote to support/clarify my statement. [url]http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2012.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE]Under the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR25/S13) provides a monthly, universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax-free at or beyond the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application. This is not an entitlement, but a rebate (in advance) of taxes paid – thus the term prebate. Everyone pays taxes at the cash register.

Although everyone pays the same tax rate at the cash register, the chart below shows that the effect of the prebate is to increase the actual tax rate (annual taxes paid as a percentage of annual spending) as the level of spending increases, a progressive tax rate structure. For example, a person spending at the poverty level ($30,260 for a family of four) has a 0% effective tax rate because the annual prebate of $6,960 refunds all of the taxes they paid. Whereas someone spending at twice the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 11.5%, and so on. Annual spending would have to be in excess of $14 million per year to reach the statutory rate of 23%[/QUOTE]

Trades · 05-03-2012, 02:34 PM

I continued reading at the Fair Tax website and found this little nugget...
[QUOTE]As we approach our yearly tax return ritual in April, aka “Tax Day,” Americans everywhere are frantically hunting for any receipt that might qualify as a deduction within the [B]73,000 pages of IRS code and regulations.[/B]

It’s clear that America needs the FairTax and we need it now. With your continued generosity and support we can make “Tax Day” a distant memory.
[/QUOTE]

[url]http://fairtaxblog.org/is-a-new-tax-system-worth-25-to-you/[/url]

73,000 pages of tax code?!?!?!? 73,000?!?!!?!?!? Holy crap! I wonder how much of it contradicts itself? What a bunch of garbage.

Winstonbiggs · 05-04-2012, 01:59 PM

[QUOTE=parafly;4458537]So reduce corporate taxes across the board, reduce regulations, and hope for the best?

I think some of you are very naive to the prospects of billions of low income foreign workers entering the global job market in the coming decades and its effects on our wages and standards of living.[/QUOTE]

Sure that could happen. The ME and Africa are full of young people without jobs. Corporations could go in and risk political uncertainty for short term gain.

China on the other hand has had a 1 child law in place for decades. The Demographics are rapidly changing and the country is consuming more every day. Do you really want a trade war right when the opportunity for the US manufacturers to sell into their market is getting better every day.

05-03-2012, 02:12 PM	#70
Trades Jets Insider VIP Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,570	[QUOTE=southparkcpa;4458730]Neuther will be acceptable to the left as the y disproportionatly tax the poor. We are more likely, as we begin to look like socialist europe, have a VAT(consumption tax) in ADDITION to the income tax. That will create an underground economy. Ask any eurpoean, they will tell stories of unreported income that will make you blush.[/QUOTE] I think that a consumption tax like the fair tax accounts for the poor by making basic sustenance items such as food and clothes tax free. <Edit for link and quote to support/clarify my statement. [url]http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2012.pdf[/url] [QUOTE]Under the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR25/S13) provides a monthly, universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax-free at or beyond the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application. This is not an entitlement, but a rebate (in advance) of taxes paid – thus the term prebate. Everyone pays taxes at the cash register. Although everyone pays the same tax rate at the cash register, the chart below shows that the effect of the prebate is to increase the actual tax rate (annual taxes paid as a percentage of annual spending) as the level of spending increases, a progressive tax rate structure. For example, a person spending at the poverty level ($30,260 for a family of four) has a 0% effective tax rate because the annual prebate of $6,960 refunds all of the taxes they paid. Whereas someone spending at twice the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 11.5%, and so on. Annual spending would have to be in excess of $14 million per year to reach the statutory rate of 23%[/QUOTE] Last edited by Trades; 05-03-2012 at 02:15 PM.

