T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
386.1 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:36 | 6 |
| Jesus commanded us to render to Caeser what is Caesers and render to
God what is Gods.
Stop yer infernal whining!
-Jack
|
386.2 | | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:40 | 19 |
|
re -1
Dear Jack -
It ain't whining (are you replying to the wrong
conference, perhaps?) when one works hard for your money, and yet
have no control over how it is spent!
Perhaps you're one who manages to enjoy the remaining loopholes
left because you either make too little (highly unlikely, right) or
you make too much!! This affects you too, don't you agree???
and what does your religious pontification has to do with this topic?
get a life, Jack!
|
386.3 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:41 | 7 |
| re: .1
I could have sworn you were the one whining about paying taxes a
week or two ago...
I'd do much worse with a 17% flat income tax (assuming the kept FICA
separate.) Do the math and check it yourself.
|
386.4 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:42 | 2 |
| I was just trying to tick you off because you were complaining about
too many religious strings. Delayed smiley face! :-) :-)
|
386.5 | wrong one! | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:43 | 8 |
| re -1
sorry, you must have gotten the wrong person -
not me!
are you satisfied with the tax system?
|
386.6 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:45 | 4 |
| .3
I'd do better with a flat 17% rate, even if FICA were separate. I did
the math.
|
386.7 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:46 | 13 |
| Ooops...sorry. I thought you were complaining about the new string on
the two crosses and said, "Can't we talk about taxes or something??"
No, I think the current system penalizes hard work, effort and
prosperity. It is a liberal model which says...shame on you for
excelling and succeeding in life. We must spread misery evenly...how
dare you not pay your fair share and how dare you have a bad attitude
about supporting a central regime.
The current system must be gutted to make Washington DC more
accountable.
-Jack
|
386.8 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:46 | 1 |
| Are you in a high marginal rate or do you have no deductions?
|
386.9 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:46 | 13 |
|
"...too many religious strings..."? It's not that there's too many but
that there's any. Any rational person realizes that explicitly
religious topics in this conference are a tiny, tiny amount of the
total. The real complaint is with religious participants and the
extent to which they mention their religion or support their arguments
with religious belief.
Religious people should go 'round complaining about all the pagan ideas
being promulgated in the 'box. Not really but maybe it would make a
clear point.
jeff
|
386.10 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:47 | 5 |
| >Religious people should go 'round complaining about all the pagan ideas
>being promulgated in the 'box. Not really but maybe it would make a
>clear point.
You say it as if they don't.
|
386.11 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:48 | 8 |
| .8
Assuming that your question is directed at me... I have deductions for
myself, my wife, charity to the tune of 1/10 of everything, a mortgage,
and business expenses.
My wife prepares taxes professionally, and I'm morally certain we take
every deduction we're legally entitled to. We'd do better.
|
386.12 | | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:50 | 22 |
| rply clash -- kaboom -- sorry
mr levesque - nope, that wasn't me complaining abt taxes
in here 2 weeks ago. I am now obviously!!!
Remember 1986 tax reform - guess what - it's not done yet!
For 1994, one cannot deduct club dues (including professional dues),
you better be horribly sick (including dental) before you can
deduct anything, plus the IRS is clamping down on job-hunting
expenses!
It seems that anything a citizen does positively to take care of
oneself (savings, good health, finding better job, etc) can
penalized!
My SO was laid-off with a lump sum severence pay - well, no income
averaging, that money was taxed as though it a lottery winning with
no provision for the leaner years when he's trying to find another
job!
Whew - sorry abt that. The system is simply UNFAIR!
|
386.13 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:55 | 3 |
| >mr levesque - nope, that wasn't me complaining abt taxes
I was referring to Jack Martin.
|
386.14 | No flat tax please ... | BRITE::FYFE | Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:57 | 20 |
|
Flat tax --> No.
Federal sales tax --> No.
Minimun tax --> Yes.
Capital Gains tax --> No.
A flat tax takes the ability for the government to provide incentives
for certain economic behaviours and stifles risk taking.
A federal sales tax hurts the poor more than anyone else.
Capital Gains == double dipping tax and should be corrected.
A minimum tax % for everyone above a certain income will insure that
everyone who can contribute, does contribute.
There, I said it. I feel much better now :-)
Doug.
|
386.15 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member in good standing | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:10 | 12 |
|
Taxes that are extremely unfair:
Property tax
Inheritance tax
Gift tax
to name a few.......
|
386.16 | flat sales tax | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:11 | 12 |
|
A flat sales tax....
I don't want to ever penalize the incentive of making money, either
as an individual or a corporation. I'd rather penalize consumption.
(has interesting side effects - less waste more conservation)
While inuitively it would seem to hurt the poor, I'd like to see the
math. I'd like to see what gets taxed. If food and rent do not
get taxed, I can't see it hurting the poor disproportionately.
|
386.17 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:16 | 10 |
| .15
> Taxes that are extremely unfair:
> Inheritance tax
The Fed doesn't hit you with an inheritance tax unless the amount of
the legacy is in excess of $600,000. If you're that rich you prolly
can afford to pay the tax without bellyaching. The states have some
lower thresholds, but their percentages are lower, and you get cross
coupled writeoffs. It's not nearly as bad as you think.
|
386.18 | Bring the IRA back! | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:19 | 20 |
|
doug - I'm curious about your stmt that "a flat tax takes the
ability for the govt to provide incentives for certain economic
behaviour and stifles risk-taking". Assuming that you meant "takes
way...", would you pls elaborate and perhaps furnish an example?
Flat Rate implies minimum tax, does it not? 17% of $5000 is
proportionally the same as 17% of $500,000.
On principle, I consider savings and investments "goodness" not as
an end but the means for better living, and undisciplined consumption as
a serious problem. So whatever the tax "reform" may become, I would
like to see it encourage the former and discourage the latter; I think
the so-call "consumption tax" is the politician's answer to the latter,
which is I do not agree with.
I concur with you on the capital gains tax.
|
386.19 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:24 | 6 |
|
>The Fed doesn't hit you with an inheritance tax unless the amount of
>the legacy is in excess of $600,000. If you're that rich you prolly
>can afford to pay the tax without bellyaching.
Personally, I don't consider an estate of $600K to be that rich.
|
386.20 | Serious inquiry | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:28 | 8 |
|
I'm curious...
Is this number (17%) mean anything? Did someone just pull it out of a
hat?
How was/is it derived..
|
386.21 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:30 | 2 |
| Well, that's the number of a potential national sales tax (to replace
the income tax altogether.)
|
386.22 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:32 | 5 |
|
Thanks Mark... I wasn't aware of that figure...
Is it (%17) to insure the LEVEL of government now?
|
386.23 | | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:36 | 9 |
| mr levesque -
really? A VAT to replace income tax? So would that mean
the local sales tax (like 8.25% here in Alameda Cty, CA)
would go away, and how about state income taxes? Probably
not. Sigh!
If there's are EEC noters in here, you do pay other SALES TAX
in addition to VAT?
|
386.24 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:41 | 12 |
| .19
> Personally, I don't consider an estate of $600K to be that rich.
Let me put it to you this way: If I inherited $600K today, I could and
would retire immediately. Income from $600K invested in the right
places, plus the bits I could pick up doing occasional stuff I enjoy,
would keep me going in a reasonable style until age 65, at which point
my pension would kick in and up the ante quite comfortably.
If that's not "rich," it looks to me like a very good facsimile of it.
It's a whole helluva lot more than I'm worth at present.
|
386.25 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member in good standing | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:41 | 9 |
|
Well, I don't know Dick, I still think it's unfair. That money has
already been taxed. Just because it changes hands to another family
member/friend shouldn't entitle the government to more of it, they've
already gotten their hands in it once.
Mike
|
386.26 | | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:45 | 5 |
| b-b-b-b-b-b-butt........ you'd junk the IRS with a flat tax.....
***shock,horrors,etc...***
I'm more for a consumption tax. Now, what consumables do you get
taxed on, and at what rate.
|
386.27 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:55 | 6 |
|
I'm with Wannahoney. Why in the world should I have to pay tax on
money that's already been taxed just because my mother dies? And the
rules about how much money one person can give another without paying a
gift tax, well dammit, it's so intrusive. No wonder people stuff their
mattresses with dollars 8^/.
|
386.28 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 14 1995 15:58 | 16 |
|
RE: Note 386.26 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK
Actually not only do you put the IRS out of business, but
you can effectly tax "unreported" incomes. It's estimated
to be 200 Billion dollars. You may not tax the income of a
criminal but if he/she buys anything, he/she pays.
My gut feel is to not tax food/rent/medical services.
Tax everything else EQUALLY.
Tax both personal and corporate purchases at the same rate.
Keep it simple. Whole thing should be written on 1 Page or less.
No deductions, no public policy via tax incentives or write offs.
It may cost a few extra bucks at first as we'll have to pay unemployment
insurance for all those tax lawyers.
|
386.29 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:05 | 9 |
| <<< Note 386.14 by BRITE::FYFE "Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General" >>>
> A federal sales tax hurts the poor more than anyone else.
How so? Every fed sales tax proposal I've seen exempts
food, rent, and certain other essentials from tax.
This would seem to be to be the most fair tax of all for
poor people.
|
386.30 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:06 | 10 |
| <<< Note 386.26 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
> b-b-b-b-b-b-butt........ you'd junk the IRS with a flat tax.....
> ***shock,horrors,etc...***
I don't see this happening. We'll still all have to file
a form, albeit much simplified, and all of our incomes would
still have to be verified, and businesses will still get to
deduct expenses. ANy form of income tax will allow the IRS
to exist very much as it does today.
|
386.31 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:08 | 3 |
| Regardless of what it gets spent on, the poor spend a greater portion
of their income on goods and services. It's the wealthier folks who
have money left over for savings and investments.
|
386.32 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:09 | 4 |
|
<-----
So?
|
386.33 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:12 | 17 |
|
While on the subject, they should pull Social Security off Budget.
It was designed to be a self sustaining fund, not as a mechanism for
reducing the budget deficit. (believe LBJ owns that one, as a way of
paying for Vietnam.)
Read someplace that if all the money being takein in as FICA being
applied to the federal budget were actually put in a real trust fund
collecting real interest, FICA would actually be a lot less (the exact
number escapes me).
I'd rather have higher taxes with lower FICA. Somehow it seems more
intellectually honest.
|
386.34 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:13 | 11 |
| The thing I like about the concept of a consumption tax rather than a
flat tax (assuming it's collected when the money changes hands) is that
it could potentially eliminate all of the federal bureaucracy associated
with collecting and administering an end-user income tax system. No
annual filing, no audits, no forms, no amounts due, no refunds, no
W2's/W4's, no H&R Block (sorry Wafflefartz), etc.
