Bar Stool Economics

[tsst]

I prefer the idea of a national sales tax and eliminate the income tax. The benefit would be that EVERYONE that uses our economy would help support it. Citizens, businesses, illegal immigrants, even tourists.

 

[tsst]

... The entire story is propoganda by definition. It is untrue, it relies entirely on an emotional response from the reader, and is designed to stir feelings of anger. ...

You just described every political ploy for the last 50 years!

As for your links, which you posted to show how accurate your story is...if the richest 5% of our country report 33% of our national income, I don't see any legitimate reason why they SHOULDN'T pay the bulk of our national income tax. They make the bulk of our national income......

They make a 1/3 of the income but pay 1/2 the taxes. Why not pay 1/3 the taxes for earning 1/3 the income???

 

[starsevol]

They make a 1/3 of the income but pay 1/2 the taxes. Why not pay 1/3 the taxes for earning 1/3 the income???

Because virtually every rich person either inherited that money and did nothing to earn it, or they stepped on others and ruined lives. I'm sure some of them hid money in offshore bank accounts in Switzerland, exploited workers and harmed the enviornment. Some probably directly benefit from war and bloodshed. The ones that didn't do that I KNOW kick puppies! I think they deserve it! Serves them right!

* The preceding rant is not the view of this sponser, and was sarcastic in nature. Please proceed with our regularly scheduled programming *

 

[tyflier]

You just described every political ploy for the last 50 years!

Yea, yea...

They make a 1/3 of the income but pay 1/2 the taxes. Why not pay 1/3 the taxes for earning 1/3 the income???

I've always supported a flat tax based on an equal percentage of income. I've always thought 10 or 15% (or whatever it works out to be) would be a much more fair system of taxation. Do away with tax breaks, tax credits, loopholes, and backdoors. Everyone calculates 15% of their gross earnings and pays that amount. Simple, fair, and everyone can see what they pay and why they pay it.

I've also always supported the idea of requiring Public Assistance and Welfare recipients to earn their benefits. You can't find a job and take care of your kids? Fine, we'll provide you with the means to do it by having you work in and for the county and state that provide your benefits. Childcare can be provideed by other recipients earning their benefits. Clean toilets, pick up trash, work with maintenance crews, simple data entry, and all kinds of non-technical jobs could be used to allow individuals to earn their benefits.

Lastly, nobody ever said that every person with money is dishonest. But you cannot sit here and deny the existence of off-shore accounts, exploited loopholes, fraudulent profiteering, misrepresentation of worth, and whatever else. these things happen, have been happening, and continue to happen. To demand proof is fairly ludicrous. We've all heard the term "White Collar Criminal". They have entire prison systems dedicated to dealing with this type of criminal exclusively. And those prisons are full.

But I guess I'm just paranoid, right? :shrugs:

 

[wstphal]

Chris, those are great suggestions! Really great. SRSLY. And if people who weren't previously "in the habit" of working learned to show up on time, dress properly for the job, etc, they would also get a benefit out of working to earn their benefits. EVERYONE would get something out of it.

On the idea of having people pay their taxes directly instead of thru payroll, it was tried. It failed. People spent the money before they were due to send it to the IRS. I have a suggestion though. Two checks every pay period, one payable to the worker and one payable to the IRS representing what the worker owe to the IRS for that tax period. The worker has to take it to the bank, or put it in the ATM, or mail it, to get it to the IRS every pay period. That way, the worker sees clearly what the tax is but can't spend the money instead of paying the IRS. Any thoughts?

 

[Outcast]

"Oh no! My tax check got stolen....."
That is what I see some people saying...

 

[starsevol]

Yea, yea...


I've always supported a flat tax based on an equal percentage of income. I've always thought 10 or 15% (or whatever it works out to be) would be a much more fair system of taxation. Do away with tax breaks, tax credits, loopholes, and backdoors. Everyone calculates 15% of their gross earnings and pays that amount. Simple, fair, and everyone can see what they pay and why they pay it.