05-03-2012, 12:39 PM	#61
Axil Rookie Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 822	[QUOTE=Warfish;4458620]I prefer a universal income tax to a consumption tax. In my perfect (real) world, there are only three taxes: Federal Income (Flat Tax), State Income (Whatever State Wants) and State Sales Tax (also whatever State chooses). Every person in the U.S. pays the Federal Flat Tax (poor excluded), and can choose their State based on their income/sales tax as they wish (States Rights). I do not support Fines or Fees being part of taxation. Fines and Fees are inherantly either a penalty for wrongdoing (fine) or a charge for some service (fee). Both needlessly complicate the taxation system. Fines should be outside taxation (i.e. a criminal/civil proceeding/judgement) and fees should be outright abandoned. Taxe Revenue should make Federal/State fees unneeded in an equal sociaty under a flat tax system. Any money or monetary equivalent you receive from anyone for any reason that was not your property to begin with. Change the Law (as needed) so there is no "muddling". The Business is the business, the Individual is teh Individual. At whatever point the individual takes monetary value from the business, it is then taxed. The IRS would continue to exist for purposes such as this, to ensure proper accounting. We're getting into regulatroy specificity here, where there is much room to compromise (even under a flat tax system), but I would say that if the vehicle does more than 50% of it's milage for the business, then it's the business's, if not, it's personal and income and would be taxed as income. Irrelvant as I see it when it comes to taxation. You/the Business pay the tax on it in full at the time of purchase (sales tax). If (as above) the business you own buys it for you (an individual) for personal use, you pay the full income tax value for it for the year of purchase.[/QUOTE] I don't support fines being part of taxation either. Unfortunately if those fines are being received by a government body, i don't see how you can call them anything but taxation. I suppose if fines can only be levied by a court of law, you minimize corruption, but that sounds like a expensive way to handle things like EPA or SEC violations. I prefer a flat consumption (sales) tax for the following reason. people inheriting their families land, houses or farms should not be forced to sell these assets in order to pay the taxes due on them. This just seems inherently unfair, and counter-intuitive. Farmers especially get annihilated by taxing inheritance. Secondly your contractor and his truck are more complicated than you think. If you separate it by mileage, he's going to be damn sure he drives that truck enough for work to make it a "business expense" He's also likely to be on business every time he fills up his gas tank. The IRS is an expensive and inefficient behemoth. Flat income tax does little to change this, and you're going to spend more money trying to catch Bob the shady contractor than you're going to receive in back taxes. You're also going to end up hitting people who were legitimately confused about changes to your still complicated tax code. Lastly, a consumption tax incentives saving for retirement, and investing money. This may slow down our consumption based economy somewhat in the short term, but it makes it more stable and robust long term. It also reduces at least by some degree bankruptcy, and impoverished elderly who drain the system. Don't get me wrong, i think a low percentage flat income tax is significantly better than our current system. I just think a consumption tax has many advantages over it.

05-03-2012, 12:42 PM	#62
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,315	[QUOTE=Trades;4458630]Another thing. Is it based on % of total corporate workforce or % of salary paid? If the former then you just bring as many minimum wage jobs to the states if the latter then you just have your executives and engineers here which would do nothing for the poor. Either way someone loses in America. Also the consumer will end up paying the price at the register for any increases in cost of doing business.[/QUOTE] Percent of total corporate workforce. Bringing jobs to the states is exactly the goal. That's a bad thing? Where are the increases in cost of doing business? Theoretically you are reducing the tax rate by 35% which will offset most of the cost increases. You'll also have more people working here in the US, more consumers, more demand, more gross revenues.

05-03-2012, 12:47 PM	#63
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Axil;4458640]I don't support fines being part of taxation either. Unfortunately if those fines are being received by a government body, i don't see how you can call them anything but taxation.[/quote] Rather easily. Taxation is a revenue generator, a fine is a penalty for some criminal or civil law breaking. If you mean a "fine", like the Healthcare Law where you are "fined" for not doing some Govt. directed activity, I strongly oppose any such laws on principle. As such, I'm not going to support their use in my taxation system. [QUOTE]I suppose if fines can only be levied by a court of law, you minimize corruption, but that sounds like a expensive way to handle things like EPA or SEC violations[/QUOTE] It may req. a revision or addition to the civil court system (a cost, admittedly), but a worthwhile one if it improved the effectiveness and fairness of Govt. Regulatory activity. As for teh rest, we could debate specific individual case-regulation endlessly, get bogged down, and retain teh status quo. I prefer the risks of a change in the taxation system to a flat-income tax + State taxation, and will happily work the details as needed. In (almost) every case, I'm guessing there is a fair answer or a proper regulation or requirement differentiating personal from business to suit the system.