17% would be a tad high for my tastes given the comparison to the status
quo, however, so somebody (presumably the poor) would have to be making
out like bandits.
|
386.35 | | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:16 | 19 |
| re: Note 386.30 by CSC32::J_OPPELT
Bzzttt... wrong-o
I am an individual American. I am free.
A Business is an entity, sanctioned by the government.
Two SEPARATE ISSUES. Don't even confuse businesses paying a
consumption tax, maybe they could pay that as well as what they
currently do. They _can_ be taxed.
Now, the government has no business needing to know how much I make,
or where it comes from. No forms or nothing. Now, I want a new
Corvette, I get to pay $4000 tax when I purchase it. Not many poor
folks are going to be buying corvettes and getting clobbered by
the taxman. I want one, so I buy it and pay the tax. Or I buy
a Cavalier and pay $1500 tax, or I walk. my choice. Oh gawd,
there's that "choice" word again, and the government lost control
of me to boot (no more keeping tabs on my money. Gasp...)
|
386.36 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:17 | 37 |
| <<< Note 386.28 by PATE::CLAPP >>>
> Actually not only do you put the IRS out of business, but
> you can effectly tax "unreported" incomes. It's estimated
> to be 200 Billion dollars. You may not tax the income of a
> criminal but if he/she buys anything, he/she pays.
You're describing a consumption tax, not a flat tax as was
the entry you referenced. A consumption tax WOULD virtually
wipe out the IRS (I can't see it ever going away entirely)
because the tax is collected at the point of sale, and won't
require individual reporting of income, etc.
> My gut feel is to not tax food/rent/medical services.
> Tax everything else EQUALLY.
Perhaps certain transportation should not be taxed. Maybe
the first x-amount of car purchases ($2000). This would
allow a person to get SOME vehicle tax-free, but if you
want something nicer you'll be taxed on the 'luxury' portion.
And don't tax city bus fares. This (or the ability to get
a minimum car) would allow the poor to get to work without
having to pay taxes.
There are probably other things too. Clothing? If so, should
a designer jacket go tax free? We agree on 'food', but all
food? Designer ice cream and lobsters? Junk food?
I think that a person ought to be able to live a simple existence
without having to pay any sales tax. Anything over that will be
subject to tax.
> It may cost a few extra bucks at first as we'll have to pay unemployment
> insurance for all those tax lawyers.
A consumption tax will encourage savings. The tax guys can get
jobs in the investment markets!
|
386.37 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:17 | 16 |
| re: 386.30
>I don't see this happening. We'll still all have to file
>a form, albeit much simplified, and all of our incomes would
>still have to be verified.....
Why so? Who would care how much anyone made. The feds get their
money on the uptake side. The structure tocllect taxes is already
in place, just have the states forward the $$ above and beyond
their cut to the feds. then the feds could send it back to the
states as block grants (sounds kinda silly when you think about it)
|
386.38 | | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:25 | 29 |
| .31> It's the wealthier folks who
.31> have money left over for savings and investments.
And this is a BAD Thing? I thought this was America, where you
bust your hump to improve your life and your childrens life...
> Regardless of what it gets spent on, the poor spend a greater portion
> of their income on goods and services.
see earlier notes, WHAT gets taxed? Not food, not cloths, not
necessities. Luxuries, I can see a tax on. A $1500 suit can have
some tax. A Vette can be taxed. But if your one of those poor
folks, take the bus or walk. Not a problem. Maybe they'll bust their
but so they could eventually buy a corvette and get to pay some
tax too.
On the other hand, this could be seen as penalizing rich people
only. But if someone has to be taxed, it should be people who
have the means to deal with it. I don't see paying tax on an
item that's considered a "luxury" bad. Taxing is a bad thing.
Tax the hell out of imported cars. Ta-da, there goes our trade
imbalance.
Let's see what else we can solve in soapbox today.
Aides? Safe Sex. BANG fixed. Next issue...
Welfare...
|
386.39 | flat conumption tax | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:27 | 20 |
| re: 386:36
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I'm cautious about
not taxing things equally..
For example - who defines "junk food" (Oscar Myer?) ?
How defines luxury clothes ?
I'm concerned that someone is going to try and create policy
by creating a variable tax structure.
I prefer a simple flat consumption tax.
If they want to create policy, at least be honest. give
cash, so it appears as a line item in the budget, to be held up
in the light and seen by all for what it is.
|
386.40 | Who collects from the collectors? | DECWIN::RALTO | Made with 65% post consumer waste | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:28 | 8 |
| Wouldn't some fed bureaucracy have to exist to collect all of
this consumption tax from the gazillions of businesses that
have collected it from the consumers, though? It seems that
no matter how you do it, they'll find a way to create their
little kingdoms. Granted you can reduce it, though, and the
consumption tax would seem to be the best of the alternatives.
Chris
|
386.41 | I'm on a roll... | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:29 | 11 |
| > While on the subject, they should pull Social Security off Budget.
Junk social security. Pay folks back what they paid into it and
shut it down.
Create an optional savings plan, competitive with a bank, which
competes for our money. Call it "The USA DOUBLE EAGLE WIZ-BANG FUND"
10% interest, Please read prospectus carefully before investing in
any risk taking venture.
BANG. Fixed. next?
|
386.42 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:31 | 13 |
| re .37
I was responding to the term flat tax. Flat tax means that
we pay a flat INCOME tax without the complications of deductions.
This will still require a tax return to declare what we made,
how much we owe. It will require an IRS to process all our
tax payments/refunds.
If you are talking about the fed getting the money on the uptake
side, then you want to be supporting a CONSUMPTION tax, or a
SALES tax, or a POINT OF SALE tax. If that's what you are
referring to, then I agree with you, and I also agree that it
would virtually eliminate the IRS.
|
386.43 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:38 | 13 |
| re: 386.41
what would all the folks working in the SSA and IRS do?
(something productive maybe?)
re: 386.40
actually, the states could collect the feds money when they collect
the state sales tax (lucky New Hampshire). Simply have the states mail
a check to the feds (can a state say a check is in the mail? :<{)..)
|
386.44 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 14 1995 16:39 | 26 |
| <<< Note 386.40 by DECWIN::RALTO "Made with 65% post consumer waste" >>>
> Wouldn't some fed bureaucracy have to exist to collect all of
> this consumption tax from the gazillions of businesses that
> have collected it from the consumers, though?
This is why I say that the IRS will never be eliminated.
But the IRS as it stands today is so big because it has to
process all those tax forms, process tax checks/refunds
associated with those forms, and prosecute those who do
not use the forms right, or who do not use them at all.
The IRS is already processing stuff from your local Quik-Stop
as it is, so to have to process a different form from them is
about the same effort. But in processing that new form from
them, it will mean that the IRS won't be processing all those
forms from all the consumers that shop at the Quik-Stop. In
essence it eliminates the entire strata of forms from the
individual.
Finally, most states (New Hampshire is not among them) already
has the structure in place to handle state sales tax processing.
The Fed can tap into that pretty easily. Perhaps pay the state
to process the Fed's portion of the sales taxes collected, and
reduce accordingly the IRS even further.
|
386.45 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Apr 14 1995 17:13 | 20 |
| Re: .32
So a consumption tax is regressive; the poor pay a higher percentage of
their income in taxes.
Re: .38
>And this is a BAD Thing?
What? Savings and investment? Of course not. Is it a bad thing that
the poor don't have a lot of money for those things? Of course. It
means they don't have money for things like job training and good
clothes for interviews and copies of resumes.
>WHAT gets taxed?
Let's see -- I've bought dishes, cleaning supplies, lightbulbs, TV
Guides, pots and pans, furniture, lamps, curtains, .... They aren't
exactly necessities, but they're not exactly luxuries either.
|
386.46 | It could be unique if everyone did it :-) | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Fri Apr 14 1995 17:32 | 5 |
| I've contemplated saving up all my old tea leaves and mailing them
in with my return (a Reese mini Boston Tea Party); but then I've
have to stop filing electronically.
|
386.47 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Fri Apr 14 1995 17:59 | 8 |
| Any sort of simplified tax system will NEVER happen. Part of the
governments method of contol is to force us to waste more and more time
succumbing to complicated laws and tax systems. Efficiency is the
opposite of government regulation. Without the cumbersome, time
consumming, government control by force and regulation, government would
be unnecessary.
...Tom
|
386.48 | | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 14 1995 18:09 | 22 |
|
Reese, I second that! It's time for another tax revolt. Boston sounds
splendid!
Chelsea, I don't think this is a poor vs rich class
issue (what's poor and rich by your definition). Let's look at
our own Digital community - my guess is most of us are in that
"middle-class" sandwich, probably with income between 40K-80K
(heck I don't know!). How much taxes are we REALLY paying in total??
From my CA paystub:
--- Federal, State, Local
--- FICA, Medicare, Disability
and of course current consumption tax ie sales tax of 8.25% on
everything (including newspaper!), more of course on gasoline.
My TOTAL tax (I tallied it once), and I am not kidding, is about 50-55%!!!
What do I get for it? I am NOT entitled to the services I've
paid taxes for. I don't count on SS being there when I retire, and I'm
doubly taxed when I save for my retirement (except for the 401K).
|
386.49 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Apr 14 1995 18:45 | 8 |
| Re: .48
>what's poor and rich by your definition
I don't have definitions. (But then, I didn't use "rich," so there's
no reason why I should supply one for that.) So long as the rich have
more income than the poor, the poor will always pay a higher percentage
of their income in tax if you have a tax on consumption.
|
386.50 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 14 1995 18:58 | 16 |
| <<< Note 386.49 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
> So long as the rich have
> more income than the poor, the poor will always pay a higher percentage
> of their income in tax if you have a tax on consumption.
How can you back this up? If a consumption tax were set up as
most proposals propose, most things that a poor person would
buy would not be taxed. And if they can afford to buy those
things that are taxed, they ought to be able to afford to pay
the tax. And for the taxable items they do buy, they'll have
additional cash in their pockets becasue their take-home pay
will increase by the amount that is currently being witheld from
them for federal tax.
|
386.51 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 14 1995 19:36 | 12 |
|
We're not the only ones talking about this. Just caught a few minutes
of McNeil/Lehere and they were talking about this topic.
The proponent of the flat tax stated 5 BILLION hours went into
computing/avoiding/filing taxes as they are right now. Since the
opponents did not challenge this, I'll have to take it as a
"reasonable" estimate.
Seems like all these bright folks could do something more useful with
5 BILLION hrs, like work on aids reasearch, a cure for cancer etc etc.
|
386.52 | 5B hr, probably more! | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 14 1995 19:46 | 14 |
|
Frankly the system is so totally cumbersome and complex that
I think that figure (5B hr) is probably on the low side.