I've also always supported the idea of requiring Public Assistance and Welfare recipients to earn their benefits. You can't find a job and take care of your kids? Fine, we'll provide you with the means to do it by having you work in and for the county and state that provide your benefits. Childcare can be provideed by other recipients earning their benefits. Clean toilets, pick up trash, work with maintenance crews, simple data entry, and all kinds of non-technical jobs could be used to allow individuals to earn their benefits.

Lastly, nobody ever said that every person with money is dishonest. But you cannot sit here and deny the existence of off-shore accounts, exploited loopholes, fraudulent profiteering, misrepresentation of worth, and whatever else. these things happen, have been happening, and continue to happen. To demand proof is fairly ludicrous. We've all heard the term "White Collar Criminal". They have entire prison systems dedicated to dealing with this type of criminal exclusively. And those prisons are full.

But I guess I'm just paranoid, right? :shrugs:

I agree with this completely!!
The only trouble I see with the first 2 paragraphs of your post is that your ideas made wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too much sense to ever become policy!

And I do agree that *some* of the wealthy are indeed white collar criminals. But not all of them. I was just being an obnoxious git in my last post.

 

[Leew]

BTW, I too liked the little "something to think about" that the "analogy" gave. Of course it is simplistic and doesn't address all the "issues". BUT, it is supposed to and should make one think about it. The feeling of "entitlement" and "unfairness" that people feel about those who have more makes me... ILL.

I agree with that very much Fred. It is like some people don't want to admit that some people are better are earning money than they are. If you have more than me you must have cheated somehow to get it. The very foundation of this countries economy is based on free economy. If you take away that incentive to do better you will kill the system. Look at Russia, a once affluent country.

I like the flat tax idea. I am sure there are complexities we are not seeing here but it does seem like a much fairer idea.

 

[tsst]

... Lastly, nobody ever said that every person with money is dishonest. But you cannot sit here and deny the existence of off-shore accounts, exploited loopholes, fraudulent profiteering, misrepresentation of worth, and whatever else. these things happen, have been happening, and continue to happen. To demand proof is fairly ludicrous. We've all heard the term "White Collar Criminal". They have entire prison systems dedicated to dealing with this type of criminal exclusively. And those prisons are full.

But I guess I'm just paranoid, right? :shrugs:

Nobody said every person with money is honest either.

Hmmm ... maybe that was one of the points in the analogy. He is drinking beer abroad(ie outsourcing or moving his money offshore) because he is tired of paying 1/2 the taxes while only earning 1/3 the income and hearing the others question why he shouldn't be doing more(more redistribution of wealth, those at the top should pay my taxes, pay my healthcare, pay my house payment, pay for my education, pay for my food, pay for etc etc etc). :shrugs:

 

[wstphal]

"Oh no! My tax check got stolen....."
That is what I see some people saying...

Oh probably. But they still couldn't spend that money and nobody could cash that check unless they could convince the bank cashing it that they worked for the IRS, so people could "say" it was lost or stolen but the money really wouldn't be lost. The employer could just put a stop payment on that check & re-issue it and fine the employee for "losing" the IRS check for that pay period instead of sending it to the IRS. After a while people would figure out that "losing" the check didn't allow them to get that money & spend it.

 

[kathylove]

After a while people would figure out that "losing" the check didn't allow them to get that money & spend it.

And THAT is when the average voter would FINALLY be forced to decide to prioritize what he or she REALLY wants the government to provide, and at what cost - and vote accordingly. It is SO EASY to spend other peoples' money - but not quite as easy if each worker could VERY CLEARLY see that it is his or her OWN money disappearing into a black hole. Now it is so conveniently hidden in deductions that one never sees, so it is easy for voters to convince themselves that somebody else is paying for all of the "stuff" that politicians promise in their never ending, vote buying, speeches.

 

[The_Thunderer]

Oh, I realize that there are those that would spend the money due the IRS... but then they would, rightfully so, have consequences for such actions... Betsy's suggestion of two checks, sounds good... one that CANNOT be cashed, but shows what one is sending to the government and one that CAN. I don't even like the idea that these checks "can" be cashed at all...

Perhaps the 2 check thing is full of holes... BUT, there should be some way that each worker HAS TO SEE and even SIGN OFF on what is going to "Big Brother" each and every pay period. Of course, as they say, "You can lead a horse to water..."

 

[Leew]

I like the idea of people being more aware of how much they send to the government. I personally watch my money pretty closely. If each person is sending a check to the government every other friday, it would make a huge, and expensive, accounting nightmare one the governments end. I like the idea but see a few problems with it.

One of the things that would be nice about a flat tax is that it would be simple enough we could eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy that goes with auditing tax collection. Anything to reduce the number of people in government employ would get my vote.

 

[Rich Z]

I am not so sure about this, as Susan said, there are too many single women raising kids and handicapped people....
But my personal utopia would be a flat tax. No IRS, no CPAs, no tax code that you need 10 degrees to figure out. No loopholes or tax breaks of any kind for any one or any corperation.
Just a flat rate, 20% or 25% of all income taken in.
If you are rich, you pay 25% of your earnings that year.
If you are poor you pay 25% too. In monthly payments if the bulk is hard to come up with all at once.
The rich will still be paying more, but it will be proportional, and it will be FAIR.

That is NOT a flat tax at all. People earning more money because of their will and efforts to do so STILL pay more than those who do not. Again, is that FAIR?

Taking an example of a 10% "flat" tax, someone earning $20,000 per year will pay $2,000. But someone earning $200,000 will have to pay $20,000, meaning 10 TIMES what the other person has to pay. How is that fair, much less much different from the already existing "progressive" taxation?

In my opinion, it is just cockeyed and completely contrary to an economic system supposedly based on capitalism (which pretty much means that you reap what you sow). Matter of fact, the current taxing system is pretty much the complete opposite in functionality of capitalism.

 

[Rich Z]

Children? Women at home raising a family? The aged, ill, or handicapped?
This plan IS harsh and not well thought out.

I believe I have thought it out sufficiently that I feel comfortable stating such here. Perhaps YOU have not thought it out for yourself?

The government (from mostly the local levels) can be tasked with the methods and funding to deal with such things that some people would consider as exceptions and exemptions to the category of "eligible tax payers", even to the point of paying the bill due. The whole point of simplifying the tax code is to eliminate the exceptions that now plague us with an overly complicated and abusive system. Those exceptions and exemptions allow abuses in the way of preferential treatment that can be used as coercion and social experimentation by the government. Not everything under the sun needs to be included within the tax code in order to make protected classes of people because of their individual circumstances, whether inflicted upon them by hapstance or by choices they have made themselves. Nor should it be used to empower the government to provide benefits to some via tax breaks and credits, and therefore give them control of various and sundry aspects of our lives. It's bad enough what they are doing with the direct control of the purse strings into which he have to throw out money into at their coercion and by force of law.

Simply put, aren't the other methods of taxation (property taxes, sales tax, environmental impacts, utility usage, etc.) completely blind to such exemptions and complicated codings? Since such vehicles of extracting money from our wallets by the government are relatively even handed in how they are applied, without concern about our actual financial circumstances, why shouldn't the INCOME tax be treated the same way? Generally speaking, the value of the property you own IS related to your general net worth, just as the amount you spend in order to generate sales tax. So it really doesn't take a huge strain on the brain to consider that there should be some consistency in how taxes are applied across the board when related to HOW you get your money in the first place, just as it is applied in how you later spend it.

 

[Lucille]

The government (from mostly the local levels) can be tasked with the methods and funding to deal with such things that some people would consider as exceptions and exemptions to the category of "eligible tax payers", even to the point of paying the bill due.

Quite simply, here is your BILL to remain a citizen of the U.S.A. Pay it, any way you can, or there is the door.

I actually agree with your first statement, because it allows for the special categories I mentioned. The second, simply presenting a bill without thought, is not a good idea.

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

That is NOT a flat tax at all. People earning more money because of their will and efforts to do so STILL pay more than those who do not. Again, is that FAIR?

Taking an example of a 10% "flat" tax, someone earning $20,000 per year will pay $2,000. But someone earning $200,000 will have to pay $20,000, meaning 10 TIMES what the other person has to pay. How is that fair, much less much different from the already existing "progressive" taxation?

In my opinion, it is just cockeyed and completely contrary to an economic system supposedly based on capitalism (which pretty much means that you reap what you sow). Matter of fact, the current taxing system is pretty much the complete opposite in functionality of capitalism.

Kind of a little off topic, but this is one of the myths purported by people who support capitalism, that if you work hard, you can move up the economic ladder. Unfortunately, that isn't the case most of the time.

Capitalism rewards greed and luck, not hard work. Plenty of people bust their butt working 60 hours a week and are barely getting by. Likewise there are people who make $20k a year who work just as hard, maybe harder in some cases, than those making $200k a year.

The notion that all it takes is hard work to make a better life for yourself is poppycock. The American Dream is becoming more and more a mirage.

 

[starsevol]

That is NOT a flat tax at all. People earning more money because of their will and efforts to do so STILL pay more than those who do not. Again, is that FAIR?

Taking an example of a 10% "flat" tax, someone earning $20,000 per year will pay $2,000. But someone earning $200,000 will have to pay $20,000, meaning 10 TIMES what the other person has to pay. How is that fair, much less much different from the already existing "progressive" taxation?

In my opinion, it is just cockeyed and completely contrary to an economic system supposedly based on capitalism (which pretty much means that you reap what you sow). Matter of fact, the current taxing system is pretty much the complete opposite in functionality of capitalism.

Yes, it is completely proportional and is considered fair by many. The rich pay more than the poor do, but not a higher percentage, the way they do right now. There would be no more "tax brackets", we would all be under exactly the same tax bracket. It is called a flat tax because the rate of taxation would be a flat amount, and exactly the same for everybody.

 

[Leew]

Kind of a little off topic, but this is one of the myths purported by people who support capitalism, that if you work hard, you can move up the economic ladder. Unfortunately, that isn't the case most of the time.

Capitalism rewards greed and luck, not hard work. Plenty of people bust their butt working 60 hours a week and are barely getting by. Likewise there are people who make $20k a year who work just as hard, maybe harder in some cases, than those making $200k a year.

The notion that all it takes is hard work to make a better life for yourself is poppycock. The American Dream is becoming more and more a mirage.

Working hard will not make you rich nor should it. Doing something better than anyone else should earn you reward. Doing something that nobody else can do should be of more value than something that anybody can do.

Being a really hard working ditch digger is admirable, but there are lots of people who can do that, you are very replaceable. On the other had Bill Gates has probably never broken a sweat in his life but very few people can do what he has done. If your ditch digger can sit down next to Bill and do the same work as Bill then they should be paid the same.

If you take the annual national budget and divide it by the number of citizens and tell them that is their bill this year, you will find that about 75% of them will owe more than their annual income. That may be more fair for everyone to pay the same but it simply cannot work.

If everyone paid 15% and kept 85% then the rich would still be carrying the bulk of the load. The dollar amount each paid would not be the same but portion of their income paid would be the same.

 

[The_Thunderer]

I'll have to agree with Bethany here, Rich... The person who earned more while definitely paying "more" would also get to keep the 80%, which at $180,000 is also 10x more than the $18,000 the lower income person keeps. Sounds fair to me.

And, Matt, as Leew said, the differentiation comes from the "uniqueness" of your work. Unfortunately for me, MANY people can take care of kids at a children's home. So my work, while I consider it of GREATER value than Michael Vick running and throwing for TD's, makes me "replaceable" while he and his skill at what he does makes him, relatively speaking, "irreplaceable".