[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[RKMBrown]

Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth. If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export. That is strongly appealing to me. And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.

But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:

1. The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.

2 The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.

3. The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.

The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.

I don't have a problem with these... but I find it odd that retiree post tax assets have more sway than anyone else's post tax assets. Why is the age of a person more important than the ownership of the asset and / or whether it has already been taxed? What about folks that are currently 60 do their assets get double taxed when they turn 65 or is this something that is evenly applied to all when they retire?

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the first laws of management is that you won't fix dishonest or incompetent people by changing the system. And you won't fix a flawed system by changing the people.

The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.

Yeah well your laws of management are flawed. A dishonest system can most certainly increase the number of dishonest and incompetent people. Further, good people can make most flawed systems work in spite of it's flaws.

>>> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.

I'm not sure whether or not you see the irony that you start your sentence by bemoaning our system of soft tyranny by the majority, then end your sentence by demanding we increase the benefits that the majority already enjoys in this soft tyranny.

And now I'm beginning to think you are seeing things. You not only misrepresent what I say, but you are accusing me of saying things I have never said. I better walk away because it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the conversation civil when you insist on making it personally insulting.

 

[RKMBrown]

One of the first laws of management is that you won't fix dishonest or incompetent people by changing the system. And you won't fix a flawed system by changing the people.

The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.

Yeah well your laws of management are flawed. A dishonest system can most certainly increase the number of dishonest and incompetent people. Further, good people can make most flawed systems work in spite of it's flaws.

>>> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.

I'm not sure whether or not you see the irony that you start your sentence by bemoaning our system of soft tyranny by the majority, then end your sentence by demanding we increase the benefits that the majority already enjoys in this soft tyranny.

And now I'm beginning to think you are seeing things. You not only misrepresent what I say, but you are accusing me of saying things I have never said. I better walk away because it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the conversation civil when you insist on making it personally insulting.

Irony is an insult? Saying that I insist on personally insulting you, which is untrue, based on my reading of a run on sentence that you wrote as ironic? Yeah, your insulting me by saying that I insulted you, and that I'm seeing things. Ironic eh? I would like to thank you for not saying something like I need to check my meds, or see a doctor for some psychosis

Here I'll paraphrase the irony within your sentence...

>>> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives (bemoaning soft tyranny), nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code (selecting/deciding (read demand/choose/manage) what tax to use based whether or not the tax will be "beneficial" to most people (read majority) over the existing code, IOW basis for selecting is whether or not it benefits the soft tyranny enjoyed by the majority. Typically selections from a soft tryanny majority are seen by the minority as demands because they have no choice but to accept what is desired by the majority).

You don't see the irony in the juxtaposition of the first and second part of your sentence? The problem with the system is that the system has been reworked to advantage the majority at the expense of the minority. There's your irony, from my perspective. If you don't agree with the statement that we have a soft tyranny, well then you won't see the irony.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no soft tyranny when it comes to the U.S. government RKM. It is hard core and there is nothing subtle about it. And my "most people" was not intended to indicate a majority but rather to acknowledge that the policy would not be beneficial to all. But again we are talking past each other in a circular argument that is going nowhere. I choose not to get into a personally directed sparring match and you seem to be determined to go that route. I want to debate the topic. So unless you choose to do that, let's just move on, okay?

 

[kaz]

Everyone has a product. At a minimum they have their labor. Their labor is sold for wages, but also may be intrinsic or hoarded by working for themselves. Some people work for a living and earn income. Consumers may spend money that they have in their pockets and may also invest.

Taking money from someone reduces the amount of product they can buy. It's gone taken from them. They have to work to replace it.

Yes, I started to refer to family businesses but did not want to get into estate issues. So I broadened the topic just to cover the taking of money from peter to fund government and redistribute to paul.

>>> it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.

I pooped my pants when I saw the government take the Miami Dolphins away from the Robbie Family. Taking away a family business to pay death taxes is an overt example, yes. But really all death taxes are the same. The money taken represents security, represents a house, represents labor.