Really, don't you agree that unless you're using the 1040EZ,
you're probably spending 1 day (at least) gathering, entering,
let alone analysing if what you did was right? It's a monster
to begin with, and now it is totally out of control. The issue
is the mechanics of doing it (that's painful too) but to get
it right (the interpretation etc), especially if there is other
issues, like having a start-up business.
We Americans have better, more productive things to do, I'm sure!
|
386.53 | Lost time is lost life | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Fri Apr 14 1995 23:43 | 8 |
| >Seems like all these bright folks could do something more useful with
>5 BILLION hrs, like work on aids reasearch, a cure for cancer etc,etc.
Yes, this is what I was talking about. The wasted time, that could be
used for the betterment of human life is wasted by the laws and
regulations set forth by the government. :-(
...Tom
|
386.54 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Special Fan Club Baloney | Sat Apr 15 1995 10:45 | 1 |
| So far, Canada has no inheritance tax.
|
386.55 | Risk taking drives the economy ... | BRITE::FYFE | Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General | Sat Apr 15 1995 11:45 | 63 |
|
I wonder if we're missing the point. The reason folks are propsoing tax
plan alternatives is because of the complexity of the current system
and it's perceived unfairness.
Currently, taxes are high, the debt is high, the deficit is high, and
any flat tax rate will have to bring in the same coin as the current
system. The difference is that some folks who curerntly pay less will
pay more and some people who pay more will pay less.
Will a flat tax have a minimum income requirement? Should it? Will
there e any provisions for providing incentive for desirable behaviour
such as savings (IRA's) or home purchasing (interest deductions)?
How would passive profit/loss be handled?
See, none of the technical problems go away with a flat tax and all of
the current problems could be fixed in the current system if the folks
downtown would just do it without worrying about the next election.
Worried about the folks that pay little/no taxes? Employ a minumum tax
rate (10% ?) but don't stiffle risk taking.
>doug - I'm curious about your stmt that "a flat tax takes the
>ability for the govt to provide incentives for certain economic
>behaviour and stifles risk-taking". Assuming that you meant "takes
>way...", would you pls elaborate and perhaps furnish an example?
A flat tax rate implies paying a tax without deductions. Currently,
investments require risk taking (money). Today's system rewards
risk taking, whether you succeed or fail. A flat tax say 'pay up even
if your investments failed' and by the way, we'll tax the guy that
took the money that you lost and just payed taxes on ...
If you have to plan to pay a flat tax, it takes money that otherwise
would have been available for investment.
In the seventies, the government provided tax incentives for investing
in energy saving technologies in an effort to reduce this contries
dependency on foreign energy sources (mostly oil).
I have yet to hear a credible reason why a flat tax would be better
than what we have today. They use feel good words like fair and equal
but so far, there has been no depth to the discussions.
Doug.
Flat Rate implies minimum tax, does it not? 17% of $5000 is
proportionally the same as 17% of $500,000.
On principle, I consider savings and investments "goodness" not as
an end but the means for better living, and undisciplined consumption as
a serious problem. So whatever the tax "reform" may become, I would
like to see it encourage the former and discourage the latter; I think
the so-call "consumption tax" is the politician's answer to the latter,
which is I do not agree with.
I concur with you on the capital gains tax.
|
386.56 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Sat Apr 15 1995 13:25 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 386.54 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Special Fan Club Baloney" >>>
| So far, Canada has no inheritance tax.
Is that because no one in Canada has anything of value to give away??? :-)
|
386.57 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Special Fan Club Baloney | Sat Apr 15 1995 16:24 | 2 |
| I suppose you're right. All we have here is rocks, animal skins and
little pots of seal blubber.
|
386.58 | | CSEXP2::ANDREWS | I'm the NRA | Sat Apr 15 1995 19:26 | 1 |
| Don't you all have some strange sort of bacon also?
|
386.59 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Special Fan Club Baloney | Sun Apr 16 1995 03:45 | 2 |
| You mean back bacon? I believe it is touted as Canadian bacon in the
U.S. It's good isn't it?
|
386.60 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Mon Apr 17 1995 06:41 | 17 |
| .23
no, only VAT, at least in the UK.
tax regime here is :
you get various allowances depending on your circumstances - married,
single etc
above that, there is a system of bands, 20%, 25%, 40% as your income
rises
then there is 17 1/2 % VAT on most goods - recently they put VAT on
electricity to most people's utter disgust as, generally, VAT is not
levied on so-called essentials
ric
|
386.61 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Mon Apr 17 1995 06:45 | 10 |
| i like the idea of a consumption-only tax, with "essentials" being
zero-rated, and other items being zapped in line with their level of
"non-essentiality" - so a Ferrari, alcohol, cigarettes, antiques and
the like would get absolutely hammered while food, electricity,
clothing and so forth would be zero rated
thus, if i want to buy a luxury item, i pay for that luxury through the
nose - the choice is mine
ric
|
386.62 | | CSOA1::LEECH | yawn | Mon Apr 17 1995 10:03 | 37 |
| A consumption-only tax would be my pick, as well. Let the states
collect the monies and then forward a % to the fed. What I would add
to this, is that states send only what is needed to keep the fed going,
with the people voting on sending more money for specific programs (I
realize this could be a mess, but it sounds good on the surface 8^) ).
I find that sending a large % of the money to the feds, only to be sent
back as a block grant for this or that FEDERALLY approved program to
be, in essense, extremely wasteful as well as usurping states rights
('you do what we want and we'll send some of your money back to
you'-type blackmail).
The only way to reign in federal spending is to control the funds being
sent to it. As long as we allow the feds to control the purse strings
in this nation, we will never amount to anything more than tax slaves,
with little real pull in the workings of our overlords (a bit
melodramatic, maybe, but not too far off the truth, IMO).
Since the federal government is all about power in this day and age,
you can expect that huge federal beauracracies to remain the mainstay, as
removing them would lessen governmental power over the individual.
You can expect that no matter what hype is pushed by either party in
our one-party system, that nothing will be done to lessen their
control or power. We can only keep voting our representatives out of
office, but it matters little in reality; because each Congress will
chip away at our freedoms a little at a time.
Time will tell if this Congress is truly different in this respect, but
to be honest, I am pessimistic. Each party has their own special angle
at tightening the noose. They volley back and forth, the emotions and
sensibilities of the American people, all the while slipping more and
more unconstitutional law within their 2000-page bills they pass each
and every year.
-steve (pessimistic on a Monday)
|
386.63 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 17 1995 10:31 | 11 |
| I agree with Steve. I'd like to think that last November was the first of
many signs that the people of this country are getting fed up with an
overgrown central government and that we've got the nads to continue to
elect legislators who will work to contract rather than expand federal
powers, including the ability of the Feds to oppressively tax us in
order to support the ridiculous level of Fed programs we've come to
expect over the past 30+ years. But, also like Steve, I'm not too
optimistic that this will come to be. There are still far too many
voters in the country who either don't care, or who actually desire
to have Washington pick their pockets to keep the beast alive.
|
386.64 | Just do it! | BIGBAD::PINETTE | | Mon Apr 17 1995 13:09 | 2 |
| Vote Liberterian.
|
386.65 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 17 1995 14:23 | 7 |
| If and when they ever put up an electable candidate I might just do that.
In the meantime, while they continue to put forth the likes of Andr�
"The check's in the Mail" Marrou, I'll have to respectfully decline.
We don't need another taste of 1992, whereby we have votes on unelectable
third party candidates rather than the GOP nominee, to thank for the likes of
what's occupying the Whitehouse now.
|
386.66 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Apr 17 1995 14:25 | 9 |
| Once again, what are essentials and what are luxuries? Are clothes
essential or luxury? Are some brands of shoes taxable (do name-brand
athletic shoes count as luxuries?) and others not? What about jeans?
Is furniture essential? Is there a limit to how much you can pay for a
table before it gets taxed? What about cleaning supplies or over-the-
counter medicine? Neither is a basic requirement of life.
Before you jump on a bandwagon, take time to consider how it might
break down. If it looks secure, _then_ jump.
|
386.67 | How much did you make? Send it in ... | BRITE::FYFE | Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General | Mon Apr 17 1995 14:36 | 7 |
|
I heard on the radio a political announcement for Spector playing up his flat
tax proposal and 'being able to mail in your tax return on a postcard'.
Ya right ....
Doug.
|
386.68 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 17 1995 14:39 | 9 |
| I wouldn't have a problem with a graduated consumption tax - higher on
luxuries, lower on necessities, but something on everything. Theoretically
that should work out the way income tax does, more or less.
As long as it's a percentage, it shouldn't matter. If the tax on shoes
is decided to be 10% because they're a necessity, then 10% on K-mart's
store brand will be less that 10% on Reebok's top-of-the-line. If you
really "need" Reeboks, you shouldn't mind the higher tax that goes along
with the higher price.
|
386.69 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Apr 17 1995 14:44 | 5 |
| So, who decides what constitutes a luxury or an essential? Do brands
get reviewed periodically? What kind of changes in content or design
warrant reclassification? And how can you avoid the influence of
lobbyists in the whole process? ("Corn Flakes has added sugar; it must
be a luxury cereal.")
|
386.70 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 17 1995 14:46 | 4 |
| Search me. Not my day to solve that problem, Chels.
:^)
|
386.71 | | CSEXP2::ANDREWS | I'm the NRA | Mon Apr 17 1995 14:51 | 13 |
| The problem then is who defines what is a luxury item, and what is not.
K-Mart vs. Reebok.
Escort vs. Grand Prix vs. BMW M series vs. whatever.
Toughskins vs. Levi's.
Hershey's vs. Godiva. (OK, so this an extreme case. 8-) )
SOMEONE is going to have to decide what the premium on each of these
items is. And we complain about government size and regulation now?
Just you wait...
Some government agency is going to have to decide what brands and
model numbers/names are luxury and which ones aren't.
|
386.72 | we'll solve this better than Congress ever could 8^) | CSOA1::LEECH | yawn | Mon Apr 17 1995 15:01 | 34 |
| How about this for a quickie post that is not well thought out (I
thought I'd put this disclaimer beforehand 8^) ):
Don't tax food at all, unless you are eating in. Therefore resteraunts
would be taxed (unless it is a take out order), while groceries (food
items) are not taxed.
Don't tax clothes. Everyone needs clothes. Even suits are a necessity
to some jobs (thankfully, not mine 8^) ), therefore they still fall
into the necessity category. It gets too complicated trying to figure
out a graduated scale for this (which is something we are trying to
avoid).
Don't tax interest made on SAVINGS accounts. This promotes savings,
which is inevitably good for the economy.
Taxable items should include things like tabacco, alcohol, and yes,
gasoline. Same with electronics (and this intrudes upon my hobby), toys,
books and non-consumables (which would include some necessities, but a
10% tax on TP will not break anyone- even those who make little money).