05-03-2012, 12:53 PM	#64
Trades Jets Insider VIP Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,570	[QUOTE=parafly;4458648]Percent of total corporate workforce. Bringing jobs to the states is exactly the goal. That's a bad thing? Where are the increases in cost of doing business? Theoretically you are reducing the tax rate by 35% which will offset most of the cost increases. You'll also have more people working here in the US, more consumers, more demand, more gross revenues.[/QUOTE] If it is total % of workforce then I can meet that number cheapest by hiring the lowest paid workers in America while keeping my high paid people over seas. That hurts the educated white collar people at the expense of the working class. Is that a good thing? I don't think we should be looking for ways to reduce the number of jobs in America for people who took the time and expense to get educated, do you? There will be a break even point no matter how you do it that will incentivize companies moving off shore. Another big problem would come in the form of outsourcing and splitting up companies to meet the %. Do on-shore and off-shore consultants count toward the percentages? Do the people working for companies you outsource to count against you, them or both? Lets say a company like Apple now has to meet a certain % of workforce in America. Today all of their manufacturing gets done in China. I would assume that is a high volume at a low cost while many developers, managers, marketers, sales, etc are here. Are the workers in China even Apple employees? I think they are actually Foxcon employees at best. Apple might actually have 50% of their employees here but when you look at a lot of the work that Apple generates I would bet that the majority of that is in China when considered on a % of workforce. You solution wouldn't help in this situation and most businesses would alter their hiring, consulting and outsourcing models to meet the US mandate, get the benefits of the 0% tax rate while continuing to get the cheap off shore workforce.

05-03-2012, 01:05 PM	#65
Axil Rookie Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 822	[QUOTE=Trades;4458660] most businesses would alter their hiring, consulting and outsourcing models to meet the US mandate, get the benefits of the 0% tax rate while continuing to get the cheap off shore workforce.[/QUOTE] And because of the convoluted legal gymnastics employed to meet the new regulations, the company would become less efficient. So for example the company no makes 5% less product and thus produces less wealth and jobs, however they now pay no corporate tax so it's better for thier bottom line. Now you've made my ipad more expensive, fired some poor Chinese factory worker [b]and[/b] collected less tax revenue.

05-03-2012, 01:12 PM	#66
Axil Rookie Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 822	[QUOTE=Warfish;4458656]Rather easily. Taxation is a revenue generator, a fine is a penalty for some criminal or civil law breaking. If you mean a "fine", like the Healthcare Law where you are "fined" for not doing some Govt. directed activity, I strongly oppose any such laws on principle. As such, I'm not going to support their use in my taxation system. [/quote] That's the issue though, it's easy for you to draw a philosophical line between taxation and fining, but they both produce revenue. Politicians are exceedingly good at skewing definitions to suit their purposes. [quote] It may req. a revision or addition to the civil court system (a cost, admittedly), but a worthwhile one if it improved the effectiveness and fairness of Govt. Regulatory activity. [/quote] That would help. It might not be enough though, i'd also want mechanisms to carefully isolate funds obtained in such a way to make it exceedingly difficult to for those who wish to use them as revenue producing tools. [quote] As for teh rest, we could debate specific individual case-regulation endlessly, get bogged down, and retain teh status quo. I prefer the risks of a change in the taxation system to a flat-income tax + State taxation, and will happily work the details as needed. In (almost) every case, I'm guessing there is a fair answer or a proper regulation or requirement differentiating personal from business to suit the system.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. I like the consumption tax, you like the flat income tax, i agree they are both better than what we have currently. I highly doubt we'll see large-scale reform to the tax code though. Not unless (until) things get much much worse than they currently are.

05-03-2012, 01:18 PM	#67
Trades Jets Insider VIP Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,570	[QUOTE=Axil;4458678] Fair enough. I like the consumption tax, you like the flat income tax, i agree they are both better than what we have currently. I highly doubt we'll see large-scale reform to the tax code though. Not unless (until) things get much much worse than they currently are.[/QUOTE] I think this is the key. I would prefer a Flat tax, I can see the value of the consumption tax though. I have read that it would increase black market sales but I am not sure I believe it would be that bad since conversely you could say income tax would/does increase people working under the table and the barter system. I don't know that either is necessarily better than the other. Either way I think that reducing the tax code from a library to a booklet would be valuable no matter how you look at it. Then step 2 needs to be to look at spending and size of government and see what can be done there.