The only reason the death taxes are not as overt at the moment is based on the reforms provided by the republican party. Reforms that the democrats wish to go away.

I'm a bit confused about this argument. If you think I'm defending the death tax, you're wrong. I consider it to be the most singularly evil tax inflicted on the American people on our government because it has zero purpose except pure social engineering. You'll hear me bash Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare the most because they are taxes that make all people dependent on government. But from a pure evil standpoint, they both pale compared to the death tax.

All I'm saying is that income taxes, business taxes and all the rest that derive from companies are clearly in the end directly baked into the price of the products/services sold by that company. A death tax is actually paid by a person's estate when they die. I'm not defending it clearly, but when you say the death tax is the same, I don't know what you mean that it's baked into the price of products sold by companies. It's just purely taxing wealth and is done to remove money from individual people and is not designed to fund the government. It's a punitive, hateful tax by cynical socialists and politicians. It's not an economic tax.

My only point was to show how death taxes are in fact baked in. Not sure what was confusing about my explanation. I'm not sure why are you insisting that death taxes are not a part of the economy and/or are already thus baked into the economy.

I didn't mean they have literally no economic impact. What I meant was they have a negligible impact on the overall economy and are a tiny portion of government revenue, that is not the purpose of the death tax. The purpose of the death tax is specifically to take property from individuals for social reasons.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no soft tyranny when it comes to the U.S. government RKM. It is hard core and there is nothing subtle about it. And my "most people" was not intended to indicate a majority but rather to acknowledge that the policy would not be beneficial to all. But again we are talking past each other in a circular argument that is going nowhere. I choose not to get into a personally directed sparring match and you seem to be determined to go that route. I want to debate the topic. So unless you choose to do that, let's just move on, okay?

Yeah sure. FYI it sort of makes it hard to debate when there is no agreement on the definition of terms used, the state of the current system, and how we got here. Hard tyranny is Dicatorship/Facism/Commmunism, I don't think we are quite that far gone. If we were this entire line of discussion would be a moot point. You and I represent two different groups. How we got here is an important aspect of this debate. Otherwise we run the risk of repeating the errors of the past.

Whether the tax system we are debating should benefit all equally, or provide rebates and other advantages to different groups such as the poor, elderly, rich, middle class, etc. is a part of the debate. I can refrain from directing questions about your group to you if you prefer.. though it is notable that you are in fact inserting into the debate that which would make the tax more palatable to your group, thus opening up for debate whether or not any particular group should have more or less benefit (or pain) than any of the other groups. Which is why we got to this discussion in the first place. It's only a circular discussion in so far as we debate to create yet another tax system that benefits some more than others.. thus back to square one.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm a bit confused about this argument. If you think I'm defending the death tax, you're wrong. I consider it to be the most singularly evil tax inflicted on the American people on our government because it has zero purpose except pure social engineering. You'll hear me bash Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare the most because they are taxes that make all people dependent on government. But from a pure evil standpoint, they both pale compared to the death tax.

All I'm saying is that income taxes, business taxes and all the rest that derive from companies are clearly in the end directly baked into the price of the products/services sold by that company. A death tax is actually paid by a person's estate when they die. I'm not defending it clearly, but when you say the death tax is the same, I don't know what you mean that it's baked into the price of products sold by companies. It's just purely taxing wealth and is done to remove money from individual people and is not designed to fund the government. It's a punitive, hateful tax by cynical socialists and politicians. It's not an economic tax.

My only point was to show how death taxes are in fact baked in. Not sure what was confusing about my explanation. I'm not sure why are you insisting that death taxes are not a part of the economy and/or are already thus baked into the economy.

I didn't mean they have literally no economic impact. What I meant was they have a negligible impact on the overall economy and are a tiny portion of government revenue, that is not the purpose of the death tax. The purpose of the death tax is specifically to take property from individuals for social reasons.

Ok then baked in but small cookies from the government's overall budget perspective. FYI if the reforms and / or estate tax laws go away it's not small cookies.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth. If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export. That is strongly appealing to me. And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.