Cars fall into the tax category, as well.
No capital gains tax. No inheritance tax (this is dishonest, to say
the least, and is just another way for the fed to squeeze more money
out of the taxpayers).
No LAND taxes. This is unconstitutional. You can never truly own your
little niche in the world as long as you are forced to pay taxes on it
(and if you fail to do so ONE time, _your_ property is confiscated).
I'll think of more as time permits.
-steve
|
386.73 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Mon Apr 17 1995 15:06 | 15 |
| re .72:
Better yet, why have any taxes at all?
That's the ticket, and it would appeal to the heart of so many
Republicans: Read My Lips: No Taxes.
The only economic purpose of federal taxes is to limit inflation.
So, to hell with taxes, and let individuals deal with any inflation
in their own way.
--Mr Topaz
p.s.: It doesn't seem to matter whether your posts are written
quickly or with care; both have equal value.
|
386.74 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 17 1995 15:12 | 6 |
| re: <<< Note 386.71 by CSEXP2::ANDREWS "I'm the NRA" >>>
No - the point should be that the _item_ is either a luxury or a necessity,
not the _brand_ of item. Higher priced brands of the same item would carry
a higher tax, even though taxed at the same rate (%).
|
386.75 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 17 1995 15:15 | 9 |
| re: .72
> Don't tax interest made on SAVINGS accounts. This promotes savings,
> which is inevitably good for the economy.
Bzzzzt. I thought we were talking consumption tax on all these categories.
Savings, like capital gains etc. are inapplicable for taxation purposes
on a consumption tax basis, no?
|
386.76 | OK by me... | CSEXP2::ANDREWS | I'm the NRA | Mon Apr 17 1995 15:48 | 4 |
| Re: .74
I don't have a problem with that at all. I must have misread your note
as saying the higher price brands get taxed at a higher rate...
|
386.77 | | CSOA1::LEECH | yawn | Mon Apr 17 1995 15:51 | 4 |
| re: .75
Oops, you are correct. Told ya I didn't think much before posting.
8^)
|
386.78 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Mon Apr 17 1995 17:22 | 6 |
|
Used to be, sales tax in New Jersey was only on non-essentials.
Therefore while shampoo wasn't taxed, conditioner was, bla bla bla.
Don't know if it's still that way. And no, I don't know who decided
what was an essential.
|
386.79 | | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Mon Apr 17 1995 17:56 | 25 |
|
Okay ... interesting discourse so far, but my queries in .0
remained unanswered:
--- Where do I go, what do I do, to really be an (dare I say it?!)
activist in this movement? Just imagine even in our little
Digital community this is a hotly debated topic. Unfortunately
I don't think these discussion really helps formulate or
influence the tax reform/revolt. Apart from us chickens, who's
really listening to what is said here?
--- I sincerely want to learn the facts of the various proposals
so that I don't fell prey to "sound-bites" and emotionalism.
Where do I get the information?
Query: Would a FED sales tax replace the local state/cty sales tax,
which are enforced arbitrarily, it seems.
Would having a flat FED tax rate give state govt a bigger
excuse to raise and create other local taxes to make
up for the deficit resulting from reduced state collection
(esp for states whose tax system piggyback that of the Fed)?
|
386.80 | | EVMS::MORONEY | Verbing weirds languages | Mon Apr 17 1995 18:06 | 7 |
| re .71:
Massachusetts considers clothing priced under a certain amount ($150 I think)
as essentials and exempt from sales tax. Items priced higher are taxed
(presumably considered "luxuries")
The problem with this is "bracket creep" over time due to inflation.
|
386.81 | Consumption Tax only. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Mon Apr 17 1995 19:07 | 12 |
| A consumption tax is by far and away the best route. the limits on
what is not taxed should be an absolute and clearly defined set of
products. These would be the basic staples of life. the items that I
would include would be basic supermarket food staples; unprocessed
meats, grains, fruits and vegetables. All other items are taxed at the
same rate and more expensive items pay more tax at the same rate.
Housing and related expenses, i.e., heat, electricity should be
excluded. All medical expenses and medicines, including over the
counter items.
Everything else is taxed at exactly the same rate, no exceptions.
|
386.82 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Special Fan Club Baloney | Mon Apr 17 1995 23:42 | 4 |
| The problem with this is the burden of tax collection now falls onto
the backs of the retailers. This is not a reliable source as the GST in
Canada is now showing.
Glenn
|
386.83 | Less of a problem than the current one | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 17 1995 23:58 | 7 |
| Theoretically, assuming honesty in retailers, it shouldn't be a problem,
as they currently need to report and be taxed upon income, which is in
some way proportional to sales. Even if we assume they cheat, there are
less of them than there are consumers, so, again theoretically, it should
be easier to keep them in line by virtue of their numbers.
|
386.84 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Special Fan Club Baloney | Tue Apr 18 1995 00:01 | 3 |
| There ought to be something in it for the retailers if you ask me.
Not everyone is Wal-Mart
|
386.85 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Tue Apr 18 1995 07:32 | 15 |
| .74 and .81 have it
it is the type of item not the brand that determines the category.
thereafter, the different prices of the brands within the type
automatically varies the amount of tax eg cars get hit at say 40% so a
20k car attracts 5k tax, a 100k car attracts 40k tax.
however, i would disagree with .81 that all other non-essentials get
taxed at the same rate - i would suggest several categories.
if the thought of the nightmares involved in this is too much, do you
think the bureaucracy generated would exceed that currently in place -
on both sides of the pond?
ric
|
386.86 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Apr 18 1995 09:57 | 7 |
| >Massachusetts considers clothing priced under a certain amount ($150 I think)
>as essentials and exempt from sales tax. Items priced higher are taxed
>(presumably considered "luxuries")
I think it's $175. Someone who used to work at a men's clothing store told
me that they would ring up a suit as a separate jacket and trousers to get
around this.
|
386.87 | Keep it simple. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Apr 18 1995 10:24 | 7 |
| The last entry shows exactly the problem when you get the wrong
thinking involved in the tax system. If you have separate categories
for different items, etc then you invite abuse.
If you set one tax rate for all items then the administration is simple
and the compliance is easy.
|
386.88 | Consumption Tax Supporter | STRATA::BARBIERI | | Tue Apr 18 1995 14:31 | 9 |
| Count me as another for a consumption tax. Imagine all the
revenue coming from people who's income is illegal? For
example, criminal types still would buy, wouldn't they?
It sounds real good to me. No tax forms. Ther govt. need not
know what anyone makes (less intrusion hypothetically), savings
are induced.
It just sounds real good to me.
|
386.89 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Apr 18 1995 14:49 | 16 |
| <<< Note 386.79 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR >>>
> Query: Would a FED sales tax replace the local state/cty sales tax,
> which are enforced arbitrarily, it seems.
I doubt that the Fed sales tax would replace state/city/county
sales tax.
> Would having a flat FED tax rate give state govt a bigger
> excuse to raise and create other local taxes to make
> up for the deficit resulting from reduced state collection
> (esp for states whose tax system piggyback that of the Fed)?
The sales tax is not the same as the FLAT TAX that you are hearing
about in the news this week. The flat tax is on income. The sales
tax is on sales (outgo). I prefer the latter.
|
386.90 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Tue Apr 18 1995 14:57 | 12 |
|
How would this sales tax effect business? Would it be a flat
percentage of sales price? If so, you will clobber the economy
dead in no time.
Big ticket, capital equipment items (like the ones that keep
us here) are write-offs today, and thus there's an incentive
to buy. If you start putting a sales tax on such items, it
throws the whole balance off, and creates an incentive not to
buy.
-b
|
386.91 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Apr 18 1995 15:00 | 21 |
| regarding the solution of micro-managing what-gets-taxed here in
this discussion:
Why bother getting ulcers over it here? If a consumption tax
gets enacted, you can be sure that it will be worked out. It's
obvious for most items. TVs are non-essential. Bread is
essential. Clouding the issue by splitting hairs over a
processed pizza vs the individual ingredients to make a pizza
is counterproductive. Most states have already done a pretty
fair job of determining those things for themselves, and most
states seem to aggree on most items. It seems that for most
items it should be fairly easy to set some sort of standards.
True, there will be some mistakes. So if you don't want to pay
tax for those items, you are free to choose not to buy them.
That's the beauty of a consumption tax. You get to control
to a large degree how much tax you pay. And for those items
that you find are essential for you, but are not classified
as such by the tax man, your increased take-home pay (due to
the absence of federal witholdings) will be able to handle
the tax on those items.
|
386.92 | | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Tue Apr 18 1995 15:01 | 17 |
| ref j. oppelt
Yes, I am clear on the fact that we are actually talking about 2
very different and mutually exclusive taxes: flat rate on INCOME
and consumption tax on items BOUGHT.
What I was asking was this:
If the FED levy a flat INCOME tax, states that bind their state taxes
to the FED rates will probably see a decline in their tax collection.
If we assume in fact that is the case, wouldn't the states be
tempted and motivated to be more creative in generating taxes to
make up that difference?? Possibilities: jack up property taxes,
county/local sales taxes, more speed traps for the Local PD, etc.
In a way I am anticipating this unfortunate tax backlash as an unintended
consequence of having a flat rate INCOME tax.
|
386.93 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Apr 18 1995 15:07 | 16 |
| re .90
There are currently provisions in most states that have sales
taxes to exempt from tax certain purchases made by businesses.
(For instance purchases made for resale.) Why not extend that
to the federal level too?
But to further address your question, it has always been bad
business policy to conduct business solely on the tax implications.
To fail to make a capital acquisition simply becasue there is
no longer a tax benefit to it will mean that the business will
lose out on the increased profit (which will now be tax-free) that
the purchase of that equipment would have generated. If the
purchase of that equipment would not have added to the bottom
line (except for tax implications under the current system) then
it really wouldn't be a very good purchase to begin with.
|
386.94 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Apr 18 1995 15:11 | 10 |
| re .92
Oh. I see what you are saying now.
Colorado is like that. "Take the number from line-whatever on your
federal return, and pay us 5% of that" (pretty close, anyway...)
Yup, they'll have to rework things. Perhaps they'll scrap income
tax too, and just adjust their sales tax policies to make up the
difference.
|
386.95 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Apr 18 1995 15:17 | 14 |
| Regarding the FLAT TAX proposals that have made the news so far,
I really can't see why opponents can say that they are soaking
the poor. Armey's proposal is a flat 17% of everything over a
certain amount. For a family of 4, it was $36,500! That's a
pretty hefty chunk of income for a 'poor' person! Another
proposal used an exemption of $25,500, with deductions for
mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Tax anything
over the limit at 20%.
