Tax policy

[SgtSpike]

I'm just curious what everyone's thoughts are on the best way to handle taxes. Is the current American tax system sufficient? Do you love it? Do you hate it? What kind of system would you put in place?

Personally, I think that taxes should be either a straight-line percentage across the board, regardless of income, or they should be based on purchasing. Anyone who purchases more than $xx,xxx of goods per year (or per month) would pay a straight-line percentage tax on anything purchased beyond that.

For example, if the limit was $50,000, anyone who spent more than $50,000 per year would pay say 25% in taxes on anything they purchased beyond that $50,000.

My only concern with a policy like that is that it would tank the economy. I don't know enough about economics to say for sure how it would affect things, but my guess would be that many people would stop spending so much money per year. It'd be good in that people would save more, but bad in that people wouldn't spend as much, and thus wouldn't stimulate the economy as much.

And this is just a random though: Do you think credit cards may have helped the economy grow in the short term, but will greatly harm the economy in the long term?

 

[Minor Axis]

I like the idea of a consumption/sales tax or a flat tax. One thing about the Republican party, all they say is "vote for me and I'll lower your taxes" appealing to the selfish side of people. A better honest method would be to discuss what services taxpayers want from government and what they are willing to pay for it.

And if the government is going to launch into a war, they had better use real cash, ie taxes to pay for it and not run up HUGE deficits to make such a war more palatable to the taxpayers. In the end the taxpayers are going to pay one way or the other. This Iraq War is the first time in history (that I am aware of) where an Administration was trying to lower taxes, not raise them to pay for it. It's dishonest to the people and totally fiscally irresponsible.

 

[GoldDust Woman]

I'm all for doing away with taxes, other than Social Security and Medicare taxes. The working people deserve to keep all of the money they work hard to earn. We are taxed to death!

Consumption tax. That's the ticket.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Consumption tax is a much better system. It does not penalize people for making more and is much easier to enforce. Right now we have a lot of people not paying their fair share of taxes because they can hide their income and exaggerate expenses.

 

[SgtSpike]

I like the idea of a consumption/sales tax or a flat tax. One thing about the Republican party, all they say is "vote for me and I'll lower your taxes" appealing to the selfish side of people. A better honest method would be to discuss what services taxpayers want from government and what they are willing to pay for it.

And if the government is going to launch into a war, they had better use real cash, ie taxes to pay for it and not run up HUGE deficits to make such a war more palatable to the taxpayers. In the end the taxpayers are going to pay one way or the other. This Iraq War is the first time in history (that I am aware of) where an Administration was trying to lower taxes, not raise them to pay for it. It's dishonest to the people and totally fiscally irresponsible.

Wow, first post I've seen from you where I agree with everything you said. :thumbup

And now you all just proved my noobishness by calling it a consumption tax - duh, I knew that, really.

Anyway, like I said, my only concern with a consumption tax is that it would cause people to stop consuming, especially rich people. They'd get stingier, and that means less money being dumped back into the economy. Anyone else feel that a consumption tax would actually be bad for the economy, but still sounds like a good idea? Lol...

 

[Fox Mulder]

And if the government is going to launch into a war, they had better use real cash, ie taxes to pay for it and not run up HUGE deficits to make such a war more palatable to the taxpayers.

The only problem with that is you do know that the deficit from WWII was BY FAR THE LARGEST IN HISTORY. It dwarfed any other period. But no one can argue that it was necessary at the time. So by doing what you ask you are severely handicapping national defense. Also, that probably would be unconstitutional because the president is given the power to defend the country by any means he/she deems necessary so you can't restrict it by legislation. You would need a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[SgtSpike]

The only problem with that is you do know that the deficit from WWII was BY FAR THE LARGEST IN HISTORY. It dwarfed any other period. But no one can argue that it was necessary at the time. So by doing what you ask you are severely handicapping national defense. Also, that probably would be unconstitutional because the president is given the power to defend the country by any means he/she deems necessary so you can't restrict it by legislation. You would need a Constitutional Amendment.

Good points - the American people probably wouldn't be able to pay for the current budget of the war if it was all dumped on at the same time.

 

[Minor Axis]

The only problem with that is you do know that the deficit from WWII was BY FAR THE LARGEST IN HISTORY. It dwarfed any other period. But no one can argue that it was necessary at the time. So by doing what you ask you are severely handicapping national defense. Also, that probably would be unconstitutional because the president is given the power to defend the country by any means he/she deems necessary so you can't restrict it by legislation. You would need a Constitutional Amendment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, they did not lower taxes during WWII. BTW what was the deficits the country ran during WWII and what was the National Debt? 400 Billion a year and 10 Trillion dollars?

2008 Federal Budget Deficit.

National Debt.

Wikipedia Public Debt.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Correct me if I'm wrong, they did not lower taxes during WWII. BTW what was the deficits the country ran during WWII and what was the National Debt? 400 Billion a year and 10 Trillion dollars?