But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:

1. The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.

2 The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.

3. The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.

The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.

Bam! Yes, these are critical. On #1, this is one thing I disagree with the Fair Tax people on. They want #1, but they are OK with doing it without a constitutional amendment. I believe 100% that if we did that congress would simply start adding back all the other taxes and we'd be worse off and not better. It has to be done with a Constitutional Amendment that covers all three of your points.

And that brings us back to the core problem of who should be in charge of using the money we earn? Us? Or the government? I have long beaten the drum for a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not equally benefit all regardless of their political leanings or socioeconomic circumstances.

If you take away the ability for those in government to use the people's money to increase their power, prestige and personal fortunes, we would get rid of all the professional politicians and bureaucrats and replace them with true public servants again. And then we would have a shot to have a tax system, no matter how it is structured, that will fund the necessary constitutional functions of government which would cost a fraction of what we now spend.

And if we then put into place those three suggested reforms that should take care of it for the next several generations. I would add one more stipulation though. We need to ditch baseline budgeting at all levels of government and return to the zero base budgeting concept that helped keep government expenditures in line prior to 1974.

 

[Polk]

Hence the term ... wait for it ... wait some more ... almost there ... almost ... Revenue Neutral ...

You're saying all individual income taxes today are baked in to the price of every good. That's a much broader claim.

It's an obvious claim. Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is. Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills. If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder. They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.

Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes. As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes. Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes. It's a cluster you have going.

But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue. If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them. The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.

You're arguing a completely irrelevant point. What you've been arguing isn't that 20k after-tax income is 20k after-tax income, no matter what the rate is. What you've been arguing is that all of the tax collected disappear into aether.

 

[Polk]

To put the claims in layman's terms:

- The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
- The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
- The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code

It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.

I noticed that Kaz's skipped this post. Probably because it destroys his little game.

 

[Polk]

What does "baked in" really mean. I assume you mean to view taxes as a component of the consumer producer economy in which government taxation is one of the principle elements that affect the cost of products. From that perspective all existing and expected taxes are currently "baked in" even death taxes.

Why would one argue that the cost of death tax isn't baked in? If you are going to take half the assets of a family does that family not have to raise prices to pay the tax? The money taken represents an amount of supply, thus take a tax, even death tax, and you are affecting the system.

If you take that broad a view, yes, all taxes are "baked in", but that's stretching to the point of being meaningless.

You're obviously not a business owner. We are keenly aware of every cost we have to pay and we focus on the bottom line, the amount after ALL expenses, including taxes, are paid. If not, we'd go bust. We don't say here's the bottom line, wow, I did OK this year. Now I'll pay the taxes, and I won't worry about paying my employees enough to pay theirs, oh yeah, and now I'll pay this tax... That would never happen. Taxes are clearly and directly baked into the price of our product.

Everyone realizes that a toaster incorporates steel. In what possible universe would the same owner of the same company not incorporate the cost of taxes or the higher price we pay for things (loans, employees) so they can pay their taxes?

We say wow, we pay Joe $80K. But $20K of that is so he can pay his taxes, so let's count on the books and charge customers for only $60K. We pay 10% on our bonds, but 2% is for investors to pay taxes and get a market rate of return for the risk level of our bonds, so let's put it on the books as if we pay 8% and eat the extra 2% and not charge customers for it. Let's not charge customers for the matching payroll taxes we pay for our employees, or business taxes, or business property taxes. Let's charge customers for the steel, but not all that.

SSSSUUUURRRRREEEEEEE we do, Virginia .....

You're obviously not someone who can do math. To claim that individual income taxes are "baked in" to the cost of consumer goods, you're not saying "count pre-tax income" you're saying "count pre-tax income then add the amount of the tax paid out of it back to the business costs". Except that doesn't make any sense, because it's the employee's pre-tax income that the money is coming out of. It's not an additional expense for the firm.

