Let's talk Tax Reform!!

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, without this getting partisan (yeah right...we are on OT aren't we??) I am curious if anyone has experience in finances and has opinions on tax reform. After doing my 2005 taxes seems to me that:

1) The current tax laws are way too cumbersome.
2) Significant cash could be saved by doing away with the IRS.
3) Getting your taxes lower is all about hiring the right tax guy. So the wealthy have access to more tax breaks and shelters than Joe American (not that I have a problem with this, but it is a point).

So. What do you guys think of the Flat Tax or going to a national sales tax? Most of the proposals I have seen for either one exempt people under a certain income from taxes (in the case of the flat tax) or exempt basic staples like groceries, etc from taxes. I'm not sure which one I favor, but from what I have heard the flat tax sounds pretty good. Thoughts?

P.S. Pat please don't bother replying, we know that you think that taxation is thievery and the US government should be dissolved. Thanks.

[pwd72s]

I hate to sound skeptical, but every time I hear a politician speak of "tax reform", I want to hide my wallet while shouting BOHICA! It really doesn't matter to me which pocket they lift the loot from, it's how much they take, then spend foolishly, that bothers me.

[techweenie]

Income tax rules are too badly broken and too easily skirted (the underground economy has become huge). And as you say, fat cats have tax dodges, and can also lobby for tax breaks. The law that was supposed to catch them -- the AMT -- is a stealth tax increase.

A Value Added Tax is the least regressive and potentially fairest of all taxes.

[Dantilla]

I would probably prefer a national sales tax, but only if the IRS is abollished by a constitutional amendment.

One or the other, boys. I hate to think what would happen if a small sales tax was started while only reducing income tax. Once the Governments hands are in both pockets, they will keep digging deeper and deeper.

[coloradoporsche]

A flat tax could be a great thing in that everyone who pays taxes could come out ahead. All those smart CPAs and IRS folks could go do something productive with their lives (find a cure for cancer, invent something, whatever). Unfortunately, it may never happen because of the inherent corruption in our government…..

Politicians use the complex tax code to reward those who give them money. As the years go by, the code gets more and more complex. It could be improved, (reformed?) but an all-out flat tax would take away the politician's primary means of paying back those that fund their elections. The ability to manipulate the tax code gives politicians power. Powerful people don’t like to have their power taken away.

It is not in either political party’s best interest to have a flat tax, so I’m afraid it may never happen. Any time the issue comes up, the democrats will cry class warfare and the republicans will quietly dodge the issue until it loses momentum.

[lendaddy]

Sales tax is a no go, massive black market and retailers "handling" MASSIVE amounts of money, not good.

[on-ramp]

why can't the rich white boys in the government give a tax break to the middle class that need it the most without giving *themselves* the biggest tax break first?

[Moses]

Originally posted by on-ramp
why can't the rich white boys in the government give a tax break to the middle class that need it the most without giving *themselves* the biggest tax break first?

Because the top 5% of earners are paying more than half of the taxes and they are getting tired of you not carrying your weight!

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Moses
Because the top 5% of earners are paying more than half of the taxes and they are getting tired of you not carrying your weight!

that's because they can afford it. I had to work 2 full days (that's 16 hrs) last month to pay my $500 heating bill.

How many seconds does a fat cat have to work to earn $500?
That's the difference.

[Moses]

Originally posted by on-ramp
that's because they can afford it. I had to work 2 full days last month to pay my $500 heating bill.

How many seconds does a fat cat have to work to earn $500?
That's the difference.

So they should support you because they can afford it? What legitimate claim do you have to their money?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by JanusCole
On this topic, I am a dyed in the wool republican. I even donated heavily to some of the local republican groups seeking tax reform. So I take the party line on taxation: Tax the poor and not the rich. I like the President's plan to reduce taxes on the wealthy and I don't feel any need to pretend otherwise. Frankly, if you make less than six figures, then you need to start paying more, not less. "Progressive" taxation is a deterrent to success. And frankly, people in the "Five Figure Income Club" are the ones most likely to use those idiotic social programs like medicare and welfare etc etc. So I feel that the people who use those programs should be the one's who pay for them. Seems so obvious, right?