2008 Federal Budget Deficit.

National Debt.

Wikipedia Public Debt.

Not following your point.

 

[GoldDust Woman]

Here's the new tax form. :ninja

 

[Fox Mulder]

Here's the new tax form. :ninja

Almost right--I don't see an exemption for union wages!

 

[siasl]

Almost right--I don't see an exemption for union wages!

or one for humor :thumbup
that's made me chuckle, GD woman :clap

 

[Alien Allen]

or one for humor :thumbup
that's made me chuckle, GD woman :clap

I don't see the exemption for Mulder either :nod:

The one labeled egotistic dickhead :24:

 

[watermelon man]

I really don't see the problem everybody has with a higher tax for people living withing a certain level of comfort, especially when it goes to services that make the entire community better for everybody.

Sweden has a tax rate of almost 50%, and Sweden rates higher than the US in overall standard of living, because that money goes into providing for the community.

 

[Alien Allen]

well if you like euro socialism then move there

if anybody pays attention to what the rich actually pay they would understand that they already pay more than their fair share

 

[watermelon man]

I'm just saying that if something is working, it shouldn't be treated like some horrible thing.

No government can stand on a strict one-system way. Even the US is only a democratic republic, because democracy would fall apart too easily.

I'm not saying we need a total socialist revamp of how things work, but if countries are doing better than us economically and are providing a better way of living for their people, that should be noted.

However it does have its repercussions, Americans are almost programmed to be as lazy as possible these days, so they probably wouldn't do anything to help. I guess those countries have better motivated citizens but that's all I got.

 

[Haus]

how about no tax and the government makes their own money. meaning instead of the money getting circulated the Government gets a shit load of it and we pay no tax and what we make is ours.

ahh but only in a perfect world.

 

[Alien Allen]

I'm just saying that if something is working, it shouldn't be treated like some horrible thing.

No government can stand on a strict one-system way. Even the US is only a democratic republic, because democracy would fall apart too easily.

I'm not saying we need a total socialist revamp of how things work, but if countries are doing better than us economically and are providing a better way of living for their people, that should be noted.

However it does have its repercussions, Americans are almost programmed to be as lazy as possible these days, so they probably wouldn't do anything to help. I guess those countries have better motivated citizens but that's all I got.

Pretty sure there is evidence to indicate we actually put more hours in than most.

 

[SgtSpike]

I'm just saying that if something is working, it shouldn't be treated like some horrible thing.

No government can stand on a strict one-system way. Even the US is only a democratic republic, because democracy would fall apart too easily.

I'm not saying we need a total socialist revamp of how things work, but if countries are doing better than us economically and are providing a better way of living for their people, that should be noted.

However it does have its repercussions, Americans are almost programmed to be as lazy as possible these days, so they probably wouldn't do anything to help. I guess those countries have better motivated citizens but that's all I got.

I don't know why you think Sweden is doing better economically or providing a better way of living for people...

Sweden has always provided solid support for free trade (except agriculture), free immigration, and strong property rights. After World War II a succession of governments increased the welfare state and the tax burden, and Sweden's GDP per capita ranking fell from the 4th to 14th place in a few decades.[80]

As of 2007, total tax revenue was 47.8% of GDP, the second highest tax burden among developed countries, down from 49.1% 2006.[83] Inverted tax wedge - the amount going to the service worker's wallet - is approximately 15% compared to 10% in Belgium, 30% in Ireland and 50% in United States.[80] Public sector spending amounts to 53% of the GDP. State and municipal employees total around a third of the workforce, much more than in most Western countries. Only Denmark has a larger bureaucracy (38% of Danish workforce). Spending on transfers is also high.

Sweden has by far the highest amount of sick leaves per worker: average worker loses 24 days due to sickness.[71] Swedish unemployment figures are contested in politics. Unemployment is higher amongst younger people. Because of the contradiction—unemployment despite a growing commercial enterprise economy—politicians and analysts often speak of the "jobless growth". According to Eurostat the unemployment rate in February 2007 was at 6.7% down from 7.4% from February 2006.[85] No new net jobs have been produced in the Swedish private sector since 1950. None of top 50 companies on the Stockholm stock exchange has been started since 1970.[80]

15% tax wedge? 1/3 of people employed by (and controlled by) the government? I'll take the 50% tax wedge and much lower government employment rate of the US, thank you.

 

[Fox Mulder]

ISweden has a tax rate of almost 50%, and Sweden rates higher than the US in overall standard of living, because that money goes into providing for the community.

Where do you get your facts from? Sweden does NOT have a higher standard of living. And in any event, you can't compare a closed country with the United States. Sweden has extremely strict rules on immigration and can control it to stop people from coming in and sucking up social services. If we had that system in the United States, the economy would fucking collapse in on itself.