 

[kaz]

And that brings us back to the core problem of who should be in charge of using the money we earn? Us? Or the government? I have long beaten the drum for a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not equally benefit all regardless of their political leanings or socioeconomic circumstances.

If you take away the ability for those in government to use the people's money to increase their power, prestige and personal fortunes, we would get rid of all the professional politicians and bureaucrats and replace them with true public servants again. And then we would have a shot to have a tax system, no matter how it is structured, that will fund the necessary constitutional functions of government which would cost a fraction of what we now spend.

And if we then put into place those three suggested reforms that should take care of it for the next several generations. I would add one more stipulation though. We need to ditch baseline budgeting at all levels of government and return to the zero base budgeting concept that helped keep government expenditures in line prior to 1974.

With Fair Taxers, you're certainly targeting a receptive audience for these points. The Fair Tax proposals though purposely avoid them and focus on a more efficient way to raise the same revenue to focus on one issue. None of these things are created by the Fair Tax, they already exist.

 

[kaz]

You're saying all individual income taxes today are baked in to the price of every good. That's a much broader claim.

It's an obvious claim. Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is. Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills. If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder. They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.

Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes. As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes. Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes. It's a cluster you have going.

But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue. If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them. The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.

You're arguing a completely irrelevant point. What you've been arguing isn't that 20k after-tax income is 20k after-tax income, no matter what the rate is. What you've been arguing is that all of the tax collected disappear into aether.

I've never argued any such thing. What you talking about, Willis?

 

[Polk]

It's an obvious claim. Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is. Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills. If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder. They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.

Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes. As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes. Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes. It's a cluster you have going.

But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue. If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them. The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.

You're arguing a completely irrelevant point. What you've been arguing isn't that 20k after-tax income is 20k after-tax income, no matter what the rate is. What you've been arguing is that all of the tax collected disappear into aether.

I've never argued any such thing. What you talking about, Willis?

That's exactly what you've been arguing. That's the only way to make the "FairTax" math work. Otherwise, you have to explain how a sales tax will generate the same amount of revenue as the individual income tax while not increasing the cost of goods.

 

[kaz]

To put the claims in layman's terms:

- The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
- The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
- The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code

It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.

I noticed that Kaz's skipped this post. Probably because it destroys his little game.

There is no issue with those being true. If the amount of taxes embedded in the price of a product is exactly the same, the price of the product will be exactly the same. If a product cost $100 and $30 in taxes are embedded in the price, and that's replaced by a different tax structure which results in $30 in embedded taxes, the price of the product will still be $100.

Can I have a hit of that bong? You're smoking some good shit...

 

[kaz]

If you take that broad a view, yes, all taxes are "baked in", but that's stretching to the point of being meaningless.

You're obviously not a business owner. We are keenly aware of every cost we have to pay and we focus on the bottom line, the amount after ALL expenses, including taxes, are paid. If not, we'd go bust. We don't say here's the bottom line, wow, I did OK this year. Now I'll pay the taxes, and I won't worry about paying my employees enough to pay theirs, oh yeah, and now I'll pay this tax... That would never happen. Taxes are clearly and directly baked into the price of our product.

Everyone realizes that a toaster incorporates steel. In what possible universe would the same owner of the same company not incorporate the cost of taxes or the higher price we pay for things (loans, employees) so they can pay their taxes?

We say wow, we pay Joe $80K. But $20K of that is so he can pay his taxes, so let's count on the books and charge customers for only $60K. We pay 10% on our bonds, but 2% is for investors to pay taxes and get a market rate of return for the risk level of our bonds, so let's put it on the books as if we pay 8% and eat the extra 2% and not charge customers for it. Let's not charge customers for the matching payroll taxes we pay for our employees, or business taxes, or business property taxes. Let's charge customers for the steel, but not all that.

SSSSUUUURRRRREEEEEEE we do, Virginia .....

