What Type of Tax-Cut is most effective?

[manhunter098]

But that's part of my point. Why couldn't they afford it? They're still paying less. If it's a percentage of income that is being taxed, then it will be just as hard for everyone to pay. The man with one pie must give away a third of it (for example), but the man with three pies must give away one. In the end, they both still have two thirds of what they started with, and this is completely fair.

Because in the case of some individuals, it wouldnt be worth it to tax them. Tax brackets really do work much better, we just have to be careful to only tax the rich on what they arent reinvesting into their businesses.

 

[Aesir]

Fair tax sounds nice to layman, everyones equal, however like Ross Perot once said the devil is in the details.

Most fair tax plans say they can cut everyone's taxes and still produce just as much as our current system. This is really just Alice in Wonderland Economics, someones getting taxed more someones taking the burden off of someone else.

A fair tax basically eliminates federal taxes and everything is taxed on goods. (Which is dumb in it's self.) say for instance say there's around 20% sales tax on all services and goods, what isn't brought up is that this 20% is added on to whatever your state charges as well. Already this isn't exactly fair.

A low income family will take a brunt of the heat from this form of taxation. They won't be able to invest their income because most of their money is being taxed. They won't get ahead and remain in a limbo of just making ends meat.

That's one side of the spectrum, the working class family that works all the time.

Now what about the investor type? the guy who never works and instead invests all his money. Well here's again a problem, he' barely gets taxed if at all. The system favors the richer end of the spectrum with the working class being exploited yet again.

Sounds more like an unfair tax if you ask me.


You should keep taxation progressive. But instead of taxing necessities you should tax things people dislike the most, before taxing things they like the most.

Remember the 700 billion dollar bail out? If we taxed a small portion of speculation on wall street we could have generated large amounts of revenue to fund the bail out. This isn't anything new either, in FDR's day there was a speculation tax so it's not like I'm offering anything radical here.

 

[manhunter098]

I might be getting repetitive, but does anyone prefer the idea of taxing luxuries and personal income and giving the rich a way to essentially pay less taxes if they allot less money to themselves and more towards investing in their businesses? And taxing luxuries like large estates, things of that nature. By encouraging the rich to spend more on their businesses we get a better economy, greater investment, better everything really, I cant see any problems such a system would actually cause.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

I'm for Trickledown as well. I would call the opposition "Robin-Hood economics". Basically, most people are rich because they or their parents did a good job investing/building something of value. (Sure you can get lucky and win the lottery) But there seems to be this notion that a rich man must have stepped on countless others in order to get where he is. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

Take Bill Gates and strip him of everything he owns and all of his connections, and then dump him on the street next to an identical man who has been a bum all his life. In 10 years, I'd be willing to bet, Bill Gates will be wealthy again. The bum, however, will still be a bum (unless of course Bill Gates inspired him). Bill Gates would work hard trying to earn as much money as possible for his boss, because he would know that this would make him more inclined to raise his salary. He would not complain and join a union.

Taxing a company doesn't really hurt the company, just everything else around it. When you tax a company, they:
A. Raise the price of their products, making your life harder while they still make the same profit.
Or B. Lay off workers and stop hiring new ones, making it harder for you to find a job.

The idea of tax brackets irritates me. If I make 100,000 dollars a year, I have a 10% income tax, but if I make more, I have a 15% tax, and so on. Those numbers are just hypothetical. Anyways, this kills personal motivation. The poor will become complacent with their status and the rich will be discouraged from making more money because it'll just get taxed more. The result: A nation full of lazy people with a lessened sense of responsibility for their own life. This is why communism fails.

Sorry if this post seems a bit choppy.

 

[Aesir]

I'm for Trickledown as well. I would call the opposition "Robin-Hood economics". Basically, most people are rich because they or their parents did a good job investing/building something of value. (Sure you can get lucky and win the lottery) But there seems to be this notion that a rich man must have stepped on countless others in order to get where he is. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

The trickledown effect should be renamed to "Alice In Wonderland" Because you really have to be Alice in Wonderland to take it seriously.

They're rich not because they earned it they're rich from exploitation. Paulson for instance made out like a bandit because of De-regulation.

Many people who are rich like the top 1% for instance are in their position because of our horrible tax code. Getting rich because you can cheat the system is not fair economics, so calling the Robin-hood effect unfair is really a slap in the face.

Take Bill Gates and strip him of everything he owns and all of his connections, and then dump him on the street next to an identical man who has been a bum all his life. In 10 years, I'd be willing to bet, Bill Gates will be wealthy again. The bum, however, will still be a bum (unless of course Bill Gates inspired him). Bill Gates would work hard trying to earn as much money as possible for his boss, because he would know that this would make him more inclined to raise his salary. He would not complain and join a union.

Bill Gates is a horrible example, you realize he owns like 90% of the industry right? He would complain because he wouldn't be able to buy out his competition.

Furthermore "Bums" as you put. Aren't there of their own accord, or because they're lazy. A majority of the homeless fall under one of these categories.

1. Layed off.

2. Ex-Prisoner

3. Veterans.

4. Drug Abusers.

They're listed from highest to lowest, those are the types of people who couldn't get their feet grounded because of circumstances beyond their control.

Taxing a company doesn't really hurt the company, just everything else around it. When you tax a company, they:
A. Raise the price of their products, making your life harder while they still make the same profit.
Or B. Lay off workers and stop hiring new ones, making it harder for you to find a job.

In the 1950's they were being taxed around 25%, now they're being taxed around 10%. This isn't fair taxation. They're not contributing to society, the lower taxes they pay the more it hurts the average American.

