Tax reform.
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:55
VIEWED: 6117
PAGE 2 of 8
Here's what I'd do, I'd make a few changes to federal government spending.
First, I'd get rid of virtually everything.
We don't need to maintain a standing army of anyone. We have no enemies. Next, we don't need weapons, we have no enemies. Third, we don't need anyone to assess the enemies we don't have. Fourth, we don't need to give welfare to the rich. Fifth, we don't need to give welfare to corporations that are rich, ie., no corporation operating at a profit should get a govt. loan. Next, we don't need to have a dept. of homeland security to protect us from the enemies we don't have. After that, we don't need to subsidize the wealth drug companies with medicare, etc. Next, we don't need to spend billions defending Israel, I'm sorry, not our problem guys. I suppose next I could say we don't need to give out pensions to the rich, I think we could settle upfront with everyone.
When I'm done, there would still be a govt. spending money, but not very much. America would still have the national guard to defend it, which is more than adequate to stop our complete absense of enemies. After we sign the treaty with Osama Bin Laden, the total non-threat to America, the illusion of an enemy will be gone.
Would there be defense spending. Sure, about 10% of what there is now. More than enough. Would there be medicare? Sure, we'd pay cost+ for it, like we do with everything else. This would save us a few trillion $. Would there be social security? sure, the fund wouldn't be about to run out, all the rich folk would get cut from the program, saving us close to a trillion a year. They'd go "boo hoo, I want my gambling fund" - who in heck cares?
Poor old ladies would not be left out in the cold, with no medicine. That's big govt spin.
Small govt, small tax, and no one would bail instead of pay the 1% fat tax, because it's less than they pay now, and they're not leaving now, and they would pay it out of their interest earnings. One thing I've noticed is that everyone gets annoyed at paying more (sales tax, etc,) but not so much at getting less (which is why we have an income tax.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anyway, small nudge tactics are the way the capitalist system was built...
If you call anything that pushes society in a direction "social engineering" then there's a ton of it everywhere, all of conservative america becomes social engineering.
But a liberal would tax the 'lazy money' to get it working where a conservative would provide a tax break or other incentive to get the money working, IMHO.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BDN, umm.. what are you smoking ?
Did you, like, even read the concept he was expressing, or just stare at it with dull, glazed eyes because it wasn't a nice Fox News "for idiots" media presentation more suited for six year olds than adults ?
I swear I dunno what part of that asinine statement to savage first, but let's put it in dick and jane terms, ok.
A pokey-pokey tax to annoy people who hoard money would make them want to do something with it.
A tax BREAK for hoarding money would make them want to leave it sit right where it is.
Jumpin jesus on sportbike with budda in the sidecar... *growlmutter*...
Look, if I can program a Furby to do everything you do, you don't live up to my expectations of a person or sentience, which kind of renders discussion pointless.
Just.. just... I dunno.. THINK, or try to... PLEASE... unnngh. 
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But a liberal would tax the 'lazy money' to get it working where a conservative would provide a tax break or other incentive to get the money working, IMHO.
As the conservative who suggested the idea, I think a liberal would try to create a public social program, and a conservative would try to fund private business. I suspect that debate would continue. But this big govt. has to go, it benefits no one but itself and a few guys on the take.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Pretty much. But on the practical side, there is a bill in Congress that would eradicate income tax and instead levy a national consumption tax at the point of purchase. This may not really diminish tax burden, but does simplify the code drastically, and ties taxation to consumption instead of income, which means that now the rich will pay more because they buy more, not because they’re being exploited for their money. Also criminals, who would never pay income tax, must pay a consumption tax. All US citizens will receive the equivalent of a refund designed to supplement income for essential goods, meaning that the basic necessities (such as food) would not be taxed.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
But a liberal would tax the 'lazy money' to get it working where a conservative would provide a tax break or other incentive to get the money working, IMHO.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
I read the title and I figured - oh 
, it's going to be another moronic Bush-parroting tax reform wheeze.
Well, your post was fine, but you did bring out the crowd that would be drawn to the title.
Here's my take:
Income tax - the same on people and business, progressive, simple calculation, no dodges, breaks, sub-categories etc.
You also get a form to check off how much of your income tax do you want going to where. If you wanted 100% on the environment, that's where it would go.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
they’re being exploited for their money.
Ah, the exploited rich.
No, they won't, they'll spend overseas and avoid the tax.
But seriously, the national sales tax is a bad idea, it discourages commerce. It's a better idea than a national income tax, but the bill actually doesn't abolish the income tax. In order to do that, it would have to be a constitutional amendment, which would repeal the 16th amendment. Instead, it created a new tax, and promises the old tax will be phased out, but with no guarantees.
No guarantees means it is entirely possible that the new tax of 23% national sales tax on top of 8% state sales tax, which goes to a company which is earning retail profit, of which 25% goes to corporate income tax. In addition, all spent money goes to the hidden tax of benefits, which cost 33% of labor, the 27% federal income tax, the 10.6% soc. sec. and the 5.6% medicare plus the 3% or so for school and local tax and the 10% for state income tax. That earned money can then be spent again and go through the rinse cycle.