You're obviously not someone who can do math. To claim that individual income taxes are "baked in" to the cost of consumer goods, you're not saying "count pre-tax income" you're saying "count pre-tax income then add the amount of the tax paid out of it back to the business costs". Except that doesn't make any sense, because it's the employee's pre-tax income that the money is coming out of. It's not an additional expense for the firm.

I already addressed this.

 

[Polk]

To put the claims in layman's terms:

- The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
- The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
- The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code

It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.

I noticed that Kaz's skipped this post. Probably because it destroys his little game.

There is no issue with those being true. If the amount of taxes embedded in the price of a product is exactly the same, the price of the product will be exactly the same. If a product cost $100 and $30 in taxes are embedded in the price, and that's replaced by a different tax structure which results in $30 in embedded taxes, the price of the product will still be $100.

Can I have a hit of that bong? You're smoking some good shit...

That rests of the assumption that all taxes are embedded. If that statement were true, why would the public want to switch to this system, since it would mean they have no tax liability (they are "paying" income tax in your argument, but it's all in additional income extracted from their employers).

 

[Polk]

You're obviously not a business owner. We are keenly aware of every cost we have to pay and we focus on the bottom line, the amount after ALL expenses, including taxes, are paid. If not, we'd go bust. We don't say here's the bottom line, wow, I did OK this year. Now I'll pay the taxes, and I won't worry about paying my employees enough to pay theirs, oh yeah, and now I'll pay this tax... That would never happen. Taxes are clearly and directly baked into the price of our product.

Everyone realizes that a toaster incorporates steel. In what possible universe would the same owner of the same company not incorporate the cost of taxes or the higher price we pay for things (loans, employees) so they can pay their taxes?

We say wow, we pay Joe $80K. But $20K of that is so he can pay his taxes, so let's count on the books and charge customers for only $60K. We pay 10% on our bonds, but 2% is for investors to pay taxes and get a market rate of return for the risk level of our bonds, so let's put it on the books as if we pay 8% and eat the extra 2% and not charge customers for it. Let's not charge customers for the matching payroll taxes we pay for our employees, or business taxes, or business property taxes. Let's charge customers for the steel, but not all that.

SSSSUUUURRRRREEEEEEE we do, Virginia .....

You're obviously not someone who can do math. To claim that individual income taxes are "baked in" to the cost of consumer goods, you're not saying "count pre-tax income" you're saying "count pre-tax income then add the amount of the tax paid out of it back to the business costs". Except that doesn't make any sense, because it's the employee's pre-tax income that the money is coming out of. It's not an additional expense for the firm.

I already addressed this.

No, you haven't. You've posted long rants that avoid the issue.

 

[kaz]

You're arguing a completely irrelevant point. What you've been arguing isn't that 20k after-tax income is 20k after-tax income, no matter what the rate is. What you've been arguing is that all of the tax collected disappear into aether.

I've never argued any such thing. What you talking about, Willis?

That's exactly what you've been arguing. That's the only way to make the "FairTax" math work. Otherwise, you have to explain how a sales tax will generate the same amount of revenue as the individual income tax while not increasing the cost of goods.

So just to be clear, so you don't care what you make after taxes, only before taxes. You don't incorporate that into your salary needs for your employer. As I pointed out businesses factor in all their costs, but you don't. You know what your mortgage is, your car payment, your food bill and you ask your employer for enough to cover that. You do not ask them to cover your taxes, that's your problem and you don't expect them to pay you anything more to cover for that. That's what you're telling me.

 

[kaz]

You're obviously not someone who can do math. To claim that individual income taxes are "baked in" to the cost of consumer goods, you're not saying "count pre-tax income" you're saying "count pre-tax income then add the amount of the tax paid out of it back to the business costs". Except that doesn't make any sense, because it's the employee's pre-tax income that the money is coming out of. It's not an additional expense for the firm.

I already addressed this.

No, you haven't. You've posted long rants that avoid the issue.

You know how you could be reading Shakesphere to a dog and in the middle say their name and they'd hear "blah blah Spot blah blah." You're like that with socialism. The only thing that's not blah to you is what you want to hear.