05-03-2012, 01:40 PM	#68
southparkcpa I see the 88 to 97 period all over again. Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NC Posts: 15,916	[QUOTE=Trades;4458687]I think this is the key. I would prefer a Flat tax, I can see the value of the consumption tax though. I have read that it would increase black market sales but I am not sure I believe it would be that bad since conversely you could say income tax would/does increase people working under the table and the barter system. I don't know that either is necessarily better than the other. Either way I think that reducing the tax code from a library to a booklet would be valuable no matter how you look at it. Then step 2 needs to be to look at spending and size of government and see what can be done there.[/QUOTE] Neuther will be acceptable to the left as the y disproportionatly tax the poor. We are more likely, as we begin to look like socialist europe, have a VAT(consumption tax) in ADDITION to the income tax. That will create an underground economy. Ask any eurpoean, they will tell stories of unreported income that will make you blush.

05-03-2012, 01:57 PM	#69
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Axil;4458678]That's the issue though, it's easy for you to draw a philosophical line between taxation and fining, but they both produce revenue. Politicians are exceedingly good at skewing definitions to suit their purposes.[/quote] And we the people have become increasing lazy about calling them on it. Tax = Revenue for State Services/Operation Fine = Penalty for Criminal or Civil Wrongdoing, and should never ever be considered as a source of revenue, even though it techniclly IS revenue. [QUOTE]That would help. It might not be enough though, i'd also want mechanisms to carefully isolate funds obtained in such a way to make it exceedingly difficult to for those who wish to use them as revenue producing tools[/QUOTE]. I agree with the sentiment. But again, the people must hold their leaders accountable if they try and do so. We, generally and in the majority, no longer do so. A flaw in the idea of representative governance perhaps, that over 50% don't really care and far more than that are improperly informed? [quote]Fair enough. I like the consumption tax, you like the flat income tax, i agree they are both better than what we have currently. I highly doubt we'll see large-scale reform to the tax code though. Not unless (until) things get much much worse than they currently are.[/QUOTE] Agreed and agreed. I'm not saying a consumption tax would be worse by any stretch, and I agree, we're not likely to ever see any real meaningful change to our current system. I am exceptionaly cynical as to our system as it is today ever improving in most aspects of it's current operation and practices tbqh. If anything, I fully expect it to get worse, repeatedly. Less true fairness in taxation, more taxes disguised as other things, and more Govt. authority over formerly individual decision making and freedoms, backed by penalties for not doing what we're told by the State to meet their decisions on whats good for all of us, like it or not.

05-03-2012, 02:34 PM	#71
Trades Jets Insider VIP Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,570	I continued reading at the Fair Tax website and found this little nugget... [QUOTE]As we approach our yearly tax return ritual in April, aka “Tax Day,” Americans everywhere are frantically hunting for any receipt that might qualify as a deduction within the [B]73,000 pages of IRS code and regulations.[/B] It’s clear that America needs the FairTax and we need it now. With your continued generosity and support we can make “Tax Day” a distant memory. [/QUOTE] [url]http://fairtaxblog.org/is-a-new-tax-system-worth-25-to-you/[/url] 73,000 pages of tax code?!?!?!? 73,000?!?!!?!?!? Holy crap! I wonder how much of it contradicts itself? What a bunch of garbage.

05-04-2012, 01:59 PM	#72
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 13,083	[QUOTE=parafly;4458537]So reduce corporate taxes across the board, reduce regulations, and hope for the best? I think some of you are very naive to the prospects of billions of low income foreign workers entering the global job market in the coming decades and its effects on our wages and standards of living.[/QUOTE] Sure that could happen. The ME and Africa are full of young people without jobs. Corporations could go in and risk political uncertainty for short term gain. China on the other hand has had a 1 child law in place for decades. The Demographics are rapidly changing and the country is consuming more every day. Do you really want a trade war right when the opportunity for the US manufacturers to sell into their market is getting better every day.