I like the first proposal better, personally, and I think it has
the better support in congress. I fail to see how this will hurt
the poor.
I still prefer a sales tax, though.
|
386.96 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Apr 18 1995 15:51 | 6 |
| Re: .95
>Armey's proposal is a flat 17% of everything over a certain amount
From what I recall, that's insufficient to sustain the budget by an
order of billions.
|
386.97 | | CSOA1::LEECH | yawn | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:09 | 11 |
| re: .96
From what I've read and heard on this subject, 17% was the minimum
needed to sustain the budget as is.
Make a few cuts and guess what? Surplus to pay on the national debt.
[Like this will ever happen. Washington seems more interested in making
sure our currencly will collapse, than in paying off our debt.]
-steve
|
386.98 | That's the beauty of it. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:10 | 10 |
| Re: 96
That's precisely the beauty of Armey's proposal. Part of implementing
a flat tax, which I prefer less than a consumption tax, is that part of
the bargain is that you reduce spending.
This proposal is not a revenue neutral proposition. It intends that
the current level of Federal spending is reduced to keep in line with
the anticipated revenues.
|
386.99 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:27 | 8 |
| Re: .98
>part of the bargain is that you reduce spending
What, again? It's been hard enough getting people to agree to cut
stuff this time around. The more rounds you go, the meaner the
lobbyists get. I doubt you'll ever get Congress to stand up to the
lobby for retired folks, for one.
|
386.100 | | WDFFS2::SHOOK | the river is mine | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:29 | 8 |
|
armey's flat tax falls about 200 billion short of current spending,
but he doesn't care. he wants the federal government to be starved
for funds so washington will be pre-occupied with shrinking the
government rather than expanding it. good idea, since doing it the
old way has us heading for bankruptcy.
bill
|
386.101 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:41 | 5 |
| Cutting taxes didn't force cuts in expenditures during the 1980s, did
it?
-Stephen
|
386.102 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:42 | 3 |
| We didn't have a Republican congress in the 80s...
-b
|
386.103 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:42 | 3 |
| Taxes weren't cut; tax _rates_ were. Revenues _increased_ in the 80s.
The government just happened to spend more money than the increased
revenues.
|
386.104 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:43 | 4 |
| So actually cutting taxes, with a GOP Congress in place, will force
expenditure cuts?
-Stephen
|
386.105 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Tue Apr 18 1995 16:50 | 4 |
| If it isn't obvious, I'm skeptical... Cut spending by cutting spending,
if that's your goal.
-Stephen
|
386.106 | We too have to discipline our spending! | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Tue Apr 18 1995 17:00 | 26 |
|
Let's say we pay 17% flat rate, no deductions allowed, but no
capital gain tax as well. Would you be more inclined as a result
to save and invest the extra take-home, or would you spend it.
I consider this flat rate change as a change-agent to modify
the behaviour of the govt (starve it approach) and the citizens
(more take-home & with no tax on capital gain would spur
more savings & investment), but I don't think generally that
Americans who have been trained to spend (shop till your drop,
or hit the credit limit, whichever comes first!) can change
'quickly' to a save-and-invest society.
This ought to be a concern for the lawmakers; if we are not capable
or afford to invest, especially within our own boundaries, then
we'll continue to decay economically.
|
386.107 | It was a tax hike for many ... | BRITE::FYFE | Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General | Tue Apr 18 1995 18:40 | 15 |
| > Taxes weren't cut; tax _rates_ were. Revenues _increased_ in the 80s.
> The government just happened to spend more money than the increased
> revenues.
Many tax loopholes were closed as well resulting in fewer deductions with the
net result of many folks having higher tax bills at the lower tax rates.
It is clear that an expanding economy contributed to the coffers, but that
wasn't the only reason revenues increased.
One more thing: While reducing the rates and deductions was supposed to simplify
the tax code, it actually made it more complicated.
Doug.
|
386.108 | a word from the haagster | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Apr 19 1995 12:25 | 73 |
| -- [ From: Gene Haag * EMC.Ver #2.2 ] --
lady di,
well i read the notes on the flat tax. early on jack martin hit on one of the
two MAJOR reasons we should be supporting such a tax. why am i not surprised
that no one seems to have picked up on those reasons? anyway, as jack stated:
>Note 386.7 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
>
>The current system must be gutted to make Washington DC more accountable.
the primary reason to support such a taxing mechanism is to hold those
congresscritters feet to the fire on how and how much of our money they spend.
secondarily, and equally important, is to make our average citizens understand
just how much they pay into the government. both of these issues are vehemently
opposed by most congresspeoples.
consider dick armey's position. a flat tax. no deductions or exemptions. you
pay "x" percent EACH month. just like a house or car payment. this would make
it obvious to the taxpayer just how much he/she pays for government. it would
cause the average citizen to regularly ask the question: "am i getting my
monies worth"? a very rational and legitimate question we all ask about our
other expenditures. why not our governmental outlays?
today's tax laws and codes are so complicated that the average taxpayer hasn't
a clue how it works. i believe this is by design for a couple of reasons. first,
knowledge is power. if the average taxpayer doesn't understand something, then
he/she isn't likely to seriously question the process. we've been conditioned
and threatened (by the waffen IRS) to simply pay what we are told to pay, and
when. doesn't sound like government serving the people in my book. second,
there are vast segments, powerful segments, of our society that live off the
complexity of the tax system. they make their living at it. they've grown
wealthy off of it. they have a very serious vested interest that the taxing
system gets MORE complicated, not less. i call those people leeches. they
provide nothing to the GNP. they simply siphon off a bit from personal and
corporate profits.
the government accountability factor i like the best. if the average taxpayer
writes the government a monthly check, he/she will become immediately aware of
changes (increases) in the tax rates. this also scares the politico's. today
the tax rates are manipulated by vast groups for all kinds of BS reasons. and
joe taxpayer has no clue that next april he'll have to cough up .6% more than
last year. the government, using the strong arm of the IRS, takes a little more
by quietly screwing the average guy out of a little more each year. and like
lemmings to the sea, we pay and pay.
which leads me to a conclusion about the soapbox ramblings on this topic. what
selfishness!! just about all the replies dwelled on "me, myself, and i". sure
its important that each of us determine our contribution. but isn't it better
that we all are treated equally? i would be willing to pay a little more/less
knowing that all were contributing our fair share - rich, poor, everyone!
which leads me to one final observation. the current liberal governing elite
will fight this proposal on the grounds that the rich benefit and the poor
suffer more. what hypocritical nonsense. typical of the liberal agenda. but
nonsense nevertheless. the truly wealthy pay little or no income taxes today.
either do the very poor. its all of us in the middle that get stuck paying year
in and year out. all these flat tax proposals are trying to do, albeit in round
about ways, is to spread the pain around equally. (i assume everyone agrees
paying taxes isn't joyful - contrary to babs striesands statements). from that
standpoint you would think the liberals would support a flat tax system since
they are big on spreading pain around anyway. i think the problem they have
with this proposal is the word "equally".
few things will get people riled up faster than the subject of taxation. hell,
we had a revolutionary war fought primarily over "unjust taxation". we won that
taxation battle, but lost the taxation war. its time we took government back
from the elitist towers they built for themselves. few things will get their
attention faster than the people once again controlling the purse strings.
this is a fight worth fighting. it's simply time.
|
386.109 | even if he agrees with meaty | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 19 1995 12:29 | 1 |
| <--- ya gotta like that man....
|
386.110 | | TROOA::COLLINS | From Sheilus to the Reefs of Kismar... | Wed Apr 19 1995 12:30 | 6 |
|
Uh oh! Everybody be careful what you say...Lady Di is forwarding all
our notes to Haag...and who KNOWS who else!
:^)
|
386.111 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Apr 19 1995 12:37 | 4 |
|
.110 occasionally when i talk with Gene, a topic will be mentioned
that he'd like to see the notes on. oh, and the swiss geezer
too. but that's it. not to worry. ;>
|
386.112 | | TROOA::COLLINS | From Sheilus to the Reefs of Kismar | Wed Apr 19 1995 12:38 | 5 |
|
Okay...as long as the CIA isn't involved!
:^)
|
386.113 | I think :-) | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Wed Apr 19 1995 15:41 | 2 |
| It's good to know Gene hasn't changed,
|
386.114 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Apr 19 1995 15:54 | 10 |
|
>> Okay...as long as the CIA isn't involved!
>> :^)
It was pointed out to me that it's not a good idea, period.
Which is, of course, true. Sorry I didn't think about it more
carefully and if it bothered anyone.
I won't send any other notes to Gene or the Swiss geezer.
|
386.115 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 19 1995 16:33 | 2 |
| I don't know if it's so bad, Di. Just don't tell us about it
next time and you won't have to answer for it! :^)
|
386.116 | | TROOA::COLLINS | From Sheilus to the Reefs of Kismar | Wed Apr 19 1995 17:22 | 5 |
|
Oooops...now I started something. Sorry.
:^(
|
386.117 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Apr 19 1995 17:28 | 6 |
|
>> Oooops...now I started something. Sorry.
no, no, you and another kind soul are possibly
saving me some grief. thanks.
|
386.118 | Still need a better reason to support a replacement tax system ... | BRITE::FYFE | Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General | Wed Apr 19 1995 17:35 | 18 |
| >consider dick armey's position. a flat tax. no deductions or exemptions. you
>pay "x" percent EACH month. just like a house or car payment. this would make
>it obvious to the taxpayer just how much he/she pays for government. it would
>cause the average citizen to regularly ask the question: "am i getting my
>monies worth"? a very rational and legitimate question we all ask about our
>other expenditures. why not our governmental outlays?
Although I agree with many of Haag's observations I do not agree with his
rationale for a flat tax (That doesn't mean there isn't a legitamate rationale
out there somewhere, just that it hasn't been presented yet).
Note that today, we pay out to the government each week and it doesn't spurn the
reaction that he implies a monthly outlay would. The people who ask today
if they're getting their moneis worth will be the folks that ask the question
if we have a flat tax. The relationship between the behaviour and the tax
mechanism is disjoint.
Doug.
|
386.119 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 19 1995 20:04 | 14 |
| Clinton in his news conference said that Armey's flat tax doesn't
help the poor or middle class enough.
The "poor" man with 2 kids making $36,500 or less will pay ZERO in
federal income tax. How much more "help" can Clinton expect for him
from the income tax system?