Furthermore they have been hitting record profits for a long time, they can hit with higher taxes and still afford their workers.

The idea of tax brackets irritates me. If I make 100,000 dollars a year, I have a 10% income tax, but if I make more, I have a 15% tax, and so on. Those numbers are just hypothetical. Anyways, this kills personal motivation. The poor will become complacent with their status and the rich will be discouraged from making more money because it'll just get taxed more. The result: A nation full of lazy people with a lessened sense of responsibility for their own life. This is why communism fails.

Sorry if this post seems a bit choppy.

You tax the rich because that's where the money is, simple as that. You can't give everyone the same rate, it doesn't work that way. You'll produce literally no revenue and you'll see so many public institutions go down the drain more so then they are now. Everyone benefits from this, if the rich pay more and the poor pay less the money isn't going straight to the poor. It's going into programs that benefit everyone.


Really guy this isn't rocket science.

Edit: I forgot to mention. The Trickle down effect doesn't really work because there's no guarantee that the rich are going to spend their bonus. However I can almost garentee the working class/poor will spend their bonuses.

 

[Omis]

But that's part of my point. Why couldn't they afford it? They're still paying less. If it's a percentage of income that is being taxed, then it will be just as hard for everyone to pay. The man with one pie must give away a third of it (for example), but the man with three pies must give away one. In the end, they both still have two thirds of what they started with, and this is completely fair.

What if someone requires 3/4s of a pie to survive? The poor man no longer is able to survive while the rich man is still able to.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

Not enough money? A flat income tax rate will work fine. The poor could afford it because you don't raise their tax rate, you lower the tax rate of the rich down to their level.

There's less money from this, but then you can raise sales or consumption tax. The rich buy more things, and therefore spend more taxes. There's even property tax, so that you still have to pay for things after you have bought it and owned it.

It would also help to reduce government spending. A good way to do this would be to decrease rehabilitation and encourage the death penalty, for example (but that's another debate altogether)

EDIT:

What if someone requires 3/4s of a pie to survive? The poor man no longer is able to survive while the rich man is still able to.

That is what welfare is for. The taxes that the more wealthy payed will go to the poor anyway. In this post I did just mention that the best way to go about it is not to raise the poor's income tax, though.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Bill Gates is a horrible example, you realize he owns like 90% of the industry right? He would complain because he wouldn't be able to buy out his competition.

Furthermore "Bums" as you put. Aren't there of their own accord, or because they're lazy. A majority of the homeless fall under one of these categories.

How do you know?

1. Layed off.

Because they're taxing the industries. Vicious cycle eh?

2. Ex-Prisoner

Do you mean POW or someone who ended up in jail? If it's jail, I wonder what they did....?

3. Veterans.

Or the people who tell your they are veterans... Are there really veterans running around on the street or is that just a canned argument people love to bring up?
4. Drug Abusers.

Yes. Because they're "victims" of cocaine and they should be treated as though it wasn't they're own fault, right?

Bums #'s 2 and 4 show exactly what I'm talking about: the death of personal responsibility. One needs to accept that the largest factor in the outcome of one's life is your own choices. Accidents can happen, sure. In those cases, they should look to charities (charities that you give to on your own volition and that are much more specialized and far more efficient and less bureaucratic). If you give someone the end result without them having to go the journey themselves, they won't learn jack squat.

 

[Aesir]

How do you know?

Studies.

Because they're taxing the industries. Vicious cycle eh?

Read my post again, in fact I'll just repeat myself.

In the 1950's corporations were being taxed around 25%, today they're being taxed around 10%. So your theory doesn't exactly work.

Do you mean POW or someone who ended up in jail? If it's jail, I wonder what they did....?

Could be anything, I'm just listing as being a prisoner. However since they're no longer in prison they've paid their debt to society. However how many people hire ex-prisoners? not many.

Or the people who tell your they are veterans... Are there really veterans running around on the street or is that just a canned argument people love to bring up?

Or if you understood the problems ex veterans have to face, especially Iraq and Vietnam veterans you wouldn't have said such a tasteless remark.

Yes. Because they're "victims" of cocaine and they should be treated as though it wasn't they're own fault, right?

I never said that, those are usually the types that don't try to get out of their situation.

Bums #'s 2 and 4 show exactly what I'm talking about: the death of personal responsibility. One needs to accept that the largest factor in the outcome of one's life is your own choices. Accidents can happen, sure. In those cases, they should look to charities (charities that you give to on your own volition and that are much more specialized and far more efficient and less bureaucratic). If you give someone the end result without them having to go the journey themselves, they won't learn jack squat.

So you mean to tell me that "bum" number 2 (4 you have a point,but I wasn't really defending 4 to begin with.) lacks personal responsibility?

Lets run down a simple non-violent drug offender. He's in prison and serves his MMS(Manuel minimum sentence.) Upon release he basically has nothing. Probably lost his home, his job, and his life most likely. Lets say he doesn't turn into number 4 but rather stays as number 2.

Number 2 wants a job so he can get his life back on track, but number 2 doesn't have stable housing. (such is the case for most number 2s) Without stable housing taking care of yourself is harder. When you don't look presentable your ability to get a job is significantly lowered coupled with the fact that he has a record.

This starts a spiral of not getting a job, and ultimately remaining homeless.

Keep in mind this is after he's paid his debt to society, yeah it's perfectly reasonable to assume these guys have no personal responcibility.


edit: one of the biggest, if not the biggest reason for homelessness is lack of affordable housing. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility or anything like that. It's simply the money they need they're not getting because of poor wages, and costs being two high.