The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Economics

Economics For discussion about economics, financial markets, investing, stock markets, finance, and economic theory


Thanks Tree1Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 14th, 2013, 11:37 AM   #1
Representative
 
a777pilot's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Flower Mound, TX (In the basement.)
Posts: 255

Taxes

Taxes. Now there is an interesting topic. We seem to be stuck on debating the rate at which we are taxed. I believe that is a secondary issue. The primary issue ought be WHAT is taxed.

Here is a current article to help this debate get started.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90C08C20130113

My opinion is that personal and corporate income/profit from any source ought not be taxed at all and private real property ought not be taxed on an annual basis, i.e., no personal property taxes.
a777pilot is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 12:01 PM   #2
Analyst
 
Gottago's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Sanity is relative
Posts: 79

Quote:
Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
Taxes. Now there is an interesting topic. We seem to be stuck on debating the rate at which we are taxed. I believe that is a secondary issue. The primary issue ought be WHAT is taxed.

Here is a current article to help this debate get started.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90C08C20130113

My opinion is that personal and corporate income/profit from any source ought not be taxed at all and private real property ought not be taxed on an annual basis, i.e., no personal property taxes.
So, that leaves a consumption tax, or VAT.

Which would put a burden on those with minimal income but still requiring the necessities of life.
Gottago is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 12:41 PM   #3
Representative
 
a777pilot's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Flower Mound, TX (In the basement.)
Posts: 255

No, it would not.

Less of a burden then they have now. Besides, why shouldn't the poor participate in the funding of their government?
a777pilot is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 12:45 PM   #4
Analyst
 
Gottago's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Sanity is relative
Posts: 79

Quote:
Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
No, it would not.

Less of a burden then they have now. Besides, why shouldn't the poor participate in the funding of their government?
Less of a burden than they have now? They don't HAVE a burden now, the EIC pretty much, if not more, than offsets anything they spend in the way of sales taxes.

I believe they should participate in the funding of the government, I just don't think a national sales tax (or whatever you want to call it) should be the basis of it.

A flat tax, as I discussed in previous threads.
Gottago is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 12:51 PM   #5
Representative
 
a777pilot's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Flower Mound, TX (In the basement.)
Posts: 255

If one is going to advocate an income tax then I am all for a flat tax, however, I think all profits/income ought be totally exempt from any tax. The same for private real property taxed on an annual basis.
a777pilot is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 01:33 PM   #6
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
So, that leaves a consumption tax, or VAT.

Which would put a burden on those with minimal income but still requiring the necessities of life.
A VAT can be made so that the burden is not on the poor- it can be made a progressive consumption tax, which is what I am for. That and something like the EITC but maybe simpler- a negative flat stipend perhaps.
myp is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013, 01:34 PM   #7
Analyst
 
Gottago's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Sanity is relative
Posts: 79

Quote:
Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
If one is going to advocate an income tax then I am all for a flat tax, however, I think all profits/income ought be totally exempt from any tax. The same for private real property taxed on an annual basis.
When you say 'private' real property, your speaking of individuals? That is a state thing, not a federal thing.

Tennessee taxes businesses real property, not individuals. No state income tax other than interest over $2000, I think it is.

I think businesses in and of themselves should not be taxed, as it is only a flow through... the consumer ends up paying the tax anyway as a cost of goods.

If the business is set up such as an LLC, partnership or a S corp, where profits flow through to the partners involved and is taxed at the personal income level, and doesn't accumulate in the corporate entity, no tax either.
Gottago is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 08:50 AM   #8
Representative
 
a777pilot's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Flower Mound, TX (In the basement.)
Posts: 255

Yes, I know it is a State issue but I am just giving my opinions of what ought and ought not be taxed.
a777pilot is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 10:02 AM   #9
Analyst
 
Gottago's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Sanity is relative
Posts: 79

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
A VAT can be made so that the burden is not on the poor- it can be made a progressive consumption tax, which is what I am for. That and something like the EITC but maybe simpler- a negative flat stipend perhaps.
Once again, a progressive based tax penalizes certain groups.

My goal, as such, is reduce the involvement of the collection agency known as the IRSand to equalize the responsibility of supporting the country for the necessary programs to maintain and protect this country.

Currently, low income/no income groups do not contribute to the monetary societal pool. The middle group carries a portion of the societal monetary pool, and the upper group carries the majority of the societal monetary pool.

However, dollar for dollar, the upper group, which uses the least of the tax funded assistance programs, pays the greatest portion. There are those who feel they should 'pay more' without considering what that group voluntarily contributes to the societal pool through charities, donations, funded programs and facilities.

It is no one's place to judge who values a dollar more, and there for make them feel righteous to take more from one group than another. To take FROM one group and give to another.
Gottago is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 10:08 AM   #10
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
Once again, a progressive based tax penalizes certain groups.

My goal, as such, is reduce the involvement of the collection agency known as the IRSand to equalize the responsibility of supporting the country for the necessary programs to maintain and protect this country.