For middle-class me, one income earner, $15000 in deductions (plus
the exemptions for all of my family members) my taxes would have
dropped from $5500 to $3700, even with the loss of that $15000 in
deductions. For middle class people in my salary range who don't
have the benefits of mortgage deductions and the like, their tax
savings would be even greater. How much more "help" does Clinton
want to give me? What has he proposed to "help" he more?
|
386.120 | | WDFFS2::SHOOK | the river is mine | Thu Apr 20 1995 00:14 | 17 |
|
armey is merely opening with 17% and $36,500. clinton will definitely
veto a proposal with those numbers, so the percentage will have to go
up and the number at which middle class families start paying will have
to come down. essentially, they need to change enough to garner a two-
thirds override vote in the senate, or slick's support, whichever seems
more easily achievable. 20-23% and $20-25,000 are more likely numbers.
actually, 'boxers could reasonably just play with these numbers until
the result is roughly equal to what they paid last year, and imo they
would be in the ballpark.
the monthly payment plan, as appealing as it may be, will be doa.
millions would fall behind and never catch up; the irs would get
even uglier.
bill
|
386.121 | Consumption tax still better. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 20 1995 10:26 | 13 |
| The flat tax is a bad idea only from the standpoint that it still gives
the Fed the opportunity to play with rates, exclusions, etc over time.
Any tax system that still leaves any control with the Fed is no better
than what we presently have.
The above is basically why I still support a consumption tax since the
only thing the government can control is the rate and what does and
doesn't get taxed. These items would be very hard to hide and the
individual can still excercise some control over them by either buying
or not buying the item.. The Fed will not place taxes on necessities
and you can control what "luxuries" you might purchase. You also have
a bit more control on the specific items.
|
386.122 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Thu Apr 20 1995 13:17 | 34 |
|
great topic for deabate ... if I were the tax god what would I do ...
1) Eliminate the Corporate Income Tax ... very little revenue is
generated this way (something like 10%) of all federal tax revenue
while the marginal rate is something like 50% for a firm. So we're
greatly reducing companies ability to invest while not getting any
meaningful bucks out of it. It is also a vehicle for the government to
try to manipulate the free market through deductions and such ... a big
negative in my opinion. Comapnies will no longer plan strategies to
duck taxes as opposed to win in their market. The US tax rate will be
lower than other countries there giving one small advantage to the US
when companies make a location decision. Etc, etc
2) Capital Gains ... tax as ordinary income ... given #1 capital gains
tax no longer represents double taxation.
3) consumption tax ... don't like it ... the rich will pay a lower % of
their income.
4) flat tax ... the way to go IMO ... the biggest item is wiping out
all the deductions and setting a reasonable lower thresh hold of when
the tax kicks in. Tax all income earned and unearned. Get the
government out the business of trying to manipulate the free market.
Most(?) families get an automatic "tax break" because they no longer
fork over $50-$100 to H&R Block. Still shrinks the IRS immensely.
Greg
|
386.123 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Apr 20 1995 13:47 | 5 |
| GOP named Jack Kemp to head a commission to study tax system overhaul
in depth. That commission will report in the fall. Until then, I
don't think we'll see many concrete proposals worth discussing.
DougO
|
386.124 | Consumption tax still way better. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 20 1995 17:27 | 22 |
| Re: 122
Your comment unfortunately identifies what's wrong with any discussion
on taxes in this country. Everybody feels that taxes are too high and
misspent, but all of the feel-good folks feel the rich don't pay
enough. See your comment below.
3) consumption tax ... don't like it ... the rich will pay a lower % of
their income.
Maybe I don't follow, but a flat tax of 10% would hit the rich equally.
If you feel that because they work hard and make more that they should
be penalized further, well... BTW, if you use the flat 10% on, say,
clothes, you would have a guy paying $10 for a pair of pants paying $1
in tax. If Joe Rich Guy buys a $700 suit them he pays $70. that sure
seems like a pretty hefty amount of tax. Or do you just dislike the
fact that some guy can spend $700 on a suit. It sure seems that what a
lot of people wnat is to tax until no one can buy the $700 suit and
then everything will be just fine.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
|
386.125 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Apr 20 1995 17:44 | 9 |
| I thought .122's point was that if the rich only buy the $70 suit instead
of the $700 suit, they will, overall, pay a lower percentage of their
income. Seemed pretty clear to me. Surely if they buy Armanis you are
correct, but with a consumption tax, the rich can choose frugality as
well as can anyone else, and thus pay a lower percentage of their income.
That's not a bad thing (to me, at least), but I think that was the point
being made in .122 (who apparently did dislike the idea).
|
386.126 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Thu Apr 20 1995 17:51 | 24 |
|
Relative to rich people paying a higher percentage -
It seems axiomatic to some that the rich should pay a higher percentage.
Wouldn't it actually be more fair to be taxed based upon services
recieved? (Ie does a rich person use mor eof the defense budget than
a person of lesser means, does a rich person use more highway funds?)
True fairness would seem to require rich folks paying a lower
percentage. Somehwere along the way we seem to have lost our sense
of fairness. There's nothing meanspirited about fairness. If
anything, those that skew the the system against any class, including
the rich class, are the meanspirited ones.
|
386.127 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Apr 20 1995 17:58 | 12 |
| > Wouldn't it actually be more fair to be taxed based upon services
> recieved?
Asking for this is asking for a nightmare worse than we have now, specifically
since by definition it requires a government beaurocracy to evaluate how
much "service" anyone receives. (You don't think _you_ get to decide that,
do you? :^)
Al is right. A consumption tax is the best way to go. It eliminates
more of the "class conflict" than any other taxation system, and it is
eminently fair
|
386.128 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Apr 20 1995 18:22 | 15 |
| <<< Note 386.126 by PATE::CLAPP >>>
> Wouldn't it actually be more fair to be taxed based upon services
> recieved? (Ie does a rich person use mor eof the defense budget than
> a person of lesser means, does a rich person use more highway funds?)
Under a consumption tax, services are taxed too. Now, I realize
that you were referring to GOVERNMENTAL services, like national
defense, but it would seem to me that a person's "use" of those
government services might very well be a function of (or indicated
by) his "use" of goods and services within society.
Perhaps a rich person *does* "use" (or benefit from) national
defense, for example, more than a poor person. He has more to
lose if the country collapses.
|
386.129 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Fri Apr 21 1995 08:56 | 51 |
|
>> 3) consumption tax ... don't like it ... the rich will pay a lower % of
>> their income.
>
> Maybe I don't follow, but a flat tax of 10% would hit the rich equally.
> If you feel that because they work hard and make more that they should
> be penalized further, well...
I don't understand your point ... in my note I said I was for a flat
tax ... so it looks like we agree why are you saying we disagree?
(BTW, the term flat tax is usually used to mean a flat-rate *income*
tax)
> BTW, if you use the flat 10% on, say,
> clothes, you would have a guy paying $10 for a pair of pants paying $1
> in tax. If Joe Rich Guy buys a $700 suit them he pays $70. that sure
> seems like a pretty hefty amount of tax. Or do you just dislike the
> fact that some guy can spend $700 on a suit. It sure seems that what a
> lot of people wnat is to tax until no one can buy the $700 suit and
> then everything will be just fine.
>
> Sorry, I don't buy it.
10% on cloths is not usually called "a flat tax" ... it's usually
called a sales or consumption tax.
Sorry you don't buy it but there is tons of evidence around the world
to support my statement. There are tax systems of every variety around
the world. In sales/consumption tax systems lower income folks end up
paying a higher percentage of their income to the tax than higher
income folks in virtually all cases. There is tons of documentation
of this (go to any B-School or Public Policy-School library). Richer
folks pay more dollars but a lower percentage of their income. Do you
agree richer folks invest a higher percentage of their income? If so
it follows they spend a lower percentage of their income on stuff that
might be hit with a consumption tax. Hence the
problem unless the consumption tax is to be applied to purchase of
investments also.
The tax burden would only be equal if people who made
twice as much money spend twice as much on everything and that just is
not reality.
BTW - A flat income tax would be my first choice but I would jump at a
consumption tax with exemptions for necessities over the system we have
today!
Greg
|
386.130 | Getting closer. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri Apr 21 1995 09:50 | 21 |
| Re: 129
It seems like we're getting closer, but I'm still not sure what you
mean about rich folks paying a lower percentagfe of their income in
taxes, even though they pay more absolute dollars. Quite frankly, a
citizen in this country, regardless of income, should pay the same
amount, not percentage but $. If you want to look at a fair tax
system.
This eliminates the class warfare that liberals like to promote, since
everyone receives the same benefits, overall, and should pay the same
amount. Different rates are wrong.
If i chose to save and invest and not spend on consumption today, I
should not be penalized for that. At the same time, if someone does
not take advantage of the opportunities to get ahead, then society does
not subsidize that decision by telling those who have achieved that
they should pay more.
To me it's just basically unfair.
|
386.131 | hard to imagine | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 21 1995 10:17 | 12 |
|
Imagine taking the total budget and dividing by the number of
citizens in the country, then send out a bill to everyone.
(parents pay for kids - might pay for schooling)...
after you pay the bill, you pay NOTHING more. Zero, nada, zilch.
just contemplating it is difficult.
Sort of like envisioning infinity.
al
|
386.132 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Fri Apr 21 1995 14:52 | 62 |
|
> It seems like we're getting closer
I agree ...
> but I'm still not sure what you
> mean about rich folks paying a lower percentagfe of their income in
> taxes, even though they pay more absolute dollars. Quite frankly, a
> citizen in this country, regardless of income, should pay the same
> amount, not percentage but $. If you want to look at a fair tax
> system.
>
> This eliminates the class warfare that liberals like to promote, since
> everyone receives the same benefits, overall, and should pay the same
> amount. Different rates are wrong.
What constitutes fair is at the heart of the matter.
Do you really believe that my sister who works in community health care
should pay the same federal taxes in absolute dollars as Bob Palmer who
makes something like 40 times as much income? That implies that anyone
who pursues low income professions (nurse, teacher, jobs working with
kids, etc) is destined to a life of poverty because their salary would
be creamed by the tax burden. I could never go for that ... those
making more need to pay more in absolute terms for the system to have
any hope of being fair IMO. How much more for the "rich" is the question
for me.
In the seventies we had a situation where those making more paid more
in absolute terms and also paid more in percentage terms. I believe
the system had gone too far at that point. How much less for the
"rich" was the question.
Right now we have a system at least on the income tax level where the
rich pay more in absolute terms but pay less in percentage terms. I
don't have any big problem with that as long as three things are
accounted for ... 1) Payroll Taxes hit those making less much more
severly than those making a lot and discussions of income taxes usually
ingnore this (I would roll this collection into the income tax or
consumption tax collection) ... 2) Elimination of huge loopholes that
currently lets some high income folks pay virtually no income taxes ...
3) the treatment of unearned income must be explicitly treated.
Personally I believe the "rich" should pay a lower percentage than the
"poor" which will yield more in absolute dollars however setting what
the correct ratio is is at the heart of the class warfare. One of the
major draws to the flat tax is that argument is removed from the
equation.