If you were counting you realize that every year, active commerce dollars go through the cycle, and each time, the lions share goes to tax. This national sales tax would be the crushing blow which would destroy the american economy and turn us into the Soviet Union.
Worse yet, there is no poverty level for the national sales tax. The poor, such as myself, who currently buy no bombers, would now be forced to buy bombers, and make ourselves poorer. It's a completely regressive system, because the poor will never be conducting transactions overseas.
At the moment, the only reason that business happens at all in america is that the tax system is full of loopholes which can be used to advantage. Those who choose not to do so go bankrupt. This closes those loopholes in a nice simple economic collapse for everyone.
Even without the federal income tax, assuming that Bush/Clinton and co. keep their word (this would be an absolute first, and about as likely as the second coming of jesus) it still wouldn't work. The fact that it works in Europe is not an argument because in Europe, the VAT tax money is used to support the uninflated healthcare costs. In our NaSTy system, the employer/employee exchange would pay for inflated healthcare, and then for medicare, paying again for the inflated healthcare, and then again for the national sales tax.
This is fiscal responsibility come from the bankrupt and the corrupt. My somewhat radical plan is very conservative, and would actually work.
I don't know why the national sales tax which is an emulation of euro-socialism, is considered acceptable by american conservatives, except that the rich see a way to not pay tax.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You also get a form to check off how much of your income tax do you want going to where. If you wanted 100% on the environment, that's where it would go.
Ooh. I like this idea, Rue.
I don't have any new system in mind that I would replace the current system with. Just some random musings.
I think our first priority, as a nation, should be to pay off our national debt. We're too vulnerable as a country because of it. And how much in interest payments do we make each year? We get rid of taxes and we still have to pay that interest every year.
I would also split out Social Security. No raiding of the trust fund. Double the cap until the trust fund is back to the level it would've been if we hadn't been siphoning the money elsewhere. Then bring the cap down and adjust as needed to keep Social Security solvent in perpetuity.
No money from taxes towards offensive military action. If we need to attack someone then we should levy a special war tax to pay for that.
The only way I would go for a flat tax is if it was on assets, not income.
Scale the maximum percentage of deductions based on the ratio of assets to income. Cap deductions at a quarter of tax burden and then only for those who have a very low ratio of assets to income.
If you have an offshore bank account, or are incorporated offshore, your tax burden is automatically raised by 5%. This raise is permanent. For every year afterwards that you maintain that offshore status your tax burden increases by 5%. There is no upper limit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
At the Federal level, there are four main taxes: Income, Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment. All of these, except income tax, are pretty much contracts between government and individuals, stating that the government will provide certain services (a retirement support pension, basic medical care, unemployment compensation). Any change in the tax system has to at least make a good faith effort to honor these contracts.
Also, many individual and corporate decisions (buying a house, contributing to a charity, investing in capital assets, developing new technologies, etc.) are based on current incentives within income tax law. The implications of removing these incentives has to be considered.
Tax law does not exist in a vacuum. For example, want to see the real estate market tank big time? Do away with the mortgage interest deduction.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue
Your system is very democratic. I've heard the idea, and it's a sound one (yeah, don't worry army guys, there will be plenty of people who check defense, particularly those with family in the military.)
Geezer
This doesn't actually follow, it's a little panicky. It's not really that bad. The economy would rejoice tomorrow if you eliminated all the taxes you listed.
I'm going to cross the line to say, you should honor the need-based portion, but most of this agreement can be dispensed with to no greater a consequense then a lost election. Democrats could do it without losing if they were actually who their constituents thought they were. The dems like the GOP actually represent the interests of two groups of the rich, millionaires and billionaires. Republicans represnt the multi-millionaires in between. The billionairs have their money overseas and don't have to worry, the millionaires are still more concerned about getting their social security checks. This is why the democratic party really defends social security. If it weren't so, they'd gladly agree to cut the independently wealthy out of the program and save 2/3 of the trillion a year we spend.
I hope you see, even if you are one of those wealthy recipients, that it's a needless drain on the system, and from an ideological standpoint, it's better for the system to no throw welfare at the rich.
I think that everyone should honor the commitment they make, but the instutional commitments made by corrupt American leaders in the past are killing our economy, and I'm perfectly okay with negotiating them away. I never said chuck them out the window.
If you think, geneva convention, etc., were commitments, we decided not to honor, veterans benefits are another one. We have become a complete reneg society.
But if you want a policy gone, you *should* negotiate it away. I tihnk that the millionaires would settle for a fraction of the commitment in a lump some, and you could pay them, the US had a lot of stockpiled cash. But we should end this endless responsibility to the rich. Of the three trillion a year this govt. spends, I would say, figuring in all the contract bilking, etc., probably two trillion just goes straight into the hands of the rich in exchange for absolutely nothing in return. Less than a trillion pays govt. employees, welfare and the actual cost of medications, weapons etc, but that too, could be trimmed considerably. We don't need to pay an enormous staff of watchdogs.
I guess these contracts are what we call entitlement spending.
Remember, a lot of these contracts are not for cash. We contracted to provide medical care. 90% of that cost is jacking up the price by the suppliers of the care.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME