Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?

[mlmpetert]

Editorial from Aruthur Laffer on 999:

Arthur B. Laffer: Cain's Stimulating '9-9-9' Tax Reform - WSJ.com

[mlmpetert]

You may not like 999, but this is a really good video that explains the bigger issues with our tax code:

9-9-9 The Movie - Slaying the Tax Monster -...

[budw38]

Here is an example of " sharing the wealth" , as it looks like Great Britian is heading to a return of the 3 day week again Britain is facing return of three-day week - UK Politics - UK - The Independent . BRITAIN: On a Three-Day Work Week - TIME .

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Editorial from Aruthur Laffer on 999:

Arthur B. Laffer: Cain's Stimulating '9-9-9' Tax Reform - WSJ.com

Art Laffer is a moron. I wouldn't listen to a word he says, in fact I'd do the opposite.

PS he still hasn't paid the penny to Schiff (1st clip):

Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007 (2nd Edition)...

[mlmpetert]

^ I like Peter Schiff a lot (and not just for his first name) and hes clearly a really smart articulate dude. But Laffer was one of the many "smart" economist in the vast majority that were completely caught off guard with the economic collapse.

Im not say that makes his opinion any better, but he was wrong when everyone else was wrong. 2008 was a true "black swan" event (maybe even the originator of the term?) with more interwoven complexity then the US tax code so i cant really fault a guy for not seeing it coming. He is a of an arrogant ahole so from a personal standpoint, i dont like him either.

[mlmpetert]

Has anyone been paying attention to this whole payroll tax showdown?

The payroll tax is 6.2% and is a transparent tax in the sense that its deducted by law from our paychecks. In 2010 it was temporarily reduced for stimulus purposes by 2% to 4.2% which put an extra $1,000 dollars in the pockets of a family making 50k/year. Payroll taxes directly funds programs that for the most part directly benefit the person who pays the tax in the form of SS, Medicare and stuff like that.

The Congress just sent their extension to the Senate. The Republican Congress, however, stuck some "candy" in their bill in the form of a pipeline oil project that Obama wants to put off until after the election. Its pretty much obvious that Obama is going to allow the pipeline project because the Unions are demanding it, but he wants to wait. Environmentalist dont want it because they just dont like that kind of stuff and Obama cant afford to lose the Green Vote (i just came up with that term, but im sure its not an original...)

The whole pipeline thing is just some bs waste of time. The real details of the bill are that it would be payed for the payroll tax by capping pay to federal workers, increasing Medicare premiums for those making over 80k, and by cutting out or turning off one of those "magnets" to illegals by not allowing the Child Tax Credit to illegal immigrants.

Digression: I had no idea illegal immigrants could get refundable credits!!! What the hell is going on in this country!

In addition to a couple other minor things the bill would also put in a schedule to slowly reduce the max unemployment benefits from the current 99 weeks (almost 2 years!!) to 59 weeks (just over a year!), and also allow states to drug test people that collect unemployment (bad for TW & Davis) and other crazy things like banning welfare debit cards at casinos and strip clubs, bad for this guy:

You Tube

(my strip club DJ voice is almost as good and just as creepy, fyi)

The Democrats would rather fund the bill by having the rich pay for it. To me that would be inherently unfair. Payroll taxes directly benefit the people who pay for them (for the most part), so to have another person pay for it just seems absolutely backwards, at least to me. Good old class warfare i guess.

But heres the problem. When the 2% reduction kicked in everyone noticed it, because there was extra money in our pay checks and everyone likes that. But it wasnt much money and it came over the course of 24 or more pay checks for most of us, and by now most people take it for granted and dont really remember getting the bonus. So if people just get hit with a 2% reduction in pay starting next year there will be a little bit of a shock. People will be pissed and see it as a new tax and not just that the bonus period is over.

Its an election year for Obama and i think most people will blame Obama for not extending the bonus period even though he will end up having a chance at signing the bill. Obama will blame Congress (who is also up for election), but who knows how effective that will be. Plus the Congress will be able to say we gave Obama and the Democrat Senate a bill but they vetoed it.

At the end of the day i think the 2% reduction will continue but who knows what concession Obama and the Democrats are going to have to make?? The other option would be something thats may be more effective but doesnt make our "leaders" look good. They could enact the Making Work Pay Credit (refundable too, maybe even to illegals). The problem with Credits is that people dont really understand them or attribute credit for them to the correct politicians, all they know is they got a big refund one year but not another.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

^ I like Peter Schiff a lot (and not just for his first name) and hes clearly a really smart articulate dude. But Laffer was one of the many "smart" economist in the vast majority that were completely caught off guard with the economic collapse.

Im not say that makes his opinion any better, but he was wrong when everyone else was wrong. 2008 was a true "black swan" event (maybe even the originator of the term?) with more interwoven complexity then the US tax code so i cant really fault a guy for not seeing it coming. He is a of an arrogant ahole so from a personal standpoint, i dont like him either.

In retrospect it wasn't that complex. Schiff had it pegged almost as if he was a time-traveler. So many in that industry get caught up in a mental way that doesn't allow them to constructively think and analyze. PS didn't seem to have that problem and didn't seem to think his position was very outlandish. He simply looked at the data and connected the dots...everyone else looked at the data and started drawing their own dots to support their deeply held hopes that evrything was going to be awesome forever.

[mlmpetert]

I thnk its more complex then people make it out to have been. I also think that its Peter Schiff did more then just connect the dots of data, he dug into the data and found out how wrong or poorly put together it was. However you are 100% right that so many got caught up in a way that didnt allow them to think constructively. I think our schools should teach kids to be more constructive and critical thinkers that arnt affaird to think outside the box go against the social grain and verify data before using it form their arguments. Also have you read the Big Short by Michael Lewis? Awesome book by an amazing writer.

[SBXVII]

mlmpetert,

You'd be supprised what the illegals get. Personally all our relatives were illegal or immagrents but at this point in time there are laws against simply walking into this country with out permission and staying longer then your allowed to. For me the bigger issues are;

1- are they paying into Social Security and Medicade? If they are being paid under the table as most are so the business does not have to report them or get into trouble for hiring illegals then what happens to the illegals when they are too old to work or are in their 60', 70's or 80's and need medical attention? Who's paying that? We are. You and me. They pocketed their money early and when their too old to work the rest of us who did pay into the system will be supporting them.

2- I'm a citizen. I assume most of us here are. Whether you were born here or not you are or have gotten your citizenship. What benifits do you have over some one who is not a citizen? I'll tell you, as of right now there is only one benifit that I know of. Maybe there are more and I'm missing them but I know of one. You can vote. Woo hoo. I've always felt their was a big difference between Citizen rights and Human rights. Being a Citizen gives you all the benifits of the Constitution, Human rights simply means we won't let you bleed to death, or die due to lack of medical attention. But no, people have muddied the waters and legal or illegal you get all benifits of the constitution, except voting because you have to register which means you have to prove your a legal citizen.

[SBXVII]

Back on track, I've said it before and it was not popular but fair is everyone paying the same % of what they earn. Whether you earn $20,000 or millions, if everyone paid the same % then no one should be complaining.

[SirClintonPortis]

Really, there will be NO end to this debate. People care about being treated well first, being treated "fairly"--and there are many ways to define "fairly"-- second. Note: "treated well" is not the same a "being well", although they are tied closely together in these matters, but that's a different messy matter altogether.

Fairness could be that an "equal chunk" be taken out of someone. That could be by percentage or a flat tax.

Fairness could be defined as "[more] equal" utility(happiness, pleasure, etc) derived from that extra dollar saved.

Even if everyone agrees on what a "fair" tax is, there's the other part of the system: Who gets the dibs on the goods and services produced from those taxes. Let's assume everyone pays a flat percentage of taxes and that is "fair". Folks can then debate all day about who gets that collected money back in the form of goods, services, and handouts in a similar manner.

Heck, even the whole system can be critiqued. If a regressive tax were imposed, would it really be unfair if most of the money gets back into the hands of the taxpayers' who paid them in the form of goods and services?

[firstdown]

Whats so funny with this payroll tax is hearing the two side flip roles. The dems are talking about how the tax cut has stimulated the economy, created jobs, etc... and the right is saying how it won't do any of that. If I'm correct it was always the right saying how tax cuts creates this and that and the left saying it won't.

[NC_Skins]

What is a fair tax?


I think the answer can be found from the same answer of "What is a fair salary?"


I you think it's fair to earn a bulk of the revenue's percentage while your employees are barely scrapping by, then I think it's rightly fair you pay a bulk of the percentages in taxes as well.


Fair is far after all. You can't claim that making billions is legit, and turn around and paying more than the lower class is unfair.

I'm referencing percentages, not overall amount.

[mlmpetert]

Good read about how screwed up the current code is:

At 102%, His Tax Rate Takes the Cake - Yahoo! Finance

Also a very short but good read i meant to post a while ago.

Hinkle: Should we knock down Romney's fence? | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Honestly the argument that Romney pays less in taxes is flawed and comes from ignorance to some extent. The money he gave to charity is no longer his money and taxes should never be paid on funds that go to nonprofits. But the people in his defense who try and add back the total amount he gave away are also wrong. Just the amount of taxes he would have otherwise paid on the money he gave away should be added back.

But most importantly the amount he paid out of pocket is low, only because cap gains appear low since the money is already taxed at corporate income rates. The value of the stock is reflective of the value of the company. If corporate taxes went away then the values of stock would suddenly become worth 35% more. In the meantime people have to pay that 35% (in the form of lost earnings) before paying the 15% on any gains they MIGHT get when the stock is sold IF held long term. So Romney has really payed 15% in addition to the 35%all ready payed. Obviously you have companies like GE that don’t pay taxes or gas companies that get subsidized to some extent, but that is at no fault of Mr. Romney.

Ive gone back and forth with tax treatment of capital gains and the more i think about it the more i think its unfair for them to be taxed as high as regular income. I think the only way to make things the most fair (equal, not social justice “fair”) is to have something that’s extremely simple so people can understand it, make everyone pay a little something and of course make evil rich people pay a bit more too:

- Allow income deductions for all things tax related except federal and state sales taxes. So just things like property taxes and state or city income tax
- Allow dollar for dollar deductions for charities, however, tighten up the definition of charities (caps on director’s income, what/who they benefit, and strict rules on political partisanship)
- No joint, single, head of household or married filling separate statuses. Everyone gets taxed the same on the amounts they make over 20k or so. My girlfriend is a teacher and we ran into 2 of her old students from a low income high school the other day. They were clearly in a relationship, she’s have twins, he is the dad, and there were no plans to get married. You either have to be rich, religious or retarded to get married with kids on the way. The taxman doesn’t pitty anyone, except for single moms. If everyone is looked at as an individual then people will be able to get married without losing benefits.
- Allow individual personal and depedent decutions the same as they are now

Simple tax rates:

- If you make less then 20k or so - something very low (1-2%) partly just for equable purposes
- Personal income, federal sales tax, and evil capital gains– all equal (kind of like 999)
- Corporate income – also the same as the 3 above but allow C corps to reduce their income by allowing them to deduct distributions to shareholders (who are then taxed just like now). Don’t worry guys like Mr. Romney will still get double taxed, just not as doubled taxed. The public may think that Romney is only being taxed the same amount as them but in reality he will be taxed more. People may not understand it but I think most will feel like that he is at a minimum being taxed the same as them

The only reason why taxes are so unfair is because theyre so complex and inefficient. Taxes need to be simple and transparent before they will be considered fair.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Good read about how screwed up the current code is:

At 102%, His Tax Rate Takes the Cake - Yahoo! Finance

Also a very short but good read i meant to post a while ago.

Hinkle: Should we knock down Romney's fence? | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Honestly the argument that Romney pays less in taxes is flawed and comes from ignorance to some extent. The money he gave to charity is no longer his money and taxes should never be paid on funds that go to nonprofits. But the people in his defense who try and add back the total amount he gave away are also wrong. Just the amount of taxes he would have otherwise paid on the money he gave away should be added back.

But most importantly the amount he paid out of pocket is low, only because cap gains appear low since the money is already taxed at corporate income rates. The value of the stock is reflective of the value of the company. If corporate taxes went away then the values of stock would suddenly become worth 35% more. In the meantime people have to pay that 35% (in the form of lost earnings) before paying the 15% on any gains they MIGHT get when the stock is sold IF held long term. So Romney has really payed 15% in addition to the 35%all ready payed. Obviously you have companies like GE that don’t pay taxes or gas companies that get subsidized to some extent, but that is at no fault of Mr. Romney.

Ive gone back and forth with tax treatment of capital gains and the more i think about it the more i think its unfair for them to be taxed as high as regular income. I think the only way to make things the most fair (equal, not social justice “fair”) is to have something that’s extremely simple so people can understand it, make everyone pay a little something and of course make evil rich people pay a bit more too:

- Allow income deductions for all things tax related except federal and state sales taxes. So just things like property taxes and state or city income tax
- Allow dollar for dollar deductions for charities, however, tighten up the definition of charities (caps on director’s income, what/who they benefit, and strict rules on political partisanship)
- No joint, single, head of household or married filling separate statuses. Everyone gets taxed the same on the amounts they make over 20k or so. My girlfriend is a teacher and we ran into 2 of her old students from a low income high school the other day. They were clearly in a relationship, she’s have twins, he is the dad, and there were no plans to get married. You either have to be rich, religious or retarded to get married with kids on the way. The taxman doesn’t pitty anyone, except for single moms. If everyone is looked at as an individual then people will be able to get married without losing benefits.
- Allow individual personal and depedent decutions the same as they are now

Simple tax rates:

- If you make less then 20k or so - something very low (1-2%) partly just for equable purposes
- Personal income, federal sales tax, and evil capital gains– all equal (kind of like 999)
- Corporate income – also the same as the 3 above but allow C corps to reduce their income by allowing them to deduct distributions to shareholders (who are then taxed just like now). Don’t worry guys like Mr. Romney will still get double taxed, just not as doubled taxed. The public may think that Romney is only being taxed the same amount as them but in reality he will be taxed more. People may not understand it but I think most will feel like that he is at a minimum being taxed the same as them

The only reason why taxes are so unfair is because theyre so complex and inefficient. Taxes need to be simple and transparent before they will be considered fair.

But most importantly the amount he paid out of pocket is low, only because cap gains appear low since the money is already taxed at corporate income rates. The value of the stock is reflective of the value of the company. If corporate taxes went away then the values of stock would suddenly become worth 35% more. In the meantime people have to pay that 35% (in the form of lost earnings) before paying the 15% on any gains they MIGHT get when the stock is sold IF held long term. So Romney has really payed 15% in addition to the 35%all ready payed.

This guy is a fcking dumbshit or purposefully misleading. He already paid 35% huh? When exactly did he do that? When did the company do that? Does he know what an equity firm is? What carried interest, which discussed not to long ago, is?

GTFOH