Greg
If i chose to save and invest and not spend on consumption today, I
should not be penalized for that. At the same time, if someone does
not take advantage of the opportunities to get ahead, then society does
not subsidize that decision by telling those who have achieved that
they should pay more.
To me it's just basically unfair.
|
386.133 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 21 1995 16:18 | 19 |
|
General questions -
Why should someone who makes more pay more total dollars?
Why do I as a single male, seem to pay the most, yet use the least
services? (Single female would be in the same situation.)
Why have deductions for children? or mortgages? or anything for that
matter.
I'm not necessarily against these things, but they should be
open to discussion, and not taken as axiomatic.
|
386.134 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Fri Apr 21 1995 16:38 | 25 |
|
> Why should someone who makes more pay more total dollars?
I do not know the exact number but you'd end up with a situation with
folks with low paying jobs owing taxing after giving all their salary to
taxes I bet. Ross Perot paying millions in taxes (on hundreds of
millions of income) while paying a lower percentage of his income means
lots of folks making 20k-30k actually have some money to pay for stuff
like rent and food.
> Why do I as a single male, seem to pay the most, yet use the least
> services? (Single female would be in the same situation.)
> Why have deductions for children? or mortgages? or anything for that
> matter.
Different question and I don't believe there any particularily good
reasons hence my support of a flat tax with zippo deductions with the
singular exception of allowing the first "x" dollars to be exempt (an
exception that is the same for married, single, kids, no kids, house,
no house, etc)
Greg
|
386.135 | | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 21 1995 17:48 | 12 |
| re .133
Bingo! That's why I support the flat rate tax too. I don't
have those "family" allowances either. and I don't use as
much services as well, yet I am paying a higher share.
However from all these discussion, VAT sounds reasonable too.
I totally disagree with the assertions that with
consumption tax, the rich pay less % in taxes; quite the contrary
I think (unless the rich collude to only barter between themselves
for goods and services :-) ).
|
386.136 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Fri Apr 21 1995 18:25 | 42 |
|
> I totally disagree with the assertions that with
> consumption tax, the rich pay less % in taxes; quite the contrary
> I think (unless the rich collude to only barter between themselves
> for goods and services :-) ).
I'll make you a deal I'll explain why I believe the rich pay a lower %
if you'll explain how you believe they pay more.
First I'm looking at all federal taxes ... I'll use Perot as the
ultimate rich guy ... so
FICA and Medicare taxes ... most folks (80%?) are under the limit so
they pay 7.65% explicity (and their company pays another 7.65%). The
uppoer limit is about $5000/yr. So a guy making 7000 pays about
$500/yr for these taxes while a guy who malkes 70,000 pays about
$5000/yr for these taxes (they are both paying 7.65%). Now Perot also
only pays $5000/yr on scads of dough ... his percentage is tiny ...
federal situation #1 where the rich pay a lower percentage than the
poor.
Consumption/Income taxes. Do you believe Perot or yourself invests a higher
percntage of their income? Tons of evidence shows that richer folks
invest a larger percentage of their income than poorer folks ... so it
is certainly true that in general poorer folks spend a higher
percentage of their income. So if consumption taxes were applied to
all spending on goods poorer folks would definately pay a higher
percentage of their income. Now the idea of excluding necessities
makes it possible this could be corrceted. However I've read lots of
studies of consumption/sales taxes, including those with necessity
exceptions, saying they are regressive in that the poor pay a higher
percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.
To turn that around ... has anyone seen a report or a reference to a
report from an advocate of consumption/sales tax that describes an
existing tax structure or a proposed tax structure that does not result
in the poor paying a higher percentage of their income to the tax (not
just a declaration but a description of the actual or expected payments).
I have never seen or heard of such an animal.
Greg
|
386.137 | Let's see how Perot might spend... | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Fri Apr 21 1995 20:46 | 28 |
|
greg -
your example (if I understand it all) actually supports the flat
tax rate argument in that Mr. Perot, the sake of augument, will also
pay 17% of taxes on what he EARNS, that is he will pay 17% on his
income of $2B!!! That's a lot more than he's paying now (I bet you)
because when you're in his bracket, you can afford the best tax
consultant money can buy to exploit every darn loophole in the current
system. Now assuming that the new flat rate closes ALL loopholes (I
know, it's a dream!) he cannot escape, except of course he somehow
deflates his reported earnings/income, which is of course, possible.
On VAT:
I don't know about you, but from my observations and that rare association
with a few (not Perot's caliber though), richer people tend to have richer
tastes, shall we say? Do you think Mrs Perot and Perot Jrs would shop
at K-Mart or Neimann-Marcus? Even if Mr. Perot is a tight-wad, would he
spend $199.99 on a suit or $1000.00 on a tailored one? Would he drive or
be driven in a Chevy Saturn or a Caddy Seville (don't think he's a
Porsche type!)? The 80/20 rule, as customary, would apply even in
spending patterns: 80% of the wealthy would spend the way they have
always spend! At least the probability that they will be taxed
equitably is higher than now.
I DO assume that basic food for example is exempt from VAT, OK.
|
386.138 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Fri Apr 21 1995 21:24 | 30 |
|
> your example (if I understand it all) actually supports the flat
> tax rate argument
I agree I support a flat income tax!
> I don't know about you, but from my observations and that rare association
> with a few (not Perot's caliber though), richer people tend to have richer
> tastes, shall we say? Do you think Mrs Perot and Perot Jrs would shop
> at K-Mart or Neimann-Marcus? Even if Mr. Perot is a tight-wad, would he
> spend $199.99 on a suit or $1000.00 on a tailored one? Would he drive or
> be driven in a Chevy Saturn or a Caddy Seville (don't think he's a
> Porsche type!)? The 80/20 rule, as customary, would apply even in
> spending patterns: 80% of the wealthy would spend the way they have
> always spend! At least the probability that they will be taxed
> equitably is higher than now.
Good examples. Does Bob Palmer ($700k/yr) spend about 15 times as much
on a car as the average Digial employee (assuming something like 45k is
average)? If not he pays a lower percentage of his income on on
consumption tax for cars than the average Digital employee. Do his
designer suits costs 15 times as much as one of my suits? Etc, etc and
in general he spends a lot more but not in the same ratio as his income
is higher than ours.
Greg
|
386.139 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Sat Apr 22 1995 11:30 | 42 |
| <<< Note 386.138 by ASABET::YANNEKIS >>>
> Good examples. Does Bob Palmer ($700k/yr) spend about 15 times as much
> on a car as the average Digial employee (assuming something like 45k is
> average)? If not he pays a lower percentage of his income on on
> consumption tax for cars than the average Digital employee. Do his
> designer suits costs 15 times as much as one of my suits? Etc, etc and
> in general he spends a lot more but not in the same ratio as his income
> is higher than ours.
Palmer may not buy a car that's 15 times as much as I would (though
when you consider that I would buy a used $4000 car and he might
buy a new $60K Mercedes I may not even have to make the point I am
about to...) but he may buy several cars when I make do with just
one. And he may have a dozen tailored suits, and buy a new one
(or more) each year, where I have been content to make do with
the single one off-the-rack suit I have had for the past 7 years.
He most likely spends more than I do on entertainment, dining out,
vacations, etc. He would probably buy a better-quality carpeting
for his home -- and more of it assuming his home is bigger than mine.
I'd venture to guess that his hobbies -- whatever they are -- will
cost him more than mine will cost me. I'd venture to guess that
he has a much nicer and more extensive electronic entertainment
system than I do -- and I'd even be willing to put money on a bet
that he spent at least 100 times more than I have in the last 5
years on electronic entertainment. (This is not to put either Bob
Palmer or myself down in any way. It is just to point out differences
in our incomes and our lifestyles, and how those differences might
affect our respective tax burdens under a consumption tax.)
I understand your point (and perhaps even agree with it, though
not to the degree that you do) that the rich might not pay a
greater PROPORTION of their income to a sales tax than lower-
income people. But you have to realize that some people will
be way less likely to be in a position to spend their income
on non-essential items than a Bob Palmer or Ross Perot. Regardless
of my current or future income, I would like to have the choice
of arranging my life to affect my tax burden. In some respects
I have that under the current system. I will have less control
under a flat tax (short of earning less income), but will gain
the most control under a consumption tax. So will the poor, and
so will Bob Palmer and Ross Perot.
|
386.140 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Mon Apr 24 1995 08:51 | 5 |
|
re. 139
Agreed
|
386.141 | SS and Medicare taxes will not be replaced | DECC::VOGEL | | Mon Apr 24 1995 13:52 | 11 |
|
RE .136 - (and others)
I believe it is the case that the proposals for the flat tax and
for a VAT/sales tax are only to replace the current *income* tax.
SS and Medicare taxes will remain as they are. So these should not
be considered when comparing the current vs new system.
Ed
|
386.142 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Mon Apr 24 1995 14:46 | 19 |
|
> I believe it is the case that the proposals for the flat tax and
> for a VAT/sales tax are only to replace the current *income* tax.
> SS and Medicare taxes will remain as they are. So these should not
> be considered when comparing the current vs new system.
Then again maybe discussing alternatives will influence folks to lobby
their reps for the tax system they think is most appropriate ... even
if it is not one of the current alternatives.
For me a consumption/sales tax while leaving social security taxes as
they are is a no vote but a yes vote if the consumption/sales tax also
funds social security stuff.
Greg
|
386.143 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Mon Apr 24 1995 16:25 | 9 |
| re: .142
At least this would be an honest label for SS...TAX.
I'm all for dropping SS altogether and letting folks fund their own
retirement. I'm willing to give up all I've paid in to date, and so
are many other people I've talked to.
-steve
|
386.144 | SS and consumption taxes | DECC::VOGEL | | Mon Apr 24 1995 21:44 | 19 |
|
I can think of at least two good reasons why a consumption tax
will not replace SS and Medicare.
1] It will require a very high rate. They're talking around 18-20%
sales tax rate to replace the income tax. To also replace SS and
Medicare would require a rate over 30%.
2] This would mean that senior citizens, who currently don't pay
SS or Medicare would have to pay it. We all know how much this
group loves to pay more.
I agree that it would be better to replace SS tax with a consumption
tax. I just don't think it will happen.
Ed
|
386.145 | | WDFFS2::SHOOK | the river is mine | Mon Apr 24 1995 22:31 | 9 |
|
the ss tax will be replaced with a much higher ss tax (this while
the retirement age is raised gradually until approaches the average
life-span, at which time it will level off). right now, there are
roughly 4 workers supporting each retiree. by the year 2020, or so,
it will drop to a ratio of @ 2:1. the more people who die before they
are eligible, the better the program will work.
bill
|
386.146 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Apr 25 1995 13:17 | 7 |
| Can't fund SS with a sales tax (at least not under the current
payout plan.) Current SS benefits are based on what you've
paid into the system in the past. How would that be measured
under a sales tax?