Currently, low income/no income groups do not contribute to the monetary societal pool. The middle group carries a portion of the societal monetary pool, and the upper group carries the majority of the societal monetary pool.

However, dollar for dollar, the upper group, which uses the least of the tax funded assistance programs, pays the greatest portion. There are those who feel they should 'pay more' without considering what that group voluntarily contributes to the societal pool through charities, donations, funded programs and facilities.

It is no one's place to judge who values a dollar more, and there for make them feel righteous to take more from one group than another. To take FROM one group and give to another.
Do you disagree with me when I said that it isn't black and white like the upper group pays the greatest portion AND uses the least tax funded programs? This is not necessarily true. It might be in some cases, but in a lot of others, it won't.

As for the value of a dollar at the margin- there is a lot of work behind it that shows the general trend. Like it or not, any tax system including yours makes assumptions on how a person will value a dollar, use a dollar, etc. (and on the flip side how a person will use public services)- mine just correlates better with the strong data behind marginality.
myp is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 11:23 AM   #11
Analyst
 
Gottago's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Sanity is relative
Posts: 79

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Do you disagree with me when I said that it isn't black and white like the upper group pays the greatest portion AND uses the least tax funded programs? This is not necessarily true. It might be in some cases, but in a lot of others, it won't.

As for the value of a dollar at the margin- there is a lot of work behind it that shows the general trend. Like it or not, any tax system including yours makes assumptions on how a person will value a dollar, use a dollar, etc. (and on the flip side how a person will use public services)- mine just correlates better with the strong data behind marginality.
Yes, I do have to disagree with you.

First, there is a difference between 'tax funded programs' and 'tax funded assistance programs'. Second, the upper group isn't even eligible for the assistance programs, and could only be using them on a fraud basis, and that is not part of the discussion right now. No one has said they shouldn't pay taxes, and those taxes should be contributing to infrastructure, military and some to the assistance programs. Even things like public transportation are subsidised by tax payer funds, but rare the upper group to use them.

How does a flat tax plan make an assumption of how someone values a dollar, other than the first dollar exclusion?

One could hypothesize all sorts of scenerios regarding use of public services, but the reference was assistance programs.

Marginality is a theory, one which you stand by. That's fine. I don't agree with it. No one can judge how another person values a dollar, IMO, much less as a group and define that group according how they use or spend that dollar.
Gottago is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:01 PM   #12
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
Yes, I do have to disagree with you.
You disagree that two people of the same income might take a different dollar benefit from tax-funded programs? You think the wealthy business owner who travels across the country all the time uses the same amount of resources as the wealth retiree who doesn't go out much? Hmm...

And on the flip side that one poor person might use a lot of government funded programs while another uses none and might actually contribute?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
How does a flat tax plan make an assumption of how someone values a dollar, other than the first dollar exclusion?
Because you are assuming x% to the middle class means the same as x% to the richer class since they are both paying x% and you set that policy out of "fairness". The assumption alone- with no data behind it is on equal footing as thinking that the poor value it more. But then when you consider the data and studies it becomes quite clear those heavily favor my viewpoint and not yours. Like I said, your assumption was the general assumption maybe a 100 or so years ago, but for a long time we have known it is not the most accurate correlation to reality (based on the data- again if you have data or studies that suggest otherwise, please, do share).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
Marginality is a theory, one which you stand by. That's fine. I don't agree with it. No one can judge how another person values a dollar, IMO, much less as a group and define that group according how they use or spend that dollar.
First of all, the colloquial definition of theory is different than the scientific definition of theory. Theory doesn't mean "guess" in this context. And no one knows how others value things- that is accepted- it is the subjective theory of value, but we also know that the marginal theory of value also generally holds true at the same time.

But either way, you are shooting down diminishing marginal utility because no one knows how others value things, yet you hold your view of flat value in place, despite you still not knowing how others value things. In other words, the argument you are using against marginal theory can be used against your argument too.
myp is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:33 PM   #13
Analyst
 
Gottago's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Sanity is relative
Posts: 79

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
You disagree that two people of the same income might take a different dollar benefit from tax-funded programs? You think the wealthy business owner who travels across the country all the time uses the same amount of resources as the wealth retiree who doesn't go out much? Hmm....

And on the flip side that one poor person might use a lot of government funded programs while another uses none and might actually contribute?
No, I have to disagree that it is black and white... which is why any specific group should not have to pay more than another.

The only difference being the exclusion of first dollars, everyone pays the same percentage.

Quote:
Because you are assuming x% to the middle class means the same as x% to the richer class since they are both paying x% and you set that policy out of "fairness". The assumption alone- with no data behind it is on equal footing as thinking that the poor value it more. But then when you consider the data and studies it becomes quite clear those heavily favor my viewpoint and not yours. Like I said, your assumption was the general assumption maybe a 100 or so years ago, but for a long time we have known it is not the most accurate correlation to reality (based on the data- again if you have data or studies that suggest otherwise, please, do share).
I've never been one to follow the herd. I read and research for myself, develop my own views. To date, it's the only one that makes sense to me.

I appreciate the softly couched words, but you've said it twice now... obviously, you think my thinking antiquidated. Reasons why I said we would never agree.

Quote:
First of all, the colloquial definition of theory is different than the scientific definition of theory. Theory doesn't mean "guess" in this context. And no one knows how others value things- that is accepted- it is the subjective theory of value, but we also know that the marginal theory of value also generally holds true at the same time.

But either way, you are shooting down diminishing marginal utility because no one knows how others value things, yet you hold your view of flat value in place, despite you still not knowing how others value things. In other words, the argument you are using against marginal theory can be used against your argument too.
The word subjective pretty much colors the whole marinal utility theory. It would be nice, but impossible, to base taxes on how other people value things. The flat tax removes that subjective thinking.

I've enjoyed the discussion, but we will continue to go in circles.
Gottago is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:40 PM   #14
Secretary of State
 
chris7375's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Stuart
Posts: 740

Last time I looked and quite a few former IRS employees that all back the fact that the Income tax is illegally taken anyway. Though that is not surprising to me at least.
chris7375 is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:54 PM   #15
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,456

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris7375 View Post
Last time I looked and quite a few former IRS employees that all back the fact that the Income tax is illegally taken anyway. Though that is not surprising to me at least.

The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, which was passed by the United States Congress. The Internal Revenue Code is also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of all the laws passed by Congress.



I wish it weren't so....but it is.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg.../IncomeTax.htm
tecoyah is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 01:29 PM   #16
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
No, I have to disagree that it is black and white... which is why any specific group should not have to pay more than another.
I am not arguing it is black and white. I thought you were when you said that rich people pay more than they use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
I've never been one to follow the herd. I read and research for myself, develop my own views. To date, it's the only one that makes sense to me.
Okay, but rejecting all data without your own data or showing why the methodologies are wrong also does not make sense. I am not sure how well-read you are on economics, but there are people who spend their entire lives scientifically researching these things and you can't just throw away their data because your intuition disagrees. Our intuitions are often wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
I appreciate the softly couched words, but you've said it twice now... obviously, you think my thinking antiquidated. Reasons why I said we would never agree.
They are antiquated though. That is not a slander against you, that is just fact. Go check out an economics textbook and you will find what I said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottago View Post
The word subjective pretty much colors the whole marinal utility theory. It would be nice, but impossible, to base taxes on how other people value things. The flat tax removes that subjective thinking.
No it doesn't! Value is subjective. We agree on that. But we also agree that we can't logistically tax based on value because it is subjective. What we can do, is tax in a way that best reflects general values. A flat tax does not make sense because the utility of money is marginal! In other words, and I repeat myself, the argument you are using against the marginal utility of money can be used against your flat tax too! If not, show me why. Show me the data please. From what I have read and seen it heavily supports mine hence why I think marginal taxation best reflects the reality and not flat tax.
myp is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 01:49 PM   #17
Secretary of State
 
chris7375's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Stuart
Posts: 740

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, which was passed by the United States Congress. The Internal Revenue Code is also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of all the laws passed by Congress.



I wish it weren't so....but it is.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg.../IncomeTax.htm
According to quite a few former IRS agents they claim the Income tax was never properly ratified hence making it illegal. Several book and documentaries are out on this.

The most widely known Documentary is Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo. This documentary land him in a lot of trouble with the government.

chris7375 is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 01:52 PM   #18
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

You're killin me with the Alex Jones crowd, chris
myp is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 01:55 PM   #19
Secretary of State
 
chris7375's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Stuart
Posts: 740

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
You're killin me with the Alex Jones crowd, chris
Yet all those IRS agents that say it is against the law are wrong? Nothing really to do with Alex Jones I personally think he is a nut job about 5% of his information maybe right.

Aaron Russo a respected director in Hollywood researched this and here is the result of his research.
chris7375 is offline  
Old January 15th, 2013, 02:01 PM   #20
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris7375 View Post
Yet all those IRS agents that say it is against the law are wrong? Nothing really to do with Alex Jones I personally think he is a nut job about 5% of his information maybe right.

Aaron Russo a respected director in Hollywood researched this and here is the result of his research.
IRS agents aren't lawyers. And this Congress would most certainly near-unanimously support another income tax measure if need be. What's the point of the challenge?
myp is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Economics

Tags
taxes



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
77% of Households getting taxes increased. chris7375 Economics 15 January 7th, 2013 05:20 PM
Let's swap taxes, BC style myp Economics 1 July 5th, 2012 09:44 PM
Pigovian taxes myp Economics 15 January 26th, 2012 05:53 PM
Republican Party and Low Taxes chu Government and Politics 35 January 25th, 2010 07:53 AM
US taxes - would you pay more to get more? curious Current Events 20 April 23rd, 2009 01:49 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.