So there ya go. On this topic I agree with Bush 110%. Taxing the rich is idiotic. If we simply had the polticial will to heavily tax the deadbeats who make less than $100k, then we'd solve all of our bugdet problems in one shot and enjoy the benefits of a booming economy as the rich spend more money to fuel economic growth. If the poor were actually forced to PAY for the programs they enjoy, then you'd see government shrink to almost nothing. As long as the poor outnumber the wealthy at the polls and can use their political numerical leverage to keep reaching endlessly (and irresponsibly) into our wallets, then government will simply continue to grow, economic life will be stifled, and success will continue to be penalized.

just curious, how many slaves do you have on your plantation?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Moses
So they should support you because they can afford it? What legitimate claim do you have to their money?

i dont need their money. just take less of mine.
we're all taxed up the eyeballs, if you include all the "hidden" taxes everywhere.

[Moses]

Originally posted by on-ramp
i dont need their money. just take less of mine.
we're all taxed up the eyeballs, if you include all the "hidden" taxes everywhere.

But if the top 5% are paying more than half the taxes, shouldn't they be first in line for tax relief?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Moses
But if the top 5% are paying more than half the taxes, shouldn't they be first in line for tax relief?

no, because they don't need *THE MONEY*
just ask Bill Clinton....

give the tax breaks to the people that *need* it. I'm talking about the middle class families where both parents have to work just to get by. To them , a few extra thousand dollars a year is a big deal, that's a couple of heating bills.
so what about the CEO of your local gas company? so what if he doesn't get a tax break? he's still doing very well.
i say Fuk him!
tax him more.

[Moses]

So what if they "don't need it"? It's their money! Who is to decide what we need and what we don't need? I have two cars. Don't really need two cars, but they are mine and I'll keep them, thank you.

"Necessity" is not a prerequisite to ownership. If a rich man squanders his money or hoards it, it is none of my business. It's his money!

[on-ramp]

i have 2 cars too.
the rich can afford to pay higher taxes so tax them more. Give more breaks to the middle class and working class who are trying to get "there".
also, tax the huge oil companies more because the 35 Billion $ quarter is money they gouge from the working people.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Moses
...the top 5% of earners are paying more than half of the taxes...

And what percentage of US individual income does that represent?

One $20,000,000 per year ball player earns as much as over 600 school teachers. I wonder if that ball player pays more or less in income taxes than those school teachers?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by techweenie
And what percentage of US individual income does that represent?

One $20,000,000 per year ball player earns as much as over 600 school teachers. I wonder if that ball player pays more or less in income taxes than those school teachers?

More ofcourse.....are you serious about the question?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JanusCole
On this topic, I am a dyed in the wool republican. I even donated heavily to some of the local republican groups seeking tax reform. So I take the party line on taxation: Tax the poor and not the rich. I like the President's plan to reduce taxes on the wealthy and I don't feel any need to pretend otherwise. Frankly, if you make less than six figures, then you need to start paying more, not less. "Progressive" taxation is a deterrent to success. And frankly, people in the "Five Figure Income Club" are the ones most likely to use those idiotic social programs like medicare and welfare etc etc. So I feel that the people who use those programs should be the one's who pay for them. Seems so obvious, right?

So there ya go. On this topic I agree with Bush 110%. Taxing the rich is idiotic. If we simply had the polticial will to heavily tax the deadbeats who make less than $100k, then we'd solve all of our bugdet problems in one shot and enjoy the benefits of a booming economy as the rich spend more money to fuel economic growth. If the poor were actually forced to PAY for the programs they enjoy, then you'd see government shrink to almost nothing. As long as the poor outnumber the wealthy at the polls and can use their political numerical leverage to keep reaching endlessly (and irresponsibly) into our wallets, then government will simply continue to grow, economic life will be stifled, and success will continue to be penalized.

People are beginning to realize that the apparatus of government is costly. But what they do not know is that the burden falls inevitably on them.

Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! - Claude Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

[fastpat]

Originally posted by techweenie
And what percentage of US individual income does that represent?

That's not relevant to anything. It comes from the fiction of the fair share which is merely a rationalization for taking more from one person than another, a form of institutionalized jealousy.

One $20,000,000 per year ball player earns as much as over 600 school teachers. I wonder if that ball player pays more or less in income taxes than those school teachers?

Again, irrelevant. Most professional baseball players are at least earning an honest living, in a job that can only be held by those that earn them. There is no question of merit.

As an aside, if baseball players depended on me and others like me for their living, they'd starve to death, so don't go down the road of sports fanaticism. Naturally, I opposed all tax funded sports stadiums.