I fully support self-directed "social security" programs like
Steve just mentioned.
|
386.147 | RE .145 - I doubt it | DECC::VOGEL | | Tue Apr 25 1995 13:32 | 17 |
|
Re .145 - Bill,
> the ss tax will be replaced with a much higher ss tax
I doubt it. I do not think that the public will stand for this.
Currently two out of three Americans pay more is SS/Medicare taxes
than they do in federal income taxes. I don't think they'll go for
a 30% tax.
No, what I suspect will happen is that benefits will be cut as well
as the retirement age being raised.
Ed
|
386.148 | Another plan | DECC::VOGEL | | Wed Apr 26 1995 21:44 | 23 |
|
Yesterday Sens Nunn and Dominici introduced their tax plan. It goes
something like this:
.Income tax is based upon income minus (deductions + investments)
The deductions are similar to today's (home mortgage, charitable
contributions and a few others), but are more limited. Investments
are any money that was put into savings during the year.
I believe that income includes any moneys taken out of savings.
.Graduated tax rate with a top rate of 40%
.What sounds like an 11% VAT.
The idea is that this tax would encourage savings while still keeping
rates higher on those with higher incomes.
SS is not changed.
Sounds interesting,
Ed
|
386.149 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 26 1995 22:33 | 3 |
| Too complicated. I thought these proposals were supposed to
simplify the current plan. I see little simplification in this
one.
|
386.150 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Thu Apr 27 1995 08:54 | 3 |
| >Sounds interesting,
Sounds devastating to our buying power.
|
386.151 | Dominique-nique-nique | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 27 1995 09:50 | 1 |
| Is this going to be called the Dominique-Nun Bill?
|
386.152 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Thu Apr 27 1995 09:52 | 1 |
| Soeur sous rear?
|
386.153 | Poor idea. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 27 1995 10:12 | 15 |
| I am sure that as more tax plans get presented you will see some really
interesting spins. If indeed the Nunn bill is accurate, then it is a
joke.
The idea behind the flat tax or sales tax is to reduce rules and
revenues. The idea behind this was to get spending in line with
reality. the Fed has taken the position that they need to do
everything in everyone's life and if they don't then someone may
actually benefit from their efforts.
Personally, I hope that the consumption tax gets approved and all
income taxes are dropped. I also hope to see SS eliminated. this is
another example of the Fed overreaching and taking a reasonable program
and turning it into another welfare program.
|
386.154 | Not a flat tax | DECC::VOGEL | | Thu Apr 27 1995 13:19 | 31 |
|
Re last few:
The purpose of the Nunn - Dominici plan is not so much tax simplification
as it is to make the U.S. tax system more competitive with our trading
partners.
The current U.S. tax system punishes savings and rewards consumption.
Most economists believe this puts the U.S. at a big disadvantage.
The Nunn - Dominici plan clearly rewards savings.
Also, raising money through a VAT instead of an income tax will help
the U.S. economy relative to our trading partners because it will
make our goods more competitive.
This is not a flat tax plan. Maybe I should have posted it in a new
topic, but I felt this one talks about various tax plans....
RE .153
>I also hope to see SS eliminated.
Dream on (although I wish it were eliminated too!). Even now there are
reports of the Republicans backing off on Medicare changes because
they're receiving all sorts of threats from the AARP if they touch Medicare.
Ed
|
386.155 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Apr 27 1995 14:04 | 7 |
| <<< Note 386.154 by DECC::VOGEL >>>
> This is not a flat tax plan. Maybe I should have posted it in a new
> topic, but I felt this one talks about various tax plans....
I think that this topic would be more appropriately-named
if it were something like, "Tax reform"
|
386.156 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 28 1995 09:11 | 18 |
|
While I truely hope I am wrong, I suspect we are only going to get
changes around the edges in our tax system.
The factor which may block true reform is that if a simple system
were ever instituted, people might actually realize just how much
we pay in taxes, and then the politicans would be thrown out of office.
For example - if we ever eliminated fed/state income taxes and FICA
and replaced them with a VAT, I'd guess we'd be paying about 50%.
That makes it pretty obvious how much we're getting taxed, which
wouldn't last long. It's the same reason we pay weekly into FIA and
income taxes, if we ever had to pay in a sinlge lump sum, how many
years would people put up with it.
|
386.157 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Fri Apr 28 1995 09:33 | 8 |
|
re. 156
I agree ... it would be great if it was obvious what we were actually
paying ... which is exactly why it will never happen ... IMO.
Greg
|
386.158 | We can change this. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri Apr 28 1995 10:11 | 15 |
| It seems as if the majority of the noters here favor some sort of major
changes to the income tax system, and whether it be a VAT tax or flat
rate, everyone wants to see change.
The only way to make this a reality is to take on the liberals and AARP
that do not want to see the status quo changed. Most politicians,
particularly in the conservative camps, need to know that the majority
of Americans side with them in a basic overhaul of government and it
starts with taxes and entitlements.
I wonder what would happen if we got very active on the Internet and
really let the Republican leadership know what we think, as well as
some of the suggestions for the changes that have been presented here.
I would like to see the responses.
|
386.159 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 28 1995 10:21 | 6 |
|
Re: 386.158
Be prepared to be called 'angry', 'meanspirited' or 'full of hate'
|
386.160 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Apr 28 1995 10:37 | 8 |
| Excuse me?
this liberal scum supports a consumption tax, as long as it exempts
food, pharmacuticals, and used clothing. Liberal scum .nes. pro irs
and income tax.
meg, your friendly earth worhipping, goddes loving
counter-materialist.
|
386.161 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 28 1995 10:46 | 14 |
|
re: 386.160
If that's what you want and make it known, then you should be prepared
to get labled as 'angry' etc... I agree liberal scum .nes. pro irs
etc. Although I'm not sure what liberal means anymore.
What I'm referring to the words being used to describe people who
favor change in the tax system.
|
386.162 | Or should I have said "McCarthy Memorial" | DECWIN::RALTO | It's a small third world after all | Fri Apr 28 1995 12:16 | 7 |
| >> Be prepared to be called 'angry', 'meanspirited' or 'full of hate'
Also be prepared to be called "anti-government", which is the
latest tag that the Orwell Memorial crowd running the show slaps
on anyone who doesn't agree with their actions.
Chris
|
386.163 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Fri Apr 28 1995 12:16 | 22 |
|
> It seems as if the majority of the noters here favor some sort of major
> changes to the income tax system, and whether it be a VAT tax or flat
> rate, everyone wants to see change.
>
> The only way to make this a reality is to take on the liberals and AARP
> that do not want to see the status quo changed. Most politicians,
> particularly in the conservative camps, need to know that the majority
> of Americans side with them in a basic overhaul of government and it
> starts with taxes and entitlements.
I agree we should all let our reps know how we feel.
However there is one big catch. While it may be true that the majority
of americans want a change the true question is what do the majority of
campaign contributions want (IMO)? That is a much tougher hurdle to
overcome for at least two reasons ... 1) a lot of money can represent a
few people and 2) group money and statements of position (like the AARP)
can make a group appear much more homogenous than it really is.
Greg
|
386.164 | Still need to try. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri Apr 28 1995 12:27 | 7 |
| It may be long uphill battle, but if we don't clearly let the folks in
DC know what the majority of people want, then we will get whatever the
admin wants. Those that try to make changes and loosen the grip of the
Fed do get the label of mean-spirited, etc. That needs to change and
voicing your opinion factually will go a long way towards accomplishing
that.
|
386.165 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Fri Apr 28 1995 12:32 | 7 |
| >Also be prepared to be called "anti-government", which is the
>latest tag that the Orwell Memorial crowd running the show slaps
>on anyone who doesn't agree with their actions.
I'll wear the tag proudly!
...Tom
|
386.166 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 28 1995 12:39 | 11 |
|
>>Also be prepared to be called "anti-government", which is the
>>latest tag that the Orwell Memorial crowd running the show slaps
>>on anyone who doesn't agree with their actions.
>I'll wear the tag proudly!
Where can we get the T-Shirts made up?
al
|
386.167 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Fri Apr 28 1995 12:46 | 6 |
| >Where can we get the T-Shirts made up?
It probably wouldn't belong before we would be selling them in jail.
After all if you don't agree, your a criminal right?
...Tom
|
386.168 | | PATE::CLAPP | | Fri Apr 28 1995 12:47 | 7 |
|
Re: 386.167
Probably on charges of inciting terrorism.
al
|
386.169 | | CSSREG::BROWN | Just Visiting This Planet | Thu May 18 1995 13:27 | 1 |
| 13^2 flat tax snarf
|
386.170 | Restart the string? | POWDML::DOUGAN | | Thu Jan 25 1996 10:30 | 32 |
| Now that there seems to be some slight chance of this actually going
forward a question:
Does anyone know of a place where one can get some real comparison data
by candidate on tax proposals?
The sort of thing I'd like to see is:
Candidate X:
Personal situation/ Under his proposal Currently pays
income will pay
$25k, no deductions 0 $4k
$25k, $50k mortage,
married, 2 kids 0 0
$50k
etc, etc.
$500k $100k $..
and repeat that for each proposal.
It just seems to me that the whole flat tax discussion is heading the
way of all previous tax talk - massive complexity. The guys with the
best lawyers and accountants pay the least effective tax under any
scheme.
|
386.171 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | be nice, be happy | Thu Jan 25 1996 10:34 | 6 |
|
Try a big vuilding called a library. Most states have them these days.
hth,
|
386.172 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Thu Jan 25 1996 11:55 | 1 |
| Flat tax, it won't happen, no matter what the campaign promise.
|
386.173 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Captain Dunsel | Thu Jan 25 1996 11:58 | 1 |
| What does Flatman think?
|
386.174 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Thu Jan 25 1996 13:22 | 1 |
| Flatman has always had a problem with the name flat tax.
|
386.175 | | POWDML::DOUGAN | | Thu Jan 25 1996 13:43 | 15 |
| .171 - thanks, that's just what I needed, now how do I find a vuilding?
Looking into the stuff on the web (will that do instead of a library?)
no-one seems willing or able to draw up a reliable comparison and to
define some basic terms, like what is "income".
I agree that it's not likely to come - just a thought; does anyone know
of any stable country that's made a major tax change. Even if a flat
tax is introduced the detail devil will quickly come to the fore.
e.g. Company income, depreciation on machinery (director's BMWs),
deferred losses on overseas holdings..
Given the incredible knowledge and wisdom in this box and the
willingness to post information on a myriad subjects I had hoped that
this would all be answered in a concise note saving me the trouble..
|